Sitting of 1 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Lothian Railways Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill (by Order),
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
City of London (Celluloid Regulations) Bill (by Order),
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners making further provision with reference to the constitution of the Insurance Committee for the county of Tipperary, North Riding [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners making further provision with reference to the constitution of the Insurance Committee for the county of Donegal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 19th March, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Appeals and Disputes) Regulations (Scotland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES.
Copy presented of Circular to bankers, paying agents, coupon dealers, and other persons respecting the Provisional Collection of Taxes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 19th March, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Appeals and Disputes) Regulations (Scotland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 47.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5046 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COAL MINES (PROVISION OF WASHING AND DRYING ACCOMMODATION).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the provision, under Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, of Washing and Drying Accommodation at Coal Mines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES (USE OF SQUIBS FOR SHOT FIRING).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into and report on the use of Squibs for the purpose of firing shots in Naked-light Mines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Report on Manuscripts in various Collections: Volume VII. The Manuscripts of Bishop of London; St. George's Chapel, Windsor; Diocese of Gloucester; Corporations of Beccles, Dunwich, Southwold, and Thetford; Duke of Norfolk; Earl of Essex; Sir Hervey Bruce, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
Copy presented of Thirtieth Report of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 48.]
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1913 [by Act].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  FORGERY BILL [Lords].
  That they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that the Forgery Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. Stuart-Wortley reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill), and Mr. Stuart-Wortley to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Crown Lands Bill and the Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill).
Mr. Stuart-Wortley further reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity;
That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Cecil Harmsworth; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Chiozza Money.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Rendall; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. John Walsh.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill): Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Denman, Mr. Rendall, Mr. Edgar Jones, Mr. Pringle, Mr. Richard Lambert, Mr. Ashley,

183
Colonel Burn, Major Gastrell, Mr. Haddock, Mr. Kebty-Fletcher, Mr. Peto, Mr. Francis Meehan, Mr. Lundon, and Mr. Crooks.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Crown Lands Bill and of the Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill): Mr. Runciman, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Mr. Crean, Mr. Sutherland, Sir Harry Verney, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. Hill-Wood, Viscount Valentia, Mr. Arthur Strauss, Sir Samuel Scott, Mr. Royds, Mr. Farrell, Mr. Flavin, and Mr. Barnes.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will indicate the special duties of the British Ministers to Bavaria, Darmstadt, Coburg, and Saxony; and whether the duties of these Ministers consist in rendering diplomatic or Consular services?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): His Majesty's Government maintain a Minister at Munich, a Minister at Dresden, who also represents them at Coburg, and a Chargé d'Affaires at Darmstadt. Their functions and duties are diplomatic, being of the same nature as those of His Majesty's representatives at other foreign capitals.

  Peru.
  Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether His Majesty's Government has received a copy of Mr. Consul Fuller's report; and whether any steps have been taken to secure for the British subject at Iquitos, named George Worrell, the wages due to him for six years' labour?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have received copies of Consul Fuller's report. His report repeats the facts with reference to George Worrell of which we had previously been informed by His Majesty's Consul at Iquitos. His Majesty's Consul having received a complaint sent this Barbadian British subject, who was about fifteen years old, to the sub-Prefect with a request that his claim for wages might be examined. The sub-
  184

  Prefect replied: "After making investigations in the case it appears that the said Worrell is a ward under age, and, as it is a matter of a contentious nature, I have arranged for him to lay his demand formally before a Justice of the Peace, whose office it is to solve this class of affair." I will ascertain the result of the action taken by the sub-Prefect.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: Is it likely that Mr. Fuller's report will be published?
  Sir E. GREY: I can put a copy of it in the Library. I understand it has been published in the United States.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether His Majesty's Government is yet represented at Iquitos by any fully-paid Consular officer; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, regard being had to the atrocities perpetrated in furtherance of the rubber districts of Peru?
  Sir E. GREY: An officer of the salaried Consular service has been appointed to Iquitos in succession to Mr. Michell, the former salaried Consul, who has been transferred to another post for reasons of health. Mr. Huckin, the newly appointed Consul at Iquitos, has been granted the leave of absence to which he is entitled, but he is due to proceed to his post on 1st June.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Consul at Iquitos? Is he not a gentleman who is agent to one of the rubber-exporting companies?
  Sir E. GREY: That question has been answered before. There is a gentleman acting Consul in the absence of a salaried Consul, and I am going to send a salaried Consul as soon as I can.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the extreme seriousness of having no responsible person in the district?
  Sir E. GREY: One cannot have salaried Consuls all over the world. A salaried Consul is being specially sent to this place as soon as possible because there is importance attached to it.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that he is not connected with the rubber trade?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no question of a salaried Consul being connected with any trade.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PAPAL LEGATE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has inquired of the Italian Ambassador or the Italian Government as to the propriety of the offer of a British warship to convey the Papal legate to Malta for the approaching Eucharistic Congress?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative. An act of courtesy to a distinguished visitor to Malta did not call for any such inquiry.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether he has had his attention called to the dissatisfaction of the employés in Government dockyards, owing to the present system of distributing orders necessitating alternating periods of work at high pressure and comparative slackness; and whether he has yet decided to appoint an Interdepartmental Committee to inquire into the possibility of the prevention of irregularity of employment through the regulation of the demand for labour by a better distribution of Government orders?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the Departments principally concerned, in accordance with the undertaking which I gave the Noble Lord on the 5th February. I am not yet in a position, however, to decide as to the appointment of the suggested Committee.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the discontent prevailing amongst the employés in the engineering trades in His Majesty's dockyards and of their having presented a united request from all the yards for an increased rate of wages at their interview with the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, on the 5th December, 1912, he will advise the Board of Admiralty to immediately consider and decide this question so as to re-establish the cordial relations hitherto existing?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the deputation from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers which I received on the 4th of December last. I explained then that the Board of Admiralty's decision on the matters raised would be found in the
    186
    general replies to the Annual Petitions. I gave an undertaking that every endeavour would be made to expedite procedure; and that has been done. As I explained in the debates of yesterday and last week, three remaining establishments have to be visited: Portland, Pembroke Dock, and Haulbowline. I have arranged to visit Pembroke Dock next week, and Haulbowline the week after. Portland will be visited thereafter without delay. The review of the whole matter by the Board, and communications with other Departments concerned, will necessarily take some little time. But, so far as I can see, there should be little difficulty in promulgating the Board's decisions this year earlier than last.

    China (Reorganisation Loan).
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state exactly and in detail what are the political conditions connected with the reorganisation loan asked for by the negotiating Powers, and also the non-political conditions?
    Sir E. GREY: I can only repeat the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division yesterday. [See OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1913, col. 7.]
    Mr. W. GUINNESSasked whether there are any instances in which China has ever sought to get easy money loans on improvident terms?
    Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Member refers to the statement which I made on the 27th ultimo, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield, I was indicating what might happen in the future, unless Chinese finance were established on the basis which the policy of the six Powers has aimed at creating.
    Mr. W. GUINNESSasked whether China objected to allowing the Powers to make the appointment of the proposed foreign advisers instead of leaving it to China, who is prepared to select the best qualified men, irrespective of nationality; what Powers originally made this proposal; and whether this is the real hitch in the conclusion of the loan negotiations?
    Sir E. GREY: The arrangement made with the Chinese Government was that the advisers should be selected by them in consultation with the Legations concerned.

    187
    All the Powers were parties to this proposal. The difference of opinion has not been as to how foreign advisers should be appointed, but who they should be.

    Native Architecture (India).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Report on Indian native architectural work will be published; and whether a copy will be placed in the Library?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Report has not yet been received. The Sceretary of State expects a communication on the subject from the Government of India in May next, and will then consider the best way of dealing with the material available.

    Delhi.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. J. Begg, consulting architect to the Government of India, has been consulted on the lay-out and building of the new Delhi; and, if so, whether his views have been expressed in a form that can be made public?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has not yet received the final Report of the Committee and other papers bearing upon it. He is, therefore, unable to say whether the consulting architect to the Government of India has recorded his views on the subject.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during his absence, a promise was given that Mr. Begg would be consulted?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have no doubt he has been consulted. All I said was that I am unable to say whether he has recorded his views or not.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Sir Swinton Jacob is now in India advising the Delhi Town-Planning Committee or the selected architects; and, if not, when he will take up his duties in connection with the work of designing the new capital of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Sir Swinton Jacob is not at present in India. It is hoped that he will meet the selected architects in this country next month, and visit India next cold weather.
    Mr. KING: Has Sir Swinton Jacob been in India since his appointment?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I believe not.
    Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman say who will have the selection of these architects?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The architects have already been selected.
    Mr. WATT: By whom?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Lutyens and Mr. Baker have been selected by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. KINGasked when the plans and drawings of Mr. Lutyens for Government House at the new Delhi will be exhibited in the Tea Room?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Plans and drawings have not yet been received from Mr. Lutyens or Mr. Baker. No statement can therefore be made as to when they will be exhibited.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the Delhi Town-Planning Committee has presented its Report; whether that Report contains, or is expected to contain, a lay-out plan for the new city; and, if so, when this plan will be exhibited in the Tea Room?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that the Report has been presented, but it has not yet reached this country, so I cannot say whether it will contain a plan of the layout of the new city. When it is received, the Secretary of State will bear in mind the wish of hon. Members to see the plan at an early date.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he gave a promise a great many months ago that this Report would be communicated to the House?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I gave a promise that it would be communicated as soon as possible.
    Mr. KING: Does the hon. Gentleman adhere to that promise?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It has not yet been received in this country. The Secretary of State will bear in mind the desire of hon. Members to have it as early as possible.
    Mr. KING: Does the hon. Gentleman adhere to the promise he made that this Report would be communicated?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I adhere to every promise I have made.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SPAIN (MILITARY TRAINING).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether conscription has lately been done away with in Spain and universal compulsory training introduced instead?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Conscription has not been done away with in Spain. The rules with regard to military service were made more stringent than before by a law of 29th June, 1911, which took effect on 19th January of last year.
    Mr. HUNT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between conscription and universal compulsory service?
    Colonel SEELY: That is rather a matter for debate than for question and answer.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he promised to tell us the difference, and we have never yet had it?
    Colonel SEELY: I still say I do not think it is a matter for question and answer.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far this policy contributed to the poverty of Spain?
    Colonel SEELY: No, I do not think I could say that.

    INFANTRY BATTALIONS (ALDERSHOT).
    Mr. HUNTasked how many soldiers of all ranks, exclusive of recruits and sick, were present with each Infantry battalion at Aldershot on the 28th February, 1913?
    Colonel SEELY: The figures are not available at the War Office, and their compilation would therefore involve calling for a special return from all the units concerned. In view of the fact that at this period of the year units at home have parted with drafts which have been sent abroad the return would be of little value, and I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will not press for it.

    HOME INFANTRY BATTALIONS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the General Staff is satisfied that the number of effective soldiers present in the ranks of the Infantry battalions now at Home is sufficient to ensure immediate efficiency for service when raised to war strength by means of Reservists?
    Colonel SEELY: The proportion of soldiers serving in the ranks to the number of Reservists required to bring the battalion up to war strength on mobilisation in the case of a battalion at Home, especially after its drafts have recently gone to India and abroad, is not now and has never been as large as is desirable on purely military grounds, but it is considered that the fighting spirit of our voluntarily enlisted army is a factor to be taken into account on the other side.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men, under twenty years of age, are in preparation?
    Colonel SEELY: It would depend on the time of year the figures are taken.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the system fair to the officers?
    Colonel SEELY: It has been going on for a number of years—during the service of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It has its advantages as well as its drawbacks.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. HUNTasked what was the average number of recruits taken for the Volunteers during the last four completed years of their existence; and what is the average number of recruits taken for the Territorial Force for the four years ending 30th September, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912?
    Colonel SEELY: The average number of Volunteers joining as recruits, or with previous service, for the last four years of their existence amounted to 56,635, and of Yeomanry to 5,276, amounting in all to 61,911. The average number of men joining the Territorial Force as recruits, or with previous service, amounted to 67,164 for the years in question. The figures for the Volunteers include officers and transfers from other units.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked how many men the War Office, from their experience of previous years, reasonably expect to obtain to fill the estimated number of 191,286 vacancies by recruiting and by men re-engaging, respectively?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not quite clear how the hon. Gentleman arrives at the figure quoted, but he appears to have counted some men twice over. It is very difficult, in view of the exceptionally large number of men due to go during the year, to give even an approximate estimate of the figure required, and I do not think I can

    191
    usefully add anything to the information given by the Government on the subject in another place on 10th February last.

    VOLUNTEER ESTABLISHMENT.
    Mr. HUNTasked the average strength of the Volunteer Forces for the ten years 1897 to 1906, inclusive?
    Colonel SEELY: The average strength of the Volunteers, all ranks, exclusive of the permanent staff, for the years 1897 to 1906, including the three years of the South African War, was 252,005, and of the Yeomanry 17,785, making a total of 269,790.

    SPECIAL RESERVE (MEDICAL REJECTIONS).
    Mr BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, as a record of all men examined and rejected as unfit is kept by the medical officer at each depot and the number of such rejections appears in the Army Annual Return (page 45), he will say if the men of the Special Reserve who have been rejected on application to enlist in the Regular Army are included in the above total number of rejections?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the affirmative.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary for War why, on page 125 of the General Annual Report on the British Army, published in 1912, it is stated that 94,989 non-commissioned officers and men are due to become time-expired between the 1st of October, 1912, and the 30th of September, 1913, and why, on page 125 of the General Annual Report on the British Army, published this year, it is stated that 114,621 non-commissioned officers and men are due to become time-expired between the same dates, the 1st of October, 1912, and the 30th of September of this year; and which of these two figures, showing a difference of no fewer than 19,632, is correct?
    Colonel SEELY: Both figures are correct. During the year ending 1st October, 1912, 30,268 men re-engaged for one year's service, and would thus have raised the numbers due to go in the year ending 1st October, 1913, to 125,257, but for casualties of various kinds, which reduced the numbers to the figure of 114,621, recently published.

    MIDDLEBURG GOVERNMENT FARM.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary for War (1) from what funds the original outlay on the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg was drawn; and what funds from time to time were drawn on for the upkeep of this undertaking; (2) whether the accounts of the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg were audited from time to time; and, if so, by whom; and (3) what credit balances were shown in the two last balance sheets of the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg sent home to the Army Council shortly before the final orders for closing down were given by the War Office?
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWalso asked (1) what was the extent in acres of the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg, Cape Colony, when it was purchased; what was the purchase price; and out of what funds was the purchase money paid; (2) the names of the various managers of the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg, Cape Colony; by whom they were appointed; and the date of such appointments; and (3) whether any part of the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg, Cape Colony, was at any time let by the Army Council to any private person or syndicate; and, if so, will he give the dates and names of the lessees?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The so-called Imperial Government farm at Middleburg consisted of about 100 acres, forming part of about 25,000 acres bought in 1903 out of Military Works Loan Funds, for cantonments and training ground for troops. The average price of the whole was about £2 per acre. No separate valuation of the 100 acres was made. The farming venture was in the nature of a garrison institution, administered by a board of officers on behalf of the troops, and not as a public service. Working capital was obtained by loans from the South African Garrison Institutes and other non-public funds, for which loans the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, South Africa, was personally responsible until they were repaid. Beyond this, expenditure was met out of the earnings of the farm by sale of produce, etc. Certain initial expenditure out of public funds was repaid to the public. The accounts of the farm were audited periodically by officers of the Army Accounts Department, acting

    193
    in their capacity as members of the garrison skilled in such matters, and not as representatives of the Accounting Officer of the War Department. The last two balance sheets sent to the War Office before the final closing were for 31st December, 1908, and for 31st March, 1909, and showed credit balances of £69 and £276, respectively. The managers of the farm were Mr. C. Allan, appointed at the start in 1903, and Lieutenant P. Wilson, appointed in June, 1908. Both appointments were made by the board of officers administering the farm. No part of the farm was at any time let by the Army Council to any private person or syndicate, but I see from the records in the War Office that at one time Colonel Jeffreys, R.E., rented a small paddock from the farm management for £5.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say who guaranteed the loans made in the first instance, and why were the balance sheets sent to the Army Council if it was not a public matter?
    Mr. BAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of this question. These matters happened some years ago, and I have no personal knowledge of them.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: The hon. Member answered a number of questions together and he will see I asked quite clearly who found the money in the first place. The loans must have been guaranteed?
    Mr. BAKER: I think every question has been answered; if any further question is put down it certainly will be replied to.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Do I understand that the farm was closed down by order of the Army Council?
    Mr. BAKER: I think that is correct. Still, if the hon. and gallant Member will put the question down it will be answered. As these things happened years ago, I cannot reply from personal knowledge.

    Tuberculosis (Wales and Monmouthshire).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Grant provided in the Estimates for the treatment of tuberculosis in Wales and Monmouthshire can be pooled by the Welsh Insurance Commission in order that the campaign against tuberculosis in Wales may be carried out upon a national basis, and that for this purpose the whole of the Principality may be treated as a single unit?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The answer is in the affirmative. The grants will in accordance with the note to the Estimate be calculated upon the net cost of the various schemes approved by the Insurance Commissioners and it is open to the Welsh Commissioners to approve a conjoint scheme for the whole of Wales.

    Customs and Excise (Overtime Pay).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst officers of Customs and Excise, formerly Customs port clerks, as a result of the recent changes in their hours and conditions of overtime pay, as is shown by the official statement that over 93 per cent. of them have refused to accept the allowance of 5s. per month offered them since 1st December last as compensation for the increase of liability of attendance from a seven-hour day to a forty-eight-hour week; if that extra attendance habitually preponderates at certain ports, so that during the three months the new system has been in operation some clerks have been required to give attendance which would, under the old conditions, have earned them much more than 5s. per month, whereas others in the same period have given no extra attendance at all; whether any saving of expenditure is anticipated from the new system of attendance; and, if not, what is the Departmental objection to the restoration of the conditions of attendance formerly enjoyed by Customs port clerks?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am informed that the statement in the first part of the question is substantially correct. With regard to the remainder of the question, particular individuals have no doubt received for the short period referred to under the new system less than they would have received under the old; other individuals have doubtless received more. This is bound to happen where an average annual allowance is substituted for actual payment on a daily basis. The change was made not in the interests of economy—the amount involved is quite trifling—but in the interests of uniformity throughout the service. I may add that I myself gave attentive hearing to representatives of the clerks who spoke on this very subject, and my conclusion was that there was no reasonable ground for complaint.

    Chancellor of Exchequer's Salary.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any emoluments or allowances attached to his office other than his salary?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Should not the right hon. Gentleman's salary of £5,000 per annum be sufficient to prevent him wrongly and improperly gambling?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say of that kind about me, he had better say it in a place where I can meet it.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERrose…
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman has any further question, he had better let me see it in writing. He has already received a reply to the question on the Paper.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: If I am not to be allowed to reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, I promise him I will charge him when I have the opportunity.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Whenever the hon. Member does that, I shall be prepared to meet him, as I have met others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Marconi!" "Whitewashing!" "Gagged Committee!"]
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Mock heroics. [An HON. MEMBER: "Snob!"]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If you have anything to say, say it openly.
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: When he is whitewashed by the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cad!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will put the question on the Paper, I will consider it.

    Law Officers (Special Fees).
    Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fees were paid to the Attorney-General over the "Titanic" Inquiry; and what fees have been, or are going to be, paid to the Attorney-General over the Telephone Arbitration?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The fees paid to the Attorney-General in the case of the "Titanic" Inquiry were £2,458 2s. The
    196
    fees to be paid to counsel for the Post Office in respect of the Telephone Arbitration have not yet been settled.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that the present salaries of the Attorney and Solicitor-General were fixed by a minute of the Treasury in July, 1895? Did not the same minute allow fees to be charged for contentious business?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question requires some research, and the hon. Member should give notice of it.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Law Officers of the Crown in the late Administration divided amongst them in one year £31,100?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should also be given of that question.

    Small Holdings (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Board of Agriculture for Scotland has received several petitions from applicants for land under the Small Landholders Act with special reference to the farm of Heylipal, in the island of Tiree; whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction that exists owing to the nature of the holdings granted on the farm of Greenhill; and whether, in the case of Heylipal, it is intended to grant holdings, and not mere allotments?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The lease of the Heylipal Farm expires at Whit Sunday, 1914, and before that term the Board will consider the use of it for holdings. In the meantime it would be premature to say in detail how it would be utilised in that event. As regards the Greenhill Farm, the answer is in the negative. The applicants for holdings there have each signed agreements accepting the holdings, and have expressed satisfaction with the arrangements.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: When are we likely to receive the Report of the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is a question on the Paper on that subject.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the Commissioners for small holdings in Scotland

    197
    have yet secured any land either by purchase or lease for the purpose of setting up small holdings; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The main purpose of the Act is not purchase or leasing by the Commissioners. The Report, which is in preparation and will be presented very shortly, will give my hon. Friend the information he desires in a much more satisfactory form than is possible in reply to a question. The Board have arranged for several settlements of landholders by agreement, and a number of applications for compulsory orders have been lodged by the Board with the Land Court.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consideration of the amount of emigration from the rural districts of the county of Roxburgh during recent years, he can hasten the provision of small holdings in that county as a means of retaining shepherds, ploughmen, hinds, and their families on their native soil?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: An application is now before the Land Court for an Order constituting new holdings on the farm in the county of Roxburgh referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend's question on 13th March, and the Board are doing all that is possible to hasten the provision of small holdings in Roxburgh and elsewhere.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Has any small holder yet been located in the county of Roxburgh?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, the matter is before the Land Court.

    Fishermen's Boats (Portnaguran, Stornoway).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether during the gale of Thursday, 20th March, three open boats belonging to fishermen at Portnaguran, Stornoway, were destroyed; and if he can see his way to grant assistance from any fund at his disposal to enable these fishermen to replace their boats?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not received any information on the subject except that conveyed by my hon. Friend's question. I regret that there are no funds at my disposal which are available for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the dangerous nature of the coast, will my right hon. Friend consider an application for a Grant for a harbour there?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a question of which I must have notice.

    Scotch Education Department.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked when the Minute of 27th March, 191], issued by the Scotch Education Department, will be put in force?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 25th March to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow.

    Board of Agriculture, Scotland (Report).
    Mr. MUNROasked whether the First Report of the Board of Agriculture is under preparation; and when it is likely to be issued?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am glad to say that the Report is nearly complete and will very soon be issued.

    State Loans to Fishermen.
    Mr. MUNROasked the right hon. Gentleman on what date the Committee which is considering the question of State loans to fishermen last heard evidence; whether they propose to hear any further evidence; and whether, looking to the delay which has occurred since the appointment of the Committee, he will use his good offices to secure the speedy issue of their Report?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have made inquiry of the Chairman of the Committee and am informed that some further evidence is still to be taken, but that most of the Report is in the hands of the printer.
    Captain WARING: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to secure the speedy issue of their Report?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I will do my best.

    Conveyancing and Bankruptcy Reform (Scotland).
    Mr. MUNROasked the Lord Advocate if it is his intention during the present Session to introduce legislation dealing with conveyancing and bankruptcy reform in Scotland?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr Ure): It is my intention during the present

    199
    Session to deal with the question of bankruptcy reform in Scotland. I cannot, however, hold out any prospect of a Conveyancing Bill this Session. The measure is now in course of preparation.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the conveyancing system in Scotland is antiquated and requires reform?

    Appeals (Scotland).
    Mr. LYELLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to suitors by delays in getting appeals heard from decisions of the Sheriff Court or Outer House of the Court of Session; and whether, in the interest of poor suitors who have been successful in the first Court, he will introduce legislation to ensure their enjoying the benefit of the verdict there obtained unless the appeal is proceeded with within a reasonable time?
    Mr. URE: My attention has not been called to the inconvenience referred to by my hon. Friend. There is no undue delay in the hearing of Appeals from Courts of first instance by the Court of Session.
    Mr. LYELL: Can my right hon. Friend suggest any remedy for a suitor who has won his case and whose opponent gives notice of appeal and notice is received, but no further steps are taken, and the suitor is unable to collect his debt?
    Mr. URE: The rules of Court provide for that precise case. I understood my hon. Friend referred to cases of delay in hearing appeals. These are provided for by the Lord President of the Court of Session setting up an extra Appeal Court if he thinks it desirable.
    Mr. LYELL: Do the rules of Court provide any fixed term during which an appellant is bound to bring his case forward after giving notice?
    Mr. URE: Oh, yes, Sir.

    Committee on Irish Finance.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether his refusal to disclose the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance is due to the refusal of only two or three out of the twenty-eight witnesses to allow their evidence to be published; and if so, who these witnesses are?
    Mr. CASSELasked the right hon. Gentleman (1) whether he will appoint a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the advisability of no longer concealing the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance; and (2) how many witnesses before the Committee on Irish Finance were official witnesses and members of the Civil Service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have repeatedly stated, the inquiry conducted by the Committee was a confidential inquiry for the information of the Government, and the evidence was given with an assurance to the witnesses that it would be treated as confidential. Clearly, therefore, the evidence cannot be published without the consent of those who gave it. Although the conditions which I laid down last Session have not been satisfied, yet, as a number of Members seem to think that there is some mystery in the matter, and that the Government have some motive of their own for not publishing the evidence—a suggestion which is, and always has been, without any foundation—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will put himself in communication with the witnesses to ascertain whether or not they are willing that their evidence should be made public. Further questions on the subject should be addressed to the Chief Secretary.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Are not the financial provisions of the Bill entirely opposed to the evidence of several of the witnesses?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not like to use an old formula, but, perhaps, the hon. Member will wait until he has seen the Report. He will have a great deal of disappointment.

    Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Mr. WATTasked of how many members the Defence Committee is composed; whether this is a fixed or a variable number at the option of the Prime Minister of the day; whether any representation on it is at present given or offered to any of the Oversea Dominions; and, if so, to which of them; and whether representation on the Committee will entail residence in this country of the representatives of the Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The number of Members of this Committee for the time being depends on the determination of the Prime Minister. Representation has been

    201
    offered to the Oversea, Dominions (see Dispatch, 10th December, 1912). Colonel Allen, Minister of Defence of New Zealand, is at present attending the meetings of the Committee. None of the Dominions have yet appointed a permanent representative, so that the last part of the question has not arisen.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the intention of the Government to extend representation to the Oversea Dominions in this country after Home Rule all round has been granted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We had better wait and see what the future brings.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Having regard to the fact that members of the Defence Committee do not necessarily come within the purview of Parliamentary control, and that this Committee may be seized of information which is withheld from Parliament, might not the approval of Parliament be given to the new members who are not members of the Ministry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The whole question can be raised on my salary.

    Income Tax (Collection).
    Mr. CASSELasked the right hon. Gentleman (1) whether, in view of the fact that deduction of Income Tax will become illegal after the 5th April, he will introduce forthwith a Bill making such deduction at the existing rate legal for a short time, pending the passage of the Finance Bill of the year; and (2) whether he will give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the circular to be issued to banks advising them to make illegal deductions of Income Tax, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to lay upon the Table of the House before it is issued; and whether he will obviate the necessity for issuing such circular by introducing at once and pressing through all its stages a Bill legalising such deductions for a short period pending the passage of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer together these questions. The hon. and learned Member will have noticed that a Committee was set up last night for the purpose of passing the Resolution which will be necessary for a Bill of the character indicated in the questions; and it is the Government's intention to proceed as speedily as possible with the Resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing that Resolution before the circular is issued to the banks announcing to them the intended legislation upon which they are asked to act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid we shall have to issue the circular. My right hon. Friend tells me that there will be no opportunity for discussion until Monday next, but he proposes to put it down as the first Order. I am afraid we shall have to notify the banks before then, I think it will be the 5th April.
    Mr. CASSEL: In that case, would not this be the result: that the Government would be issuing an invitation to the banks to act contrary to the existing law upon a proposal for future legislation before this House has been given an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member is assuming something to be in the circular which is not in it.
    Mr. CASSEL: When will the right hon. Gentleman lay the circular on the Table?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I have been otherwise engaged, otherwise I should have laid it on the Table last week. I shall be glad to show it to the hon. and learned Member to-night. I will do my best to lay it to-night.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to pass this Bill through all its stages before the Budget statement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member had better ask the Prime Minister that question. It is a question for the Leader of the House.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do ask the Prime Minister.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to consider the matter.

    Seed Potatoes.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board or the Board's inspectors have recently recommended, by circular or otherwise, certain seed merchants for the supply of certain brands of potato as likely to be free of disease; and, if so, which were the firms recommended and what were their special qualifications for the supply of these brands of potato?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): In order to prevent the spread of wart disease the Board sometimes require growers to plant one or other of the varieties of potato known to resist the disease. The Board and their inspectors are frequently asked by growers where such varieties can be obtained. It would be clearly impossible to name every reliable seed potato merchant and unreasonable to refuse to give the information asked for. The practice has therefore been to give the names of a few firms who are known to sell the varieties required. The list of such firms is variable to suit different cases, and may be altered or extended from time to time, the object of the Board being to supply information in each case suitable to the particular district. No good purpose would be served by publishing the names of firms that have been recommended in this way, but I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a list of them for his own information, if he so desires.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked how many seed-testing stations in Great Britain are at present in receipt of assistance out of public funds; whether they all supply analyses of seeds sent in the same form and for the same price; whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Board to test the accuracy of the analyses of samples supplied by comparison of similar samples sent to different stations; and what are the qualifications generally of those officials in charge of the stations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No Grants are made out of public funds for the special purpose of providing seed-testing stations in Great Britain. Facilities for seed-testing are offered in the botanical laboratories of most of the agricultural colleges and similar institutions receiving Grants-in-Aid, but the tests are in no sense official, and the accuracy of the analyses is not tested by the Board. I understand that the analyses are not always in the same form, and that the fees charged vary, no charge being made in some cases. The tests are presumably carried out by the trained botanists on the college staffs.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not desirable that these institutions which are in receipt of public funds should have some uniformity and that their analyses should carry a certain official cachet of accuracy with them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it would be possible for us to give a guarantee that the analyses were correct unless the analyses were arrived at by our own servants. It has been usual to leave the tests to the college staff, but I am considering the whole question and will shortly receive a deputation on the subject.

    British East Africa.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Governor of British East Africa on the land question in that Colony has yet been received, and when it will be published?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am not expecting any special report from the Governor on the subject. The matter was discussed at length with him when he was in this country, and the general lines on which legislation should proceed have been settled. A draft Ordinance is now under consideration in the Protectorate, and I hope to receive a copy of it shortly.

    Tobacco Growing (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked whether any annual Grant, and, if so, to what extent, is given to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland for the encouragement of tobacco growing in that country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative, but approved growers for experimental purposes receive a rebate of 1s. 3d. of the Excise Duty.
    Mr. WATT: Why is Scotland neglected in this matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I take it Scotland is receiving exactly what Ireland received before it was commuted for a Grant.

    Quadrant Design.
    Mr. FELLasked if there will be an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee on the Quadrant before any action is taken in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member will have the usual opportunity in Supply.
    Mr. FELL: Will nothing be done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Nothing can be done for some months to come.

    Edinburgh University.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is

    205
    aware that the University of Glasgow has not yet adopted the inclusive fee for the medical course; and whether, in view of the fact that the additional Grant is being paid in full to Glasgow University, he will arrange that it shall also be paid in full to Edinburgh University?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have already announced the full Grant will be paid to all the Scottish Universities, subject in the case of Edinburgh to the appointment of a Committee (as has already been done by Glasgow) to consider the establishment of an inclusive fee in medicine.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is this without any undertaking to establish the inclusive fee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Grant is being given for this year. They are being asked to appoint a committee to consider the possibility of establishing an inclusive fee.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the Treasury withdraw the demand for an inclusive fee for this year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The full Grant is being paid this year.
    Mr. HOGGE: If Edinburgh University does not elect this committee will they get the Grant?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Grant is conditional on the appointment of the committee next year.

    Civil Service (Second Division Clerkships).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of appointing candidates from the September, 1911, second division clerks' examination list who obtained higher places than those now being appointed from the last list?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An unusually large number of candidates have been appointed both from the 1911 and the 1912 lists. As at present advised, I do not think it desirable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion with regard to candidates on the former list.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS (GLASGOW).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the terms of the maintenance
    206
    contracts made by the Board of Works with contractors in Glasgow, whereby the contractor is to supply labour in day work in consideration of a payment by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings of the amount actually paid in wages to the men with an addition of 6¼ per cent. in respect of services and expenses; whether he is aware that in the case of one contractor in Glasgow the wages amount roughly to £2,000 per year, so that the 6¼ per cent. out of which the contractor must pay workmen's compensation, third-party risk insurance, and the maintenance of the necessary scaffolding, tackle, tools, etc., amounts to about £125 per year; whether he is aware that the insurance contributions which, under the Act, must be paid by the contractor, amount to a total of about £1 per week, or £50 per annum, which represents the whole of the profit on the contract; whether the Board of Works has submitted the whole case of the effect of the Act on these special contracts to the Treasury, and the Treasury have refused to grant permission to the Board of Works to grant relief to the contractors by varying existing contracts, or otherwise; and whether, in view of the fact that the contract has been specifically framed in order to relieve the contractor of any risk of a rise in wages or in the cost of labour, and that the Government has by the National Insurance Act materially varied the conditions with a special view to which the contract was framed, the Treasury will sanction such variation of the contract as in the opinion of the Board of Works the equities of the case may demand?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of arbitration in a somewhat similar case to that referred to by the hon. Member is under consideration, and in the circumstances I regret that I should not be justified in making any statement at present.
    Captain MURRAY: Will it be the arbitration which the contract provides for?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think so, yes.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand that this particular case as to whether the Board of Works would have power to vary the contract in view of the operation of the Insurance Act is under arbitration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A similar case is under arbitration which I think will certainly lead us to a direction of policy in connection with this case.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What is the point of the case that is under arbitration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If my hon. Friend will put down a question I will inquire.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman assure me that this particular point comes under the arbitration now in process?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as I understand the arbitration will decide what is practically the question.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked whether any instances have occurred in Scotland of the maternity benefit under the National Insurance Act being administered by approved societies in form other than by payment of cash; and, if so, what form the benefit took?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No full information is yet available as to the different forms in which the approved societies in Scotland are (within the discretion allowed to them under the Act) administering maternity benefit, but I am informed by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners that some of them are giving a part of the benefit otherwise than in cash—e.g., paying a doctor or in providing necessities required in connection with the confinement.

    SCOTTISH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether, in the opinion of the Insurance Commissioners, the system of medical benefit successfully worked for the past ten years by the Scottish Clerks' Association, whereby members called in their own doctors and had refunded to them by the society the doctors' fees and cost of medicine up to 4s. per visit is a suitable one through which to permit insured persons to make their own arrangements under Section 15, Sub-section (3), of the National Insurance Act; and whether the Commissioners consider that this is a suitable subject on which to make suggestions to the local committees; and (2) whether he is aware on what grounds the Glasgow, insurance committee has refused to permit insured members of the Scottish Clerks' Association to make their own arrangements for medical attendance under Section 15, Sub-section (3), of the Act, in accordance with the system of
    208
    medical benefit successfully worked by that society for the past ten years; and, if so, will he state what are the grounds of objection?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend on the 27th March, it is primarily the duty of the insurance committees concerned to consider whether, in view of these arrangements and of any other local circumstances, members of the association could properly be allowed to make their own arrangements under Section 15 (3) of the Act, and the Scottish Commissioners, after considering all the circumstances, do not feel justified in interfering with the discretion of the insurance committees in the matter. I understand that a number of members of the association have, in fact, received permission from the Glasgow insurance committee to make their own arrangements with doctors not on the panel under Section 15 (3) of the Act, and that the period of application was extended for them from January to 14th April.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Without interfering with the discretion of the committees, will the Commissioners consider that this is a suitable subject on which to make suggestions to the local committees?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners merely state that they are not prepared to make any definite statement on the subject. The local committees must decide.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is not the scheme of benefit adopted by the Scottish Clerks' Association very similar to the one they submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was approved while the Bill was going through the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any scheme of benefit was approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is not the slightest doubt that the scheme of benefit suggested does not come under the definition in Section 15 (4).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand from the answer that already members of the association have been allowed to make their own arrangements under Section 15, Sub-section (3), and therefore there is no objection to other members doing the same thing?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. Any insurance committee may allow members to make their own arrangements under

    209
    Section 15 (3), but, of course, the scheme may be very largely carried out without any necessity of making their own arrangements.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does that mean that members of this society will have in future to negotiate with a great number of insurance committees?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Act provides that every member must arrange with his own insurance society.
    Mr. WATT: Did not the Treasury give a definite promise to this association that such a scheme would be permissible?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I can find no evidence.

    SHARE FISHERMAN.
    Mr. MUNROasked whether, before adjusting the case which it is proposed to present to the Court of Session in order to determine the liability of certain classes of share fishermen in Scotland to pay contributions under the National Insurance Act, the various fishery associations will be consulted on the subject?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The stated cases which the Commissioners propose to submit to the Court of Session relative to the position of certain classes of share fishermen under the Act will, before submission, be laid before representative fishing associations in Scotland for any observations which they may desire to offer.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the important bearing that this question has upon the Workmen's Compensation Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree that that should be taken into consideration, but this is mainly at present a judicial question, and I cannot interfere until we have a judicial decision.

    DUPLICATION OF BENEFIT.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked whether an insured person may receive full sickness benefit, and at the same time friendly society benefit where the two benefits together amount to a larger sum than his usual wages when in work?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. When the sickness benefit by itself exceeds two-thirds of the insured person's usual remuneration, his approved society have power, but are not required, to reduce the benefit. If they so reduce it they must
    210
    provide an additional benefit of an equivalent value.

    UNSTAMPED CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked whether an employer who has engaged a workman and finds that, owing to unemployment, the man has only one stamp on his insurance card at the end of the quarter is liable for the stamps in arrear?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked whether the employer of an insured workman who, as the result of an accident, is unable to work, but who, not having paid the necessary number of contributions is not entitled to disablement benefit, is liable for stamping the card of such workman while in receipt of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether in the same case the workmen is called upon to contribute any and what proportion of the cost of the stamps?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the circumstances stated in the question the employer would not be liable to pay contributions under the National Insurance Act unless the employé was in receipt of remuneration in addition to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and he would not be liable in any event if the man were in receipt of sickness benefit. It would be open to the insured person, if he so desired, to pay contributions at the employed rate himself with a view to qualifying for disablement benefit at the earliest possible date; but I may point out that under Section 11 of the National Insurance Act an insured person cannot obtain disablement benefit if in receipt of compensation of a weekly value equal to or exceeding the disablement benefit which would otherwise be payable.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the advisability of permitting a choice of doctors to postal employés from the panel in the various districts as approved by the National Insurance Commissioners?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Post Office employés who are insured persons may, if they so desire, select as their medical attendant any doctor on the local panel. I see no reason for making any change in the rule

    211
    that uninsured Post Office servants who are granted free medical attendance should receive it at the hands of the Post Office medical officer.

    Procuration (Prosecutions in Metropolis).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many persons have been arrested without warrant for the offence of procuration under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912; how many persons have been convicted for such offence; and how many of such persons have been sentenced to be flogged up to 1st March last?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I can only give the figures for the Metropolitan Police district. Seven persons were arrested without warrant within the period mentioned, and of these four were convicted, one of procuration, one of abduction, one of living on the earnings of prostitution, and one of assault. In the first-mentioned case the prisoner was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and to be flogged, but the conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that my question refers entirely to arrests for procuration and not for living on earnings of prostitution, which is a very different thing?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Gentleman's question referred, as I understand it, to persons arrested without warrant. There is only one case of procuration so far as convictions are concerned.

    Mental Deficiency Bill.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the Mental Deficiency Bill of this Session applies to Scotland?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether Scottish Members will be asked to serve on the Grand Committee dealing with the English Bill, and whether the Scottish Bill will be sent to a separate Committee?
    Mr. HOGGE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether it is not a fact that English Members sit on Committees dealing with Scottish Bills?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I would ask notice of both these questions.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether the Scottish Bill will be taken before the English Bill?
    Mr. BOOTH: Will my hon. Friend consider the suggestion as to sending both these Bills to the same Committee?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: There is no Scottish Bill at the present moment. We cannot send two Bills to a Committee when only one exists.

    Washing Accommodation for Miners.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received a Report from the committee which he appointed to consider the question of washing accommodation in mines, so as to enable him to put into operation the provisions contained in Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has now received the Report. It is being presented to Parliament to-day, and will, he hopes, be issued shortly.

    Inspection of Cattle.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the opinion generally expressed both by agriculturists and medical officers of local authorities in favour of the inspection of cattle being conducted by qualified veterinary surgeons rather than by medical officers, he will consider the desirability of amending the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Bill accordingly prior to its reintroduction?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The hon. Member has, no doubt, seen the Bill which I have introduced. I have in it given to veterinary experts a definite position when cattle in dairies have to be inspected.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what stage has now been reached in the negotiations for the purchase of the Trinity College estate, in the Caherciveen district; whether all the necessary papers have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board; and whether, in view of the delay which has occurred, steps will be taken to expedite the sale?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The rental and maps of the Trinity College Estate near Caherciveen have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board. The estate has been inspected and valued, and an offer for purchase has been sent by the Board to Trinity College within the last few days.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that about two years ago the Estates Commissioners made an order declaring that, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, Cornelius Sheehan, a sub-tenant of John Good on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Ballyvourney, county Cork, was a tenant entitled to purchase, and that the Commissioners then actually fixed the purchase price in Sheehan's case and communicated the amount to the agent and the tenant; will he state what was the amount of the purchase so fixed, and whether Sheehan signed the purchase agreement for the amount; whether the landlord, Sir George Colthurst, is anxious that Sheehan should have his holding vested in him, and he has so stated to the Estates Commissioners; and will he explain the cause of the long delay in this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners issued a declaration under the powers vested in them by Statute that the parcel occupied by Cornelius Sheehan as sub-tenant to Henry Good on the estate referred to should be deemed a holding, and that Sheehan should be considered the tenant thereof for the purposes of sale, and asked the vendor of the estate to lodge an agreement signed by Sheehan to purchase the holding at their estimated price. Good objected to the sale to Sheehan and to the price at which it was proposed that the latter should purchase, and, on consideration of his objections, the Commissioners increased their estimated price. Sheehan and the vendor agreed to the sale at the increased price, but Good has not up to the present signified his consent to the sale to Sheehan.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Is the consent of Good necessary under the Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. DANIEL BOYLEasked the Chief Secretary if any offer has yet been made by the Congested Districts Board for the Saunders Knox-Gore, Ballycastle, estate, county Mayo; is he aware that in
    214
    May, 1912, the Congested Districts Board officially intimated that an offer would be made for this estate in the following September, and that in October, 1912, a further definite statement was made that an offer would be made after the next meeting of the Board in November, 1912; and will he state the cause of the Board's failure to carry out these promises?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board issued an offer for purchase of this property on the 28th March.
    Mr. DANIEL BOYLEasked the Chief Secretary what progress has been made by the Congested Districts Board with the purchase of the Mrs. Saunders estate, in the parish of Lahardane, county Mayo, the maps and documents relating to which have been deposited with that Board since March, 1911; and when do the Congested Districts Board expect to complete the purchase and distribute amongst the tenants the non-residential grazing ranch on the estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has been inspected and valued, and an offer for purchase will be issued very shortly. The Congested Districts Board cannot at present say when the purchase of the estate will be completed and the lands resold.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked what steps the Congested Districts Board have taken to purchase the Marsham, West, Peyton, and Fergus estates, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim; what offers, if any, were made for each estate respectively; and whether, having regard to the unrest and suspense in which the tenants on these estates are being held and to the fact that proceedings are now being taken by the landlords for recovery of the old rents, the Board will take immediate steps to complete the purchase of these estates?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Marsham, West, and Peyton estates have not been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board, and they do not at present propose to take any steps to acquire them compulsorily. The Board have made an offer for the purchase of the estate of J. J. Fergus, and they are at present in correspondence with the owner on the subject.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Glencar

    215
    old age pensions committee on the 17th of March; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to this resolution?
    Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to. A Local Government Board inspector recently attended a meeting of the county pensions committee, and the matter is at present under the consideration of the Board.
    Mr. DANIEL BOYLEasked the Chief Secretary why the claim of Mrs. Cecilia Gallagher, Mullinmore Crossmolina, county Mayo, to an old age pension, passed by the Crossmolina pensions subcommittee, has been disallowed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: An appeal has been received by the Local Government Board against the pension allowed to Mrs. Gallagher on the grounds that her means are in excess of the statutory limit. The case is at present under the consideration of the Board.

    Proposed Pier, Ballinskelligs.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary what steps have been taken to construct a pier at Ballinskelligs, to which the attention of the Congested Districts Board was specially directed last autumn; and whether, in view of the near approach of the fishing season, steps will be taken to expedite its construction?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The plans and an estimate for the erection of a suitable pier at Ballinskelligs have been prepared, and will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their next meeting.

    Asylum Accommodation, Tulla (County Clare).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary the reason of the delay in the establishment of the auxiliary asylum in Tulla, county Clare; and whether, in view of the urgency for this institution, he will carefully consider the recommendations of the Ennis Asylum Committee?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have carefully considered the resolutions of the Ennis Asylum Committee. The proposal submitted by the committee was that the administration of the proposed auxiliary asylum at Tulla should be in the hands of a female religious community, without any resident medical officer to take charge of the
    216
    patients. The inspectors of lunatics do not regard any institution—no matter how admirable its general administration may be—as fully equipped and capable of fulfilling its duties to the insane poor unless it is provided with a resident medical officer possessing experience. The inspectors, are, therefore, unable to recommend the establishment of this auxiliary asylum unless a resident medical officer is appointed.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask if it is not a fact that there is an asylum on these lines already existing in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, and I am sorry to say that it does not meet with approval.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary if he has received a resolution from the Killeshandra branch of the United Irish League protesting against the neglect by the Estates Commissioners of the three Killeshandra evicted tenants; and will he have a special inspector sent at once to report on this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Estates Commissioners have inquired into these cases and, as the hon. Member and the parties have already been informed, the Commissioners have refused to take any action, and they are not prepared to depart from this decision.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see it is a reasonable suggestion that an inspector should be sent in this case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I never have interfered, I do not intend to interfere, and I have no right to interfere. That point may be suggested to the Estates Commissioners, and no doubt it has been.
    Mr. DANIEL BOYLEasked what steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board towards the re-instatement of the evicted tenants on the Pratt estate, near Crossmolina, county Mayo?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Eleven applications from persons seeking reinstatement in holdings formerly occupied by them on this estate have been received by the Estates Commissioners. One applicant was provided with a holding on lands acquired by the Congested Districts

    217
    Board, and was given a free Grant by the Commissioners to assist him in working the holding. One application is under consideration, and in six cases the Commissioners, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action. The remaining applications were not received within the period limited by the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and cannot be dealt with under that Act.
    Mr. DANIEL BOYLEasked the grounds on which the Estates Commissioners have declined the application of Francis Bourne, junior, Stonefield, Rossport, county Mayo, to be reinstated in the holding on the Bingham estate, county Mayo, from which his father, now deceased, was evicted some years ago, or an equivalent holding; if the holding in question is now part of a grazing ranch; and if the applicant is in every way qualified to work the holding if reinstated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Bourne's application for reinstatement was refused by the Estates Commissioners in the exercise of the discretion vested in them, and they decline to reopen the matter.

    Asylum Grants (Leitrim).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the deficit in the Capitation Grant for the year ending 31st March, 1911, towards county Leitrim in aid of the cost and maintenance of lunatics in Sligo district asylum was £422 17s. 10d.; and whether His Majesty's Treasury will make good that amount?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the deficit is as mentioned in the question. As already stated, the whole question of local taxation is under consideration of the Local Taxation Committee, and it is not possible to make any statement on the subject at present.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Captain CRAIGasked the modus operandi adopted by the Government to ascertain the views of the officers and rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary as to their treatment under the Government of Ireland Bill; whether, at the meeting to which they were hurriedly summoned, free discussion was encouraged, or were the men informed that their names and numbers were known and that they were expected to swallow the official
    218
    scheme or stand the consequence; were the representatives permitted to consult their comrades as to the proposals before ventilating their views; and whether, with all the facts now known, it is intended to convene a fresh conference where free and unfettered discussion will be permitted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The position of the force under the Bill was considered first by county committees, afterwards by central committees elected by the force as a whole representing the officers and men respectively. No such statement as that referred to in the question was made to the members of the committees, who were given every opportunity, either by consultation with their comrades or otherwise, to consider the proposals laid before the committees, and, as a matter of fact, the committees have expressed their thanks for the facilities for free discussion afforded to them. No further conference would appear to be necessary.

AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION (IRELAND).
Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: If the Government have sanctioned a Grant from the Development Fund to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; and, if so, will he state the amount of the Grant, the conditions upon which it will be made, and the steps to be taken to promote harmonious relations between the society and the Irish Department of Agriculture?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The Commissioners have recommended, and the Treasury have sanctioned, an advance by way of Grant of £2,000 to the society in question upon certain terms and conditions set out in a Treasury letter, which will be laid upon the Table in a day or two. These conditions provide, amongst other things, that the society, so long as it receives aid from the Development Fund, shall add to and retain on its governing body eleven persons nominated by the Development Commissioners, and that these members shall be invited to attend the meetings of the society's governing body and be treated in all respects as members of it; that no co-operative society which engages in work other than that of a purely agricultural nature, such as the purchase and sale of groceries, shall be admitted to affiliation with the society,

219
and that any existing societies—as for instance, the Irish Agricultural Wholesale Society—which are continuing to engage in such business on the 1st January, next, shall cease to be affiliated. With regard to the first condition, it is proposed as an interim measure, to nominate two members of the Commission and one of the assistant secretaries, who may nominate other three gentlemen representatives as far as possible of the various Irish interests concerned in the administration of the Grant. On the appointment of the eleven nominated members on the committee, the members of the Development Commission will cease to serve. The society in question has given an assurance that it will take no part whatever in controversies involving political partisanship, whether through its agents, spokesmen, or printed publications.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I am desired to submit to you, and to the House, a question of privilege which I mentioned yesterday, when, to the very great regret of every Member of this House, you were unable to occupy the Chair, and the Deputy-Speaker assured me that I should not lose my right to bring it forward by deferring it until you should be in your place. The matter which I wish to submit to the House is the issue of a paper called the "Irish News," which was published on Friday last, and as it was only received in London on Saturday, yesterday was the first opportunity which any Member of the House could have of bringing the matter before the House. The paragraph to which I desire to call attention is as follows:—
  "Liberals have noted for some time past with rather pained feelings that the Speaker, while successfully preserving the outward appearance of impartiality, is often glad to seize upon an opportunity of showing that he was a strong political partisan before he was elected Speaker by the Tories—and re-elected by the Home Rulers. Mr. Lowther is the personification of prudence; but now and then, as in the case of his reply to the questions regarding Mr. Whitley's action put to him from the Opposition Benches yesterday, he manages to remind the House that he was once a Tory representative of a Tory constituency."
  On the 19th of December last, only three months ago, a case, similar in some respects, was brought to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and on that occasion you, Sir, expressed the opinion that to dismiss it without further comment was probably the right way of dealing with the matter; and I think that the weighty and dignified words which were addressed to the House on that occasion by the Prime Minister endorsing your opinion were felt by the House to be a completely adequate treatment of the question. I think that the House will recognise that in questions of this sort it is very natural, and indeed almost inevitable, that the occupant of the Chair, regarding it, to some extent, as a personal matter, should recommend the House to treat it with the contempt which he naturally feels that it deserves and not to award to it the dignity of any more drastic treatment, and I am not prepared to say that on most occasions that is not the proper course; and, of course, it is not for me to make any suggestion as to the proper mode of treating this matter, and it is not my intention to make any such suggestion. I
  232
  am not going further than to call the attention of the House to the article in question, but I will call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that this offence, if it be an offence, occurs at an interval of only three months after that to which I have alluded with which you dealt in the manner that I have described. But there is this distinction between the two cases. The article to which my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin called attention in December only purported to be the opinion of some obscure provincial journalist writing about the proceedings of the House of Commons, while the paragraph which I have read is in a column of the paper headed, "London Letter: From our own correspondent," which is dated, "London, Friday morning." Consequently this paragraph was written by a gentleman who has the privilege of access to the Galleries and Lobbies of this House, a privilege which he receives, I understand, by the indulgence of the House through the medium of the Speaker himself, and therefore it is natural to assume that those who read his words in the country will naturally think that he speaks with special authority, and that having access to Members of this House he is enabled to glean the opinions which they hold and to record these opinions for the benefit of the readers of his newspaper. I, of course, assume that this writer is giving a completely untruthful account of the opinions held by Members of the party opposite, but the House will observe that the paragraph begins "Liberals have noted for some time past with rather pained feelings." Consequently the article is not a mere expression of individual opinion, but it purports to give the opinion of the Liberal party. Therefore it appears to me to pass a slur upon Members opposite which they will be very glad to repudiate, and I am quite certain that they will be grateful to me for giving them an opportunity of dissociating themselves entirely from those things which are put into their mouths, so to speak, by this gentleman. I have said it is not for me to make any suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have already said I am not going to make any suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not done so, and I am very glad indeed to have so completely the assent of hon. Members. Having called the attention of the House to the paragraph and pointed out the characteristics which appear to me to distinguish it, I leave the matter, of course,

  233
  entirely in the hands of Mr. Speaker and the Leaders of the House.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I rise not for the purpose of complaining that the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to come forward as the champion of the dignity of this House, but in order to call attention to two other cases of breach of privilege arising out of the same incident. They consist of statements made by two Unionist newspapers published in the same city of Belfast, and upon the same date as the newspaper quoted by the hon. Member who has just spoken. The two extracts are, one from the London letter of the "Belfast Northern Whig," which is partly owned and controlled by Unionist Members of this House, and the other is from the editorial notes in the "Belfast Echo"—both making disgraceful attacks upon the Chairman of Committees of this House. The paragraph in the "Belfast Echo" refers to "the unprecedented, partisan, and disgraceful action of the Chairman of Committees," whilst the paragraph in the "Belfast Northern Whig" endorses the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. It contains the report of a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Members, at which they passed a resolution endorsing the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh in defying the authority of the Chair. The extract is from the "Belfast Northern Whig" of the 28th March, the same date as quoted by the hon. Member. The paragraph proceeds:—
  "Mr. Moore's protest was also made against the conduct of the Chairman in contradicting his own ruling in such circumstances as to make it appear that he meant to help the Government and their friends to make time for bringing up their men to vote; but it would not be in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette that a meeting of Members should refer to this matter. …. They feel that they cannot now be sure of the impartial attitude of the Chairman in Committee where the interests of the Government are concerned, and they were saying yesterday among themselves that, while Mr. Whitley saved the Government, he ruined his Parliamentary career. The names of those present at the meeting were Sir Edward Carson (in the chair), Mr. J. H. Campbell, Captain Craig, Captain O'Neill, Mr. MacCaw, Major M'Calmont, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Horner, Mr. P. Newman (Enfield), Mr. Kerr-Smiley, and Sir John Lonsdale (honorary secretary)."
  I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, if the passage read by the hon. Member from the "Irish News" be a breach of privilege, the words I have quoted from the "Belfast Northern Whig," and the "Belfast Echo," do not constitute a much graver offence?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would respectfully suggest to the House that I need not
  234
  answer the questions which have been put to me as to whether these respective articles are or are not breaches of privileges. It may be that they are, it may be that they are not. I would venture humbly to suggest to the House that the matter should not be carried any further. Of course, in the exercise of our duty in the Chair and at the Table, the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself, are bound to incur a considerable amount of criticism, and when we accept those offices we expect to receive criticism; but as long as we have the confidence of Members of this House, I think we can altogether neglect criticisms which appear even in London letters. (I am not so sure as the hon. Member seems to be, that those London letters always are written in London). At all events, I have had an opportunity of consulting the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he is of exactly the same opinion as myself, that is, respectfully to submit to the House that it is undesirable that this matter should be carried further.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am sure, Sir, that in the language which you have used you have given expression, as you always do, to the unanimous feeling of the House in regard to matters of this kind. The House, if I may say so, Sir, respectfully agrees with you that suggestion and aspersions of this kind are totally unworthy of serious notice. We have the utmost confidence, on both sides and in all quarters, in the impartiality of the Chair and in the Chairman of Ways and Means, and we esteem ourselves fortunate in having such zealous and vigilant, custodians of the privileges of the House of Commons.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I only rise, Sir, for the purpose of saying that I respectfully agree with every word which fell from you, and I endorse all that has been said by the Prime Minister. I think with you, Sir, and with him, that cases of this kind should be very rarely, if ever, dealt with by the House, and I do not think that either of these cases is an occasion of the kind.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: On a point of Order, Sir. I wish to call attention to the fact that the hon. Member below the Gangway was not, as I submit, in order in bringing forward the examples that he did bring forward, because he did not protect his right yesterday, which was his earliest opportunity. It would have been

  235
  quite easy to have objected when he brought forward those cases, but I do not think anyone in our party had the slightest desire to do so. I certainly had no wish to deprive the House of the opportunity of hearing the cases which he brought forward. I only wish to mention the matter because it might become one of importance in the future, and I thought it possible that it might have escaped your attention that the hon. Gentleman did not bring forward those examples yesterday, as he might have done, and evidently it only occurred to him to do so after he heard what I stated.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member gave me notice yesterday that he would take the earliest opportunity of bringing those cases forward.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To ensure the Purity of Milk Supplies and to regulate Dairies in Scotland; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

  COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT (CO-PARTNERSHIP).
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the adoption of co-partnership by statutory and other companies."
  This is a Bill of a very uncontroversial character and is similar to one I brought in last year, and which was accorded a First Reading without opposition. That being so, I intend only very briefly to recapitulate its provisions. The Bill seeks to promote the adoption of co-partnership by registered and statutory companies, but the procedure it suggests is different in the two cases. In the case of registered companies it provides merely that those companies shall be at liberty to adopt co-partnership without a change in their Articles of Association. I am informed that in many cases of registered companies it would require a long and cumbrous and difficult process in order to enable them to adopt co-partnership. In the case of those companies the Bill provides that if they
  236
  wish to adopt co-partnership, and if their Articles of Association stand in the way of doing so, they shall normally adopt the model scheme set out in the Schedule to this Bill. At the same time it is provided that they may alter that scheme, if they can show to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that it is not applicable to the special circumstances of their case. With regard to statutory companies it is proposed that the model scheme shall normally be incorporated in any Bill that a private company desires to obtain from Parliament, the onus being on the company to show that the scheme does not apply to their circumstances. If they fail to show that, then in the ordinary course the Parliamentary Committee will insert it as one of the provisions of the Bill. There will, of course, be no possible attempt to fetter the discretion of the Parliamentary Committee equally, as in the case of the registered companies, from putting in other provisions more specially applicable to the company in question.
  With regard to the model scheme itself I will not now go into any great details. It starts on this double principle that there should be a standard return for labour and a standard return for capital. There is no standard prescribed as to the return for labour. That must be left to negotiations such as now take place between employers and trade unions, but it does provide a standard return on capital of 5 per cent., and it provides that if a company pays more than 5 per cent. on its paid-up capital a proportion of the further profits shall be divided amongst the workpeople, and the proportion suggested is for every 1 per cent. over the first 5 per cent. paid by the Company, that one-twentieth part shall go to the workpeople. There are also other provisions that trustees shall be appointed, as in the very successful instance of the South Metropolitan Company, who shall hold and invest part of the bonus for the benefit of the workpeople. There are further provisions as to the appointment of those trustees and as to the appointment of directors and as to the settlement of matters in dispute. On the general topic I think it is a rather remarkable fact how all the industrial troubles of last year seem, for the moment, to have faded away from the public mind. Last year the circumstances were more favourable for the introduction of a Bill of this kind, because the attention of the public and of this House was largely fixed on industrial disputes. That is not so at

  237
  present, but I think we should be living in a fool's paradise if we thought there had been any great change in the conditions of industrial life. I believe it would only require some very slight unfortunate incident to revive all the trouble that we experienced last year.
  I can only put this Bill forward in a very tentative way. I believe the true solution for our industrial disputes is to be found in the principle contained in this Bill—that is to say, that there should be a visible bond of interest between capital and labour, and that the success of one should mean, definitely and obviously and materially, the advantage and progress of the other, and that they should be definitely linked in common interests. It is on those principles and with that object that I have brought forward this Bill. I would make an appeal, first to the House to give the Bill a First Reading, as they did last year; and, secondly, to the Government, and also to those two hon. Members who control the fate of private Members' Bills, and who are, perhaps, even more powerful than the Government in that respect, that the Bill shall be allowed a Second Reading, solely on one condition, that no attempt shall be made to go further with it in the ordinary course, but that it shall be committed to a Select Committee, where these and perhaps other proposals of a similar kind, may be properly threshed out. I do not, of course, expect an answer from the Government or from any hon. Members on that point now, but I do ask that this Bill, which is honestly intended as a small effort towards a great object, shall have a fair chance, and it is in that spirit I now beg to move.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Hope, Mr. Amery, Mr. Cave, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Worthington-Evans, Mr. Peto, and Viscount Wolmer. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
    IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Mr. ROBERT THOMPSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to insert instead thereof the words "this House is of opinion that recent actions of the Executive in Ireland are calculated to impair respect for the laws, and to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice in that section of His Majesty's Dominions."
    In moving this Amendment I am conscious of my inability to do justice to this important subject, which I regard as one of the greatest magnitude which can command the attention of any legislative body, as without confidence in the justice and impartiality of our Courts of Law there can be no feeling of security. Every sound statesman must admit that the laws of a country, together with the just administration of those laws, form the foundations for that feeling of security of life and property without which no country can be either prosperous, contented, or happy. Unfortunately I know all who know anything of Ireland must admit that throughout three of its provinces these conditions have been signally wanting, and that crime has been rampant, and that the punishment of crime has been exceptional, and that in many cases the police have either been powerless or, it may be, unwilling to detect the perpetrators of outrage. In many other cases, more especially of a political character, jurors could not be found to convict criminals when brought before the Courts, and accordingly it became a common saying in some of these districts "the King's Writ did not run." Fortunately in Ulster such a state of affairs was not to be found, but I much regret to say that more recently instances to the contrary have arisen through causes which are not obscure to unbiassed observers. Occasionally cases are beginning to manifest themselves where criminal offenders, especially those of a political character, are withdrawn from the venue of our local Courts to other districts where the surroundings are more sympathetic with the nature of the offence, and by such means prisoners escape from the ends of justice. Personally, I can recall a case which occurred in 1907, when an extensive and prolonged strike was organised among our dock labourers in Belfast by an English importation called Larkin. This strike continued from 6th May until 6th September of the same year. Larkin was instrumental in provoking a strong and bitter feeling against those who were willing to work honestly for their

    239
    bread. Ultimately he was brought by the police before the magistrates for a grievous assault.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: May I ask whether the hon. Member is entitled to read his speech?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is that hon. Members are not entitled to read their speeches, though, of course, they may refer to their notes.
    Mr. R. THOMPSON: He was brought before the magistrates for a grievous assault which was conclusively proved against him. He had felled on the public street one of those honest workmen with a navvy's shovel, cutting open his head, and so seriously injuring him that his life was despaired of. For this serious offence Larkin was remanded by the magistrates to the Assizes, but when the trial was approaching the case was withdrawn from the Assizes in Ulster and relegated to a Southern Court and a Southern jury, and ultimately the prisoner was allowed to escape scot-free. Another example of the absolute failure of justice not due to want of evidence was the notorious McCann case, where a respectable married woman was robbed of her two children in the light of day, where she was robbed of her furniture, and where she was robbed of her clothing and effects, and till this day no one has been brought to justice for those offences nor have the children yet been found. Another example of the absolute failure of justice is the even more notorious case which occurred only a few months ago. I refer to the attack on the Sunday school children when on their annual excursion to Castledawson, in the month of June last, by members of the Hibernian League. Those children numbered 500, and 130 of them were infants between the ages of four and ten years. The main facts of this notorious affray were as follows. The children's train was timed to leave Castledawson station for Whitehouse at 6 p.m., and twenty minutes before that hour the children left the field which had been allocated for their amusement and marched in procession towards the railway station.
    When approaching Castledawson a person told the clergyman in charge that a procession of Hibernians was approaching from the town, and that he must be very careful when they met. The children's party when meeting the Hibernians moved to their own side of the road, and no word
    240
    was spoken by any of its members and absolutely no provocation was given. The Hibernian party, according to police evidence, numbered about 300 men, sixty of whom were armed with pikes, and others with bludgeons and other weapons. Without one word of warning, that large body of men rushed into the excursionists among the children just behind the band. The scene which took place was almost indescribable. Their flags were torn, the musical instruments broken, the men of the excursion were stabbed, and even children were struck and some of the latter were trampled under foot on the roadway. The excursionists were scattered in every direction. Shrieking women and children sought safety in fields and houses; some forty ran to the police barracks. Almost every man of the excursion party was stabbed with pikes, or struck with bludgeons, or knocked down and kicked. Subsequently, but prior to the trial of the prisoners, Mr. Barron, the minister at Whitehouse, gave a list of the injured parties to the Crown Prosecutor, but not one of these was called to give evidence at the trial, nor was any reason offered why they were not called. I wish to read here, if I may, a few extracts from sworn statements of those who were assaulted. These statements were sworn before Mr. Edward Coey, J.P., one of the most respected county magistrates in the neighbourhood of Whitehouse where the parties attacked reside. The following is an extract from Mr. Barron's statement:—
    "The Assizes at Londonderry opened on 2nd December, and I was summoned by the Crown to appear as a witness. On the opening day of the Assizes 2nd December, I was asked by the Crown Solicitor to give him a statement as to the nature of my evidence. I did so, and told him I had a list of men, women and children who were injured at Castledawson. He looked at the list and told me that it could not be used in evidence against the Hibernians, who were charged simply with rioting at Castledawson. However, he said that he would arrange for an interview between the counsel who were conducting the prosecution for the Crown and myself at 3 o'clock that day in his office. I attended at 3 o'clock at his office and was met by the junior counsel. We waited for a considerable time for the senior counsel to appear, but he did not, and it was then arranged that we should meet the next morning at eleven o'clock. I attended at that hour, but neither of the counsel made their appearance. The Crown counsel who were prosecuting never spoke to me about my evidence and had no interview with me. When I went into the witness box to give my evidence. I had a list with me, and I attempted to give the list in evidence, stating that I had such a list. But its prosecution was objected to on the grounds that the persons named in it were not produced at the trial, and I was not allowed to read the list. It has been frequently stated that no women or children were injured, but at the trial not a single person connected with the Sunday School Excursion was examined except myself. None of the injured persons were produced by the Crown. None of the teachers and

    241
    none of the parents were present or examined. And I make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835."
    I will now give a short extract from the statement of Margaret Humphrey:—
    "I accompanied the Whitehouse Sunday School Excursion to Castledawson on Saturday, 29th June, 1912. … I went to look after the children and saw the Hibernians running with their pikes. A Castledawson woman pulled me into her house, and I was crying, and asked her to let me out to look for the children, three young children of my cousin being in the excursion. The woman let me out by the back door, and on coming round a corner a man, with green slut and hat, struck me a heavy blow on the right shoulder with a pike. I remembered nothing after being struck, until I found myself in the house of Mr. Samuel Irwin, Castledawson. When I recovered consciousness I was hardly able to walk."
    I will trouble the House with only one other short extract. Sarah Brennan said:
    "I was with the Whitehouse Sabbath School Excursion party on 29th June last at Castledawson when it was attacked by the Hibernians. One of the Hibernians kicked me on the stomach and knocked me down. In the crush I was knocked over a wall and got my arm hurt, in consequence of which I was off work for three days."
    I do not wish to occupy the time of the House by citing further examples of what every fair-minded and unprejudiced man must regard as practically a failure of justice, as all those who were convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for complicity in these riots were, on the expiration of six weeks, set at liberty by the Executive. It may be said that I have only adduced two or three instances of the miscarriage of justice, but if I had only brought one in which there was manifest carelessness exhibited as to the just rights of the individual, or could it be shown that matters of expediency took prior place to the foundation principle upon which the stability of the Commonwealth rests, then, I hold, it would be sufficient to commend the Amendment which I now propose to the acceptance of every Member of the House.
    Major M'CALMONT: I rise to second the Amendment which by the fortune of the ballot stands also in my name on the Paper. It is an unusual privilege for a new Member to draw a place in his first ballot, and more especially to be able to address the House for the first time upon a subject of his own choosing. But I would particularly ask the indulgence of the House, because the subject is one which many hon. and learned Members on both sides are much better able to judge than I am. My acquaintance with the law of the land, which is the subject of the Amendment, has been up to the present time, I am happy to say, entirely confined
    242
    to military law. But whether one is a soldier or a civilian, the whole nation prides itself on its love of fair play and justice. It is that feeling of confidence in the administration of the law which is at the present time so lacking in certain parts of Ireland. That want of confidence has been brought about through many causes during the last few months. Several of those causes will be referred to by other hon. Members; I propose to confine my remarks almost entirely to what is known as the Castledawson case. It is a rather curious coincidence that places in the ballot should have been drawn by the two Members representing the two constituenencies from which these excursionists were drawn. The outrage has been previously referred to in this House, and I do not propose to go further into the facts of the case. What I am more concerned with is the methods by which the prosecution of the offenders was carried out. It should be clearly understood that the prosecution was entirely in the hands of the Crown, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Rev. Robert Barron, who merely happened to be in charge of the excursion. It has been frequently stated that he was the prosecutor, but that is not the case.
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two facts in connection with the gentleman who represented the Executive in this prosecution. Doctor Robert Todd appears to have achieved a wider reputation as an election agent than as a solicitor. In county Westmeath since the year 1885, when it because a constituency, he has conducted no less than eight contested elections in the interests of the party opposite. With this no doubt excellent claim, he was appointed Sessional Crown Solicitor for county Westmeath during the 1892–5 Administration of the party opposite. It is true that he subsequently became Crown Solicitor under a Unionist Administration, and I think he only resigned that office under a certain amount of pressure. In answer to a question which I put yesterday, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture told me that the reason Dr. Todd resigned that office was that he insisted on living in county Londonderry, and was unable properly to carry out his duties from there. In any case, he resigned his office because he was unable properly to carry out his duties. He then turned his attention to further elections in county Londonderry, more especially in North Derry, and not many months ago

    243
    he received a further reward by being appointed Crown Solicitor for county Londonderry. The House will probably agree that it is, to say the least, unfortunate, that the prosecution of these rioters should have fallen into the hands of such a gentleman. Now as to the actual conduct of the case? The outrage took place on the 29th June last. On the 24th July these men were committed for trial. It was stated in answer to a question yesterday that it was not possible after that date to take any further depositions. That seems to me rather a ridiculous suggestion. If between the time a man is committed for trial and the time when he takes his trial important evidence comes to the notice of the solicitor in charge of the prosecution, it appears to me that the solicitor would be neglecting his duty if he did not take steps to produce that evidence at the Assizes. It is frequently done in criminal cases both in this country and in Ireland, and I can see no reason why it should not have been done in this case.
    On the 26th November the local police themselves approached the rev. gentleman who was in charge of the excursion party, and asked him for a list of the injured persons. That list he gave. The Vice-President yesterday stated that the list contained only the names of three children and no women. That is possibly a quibble as to the definition of woman and child. I think the girls in this particular case varied in age from seventeen to twenty-one. But that is a small matter. I have received a telegram this morning from the Rev. Robert Barron, in which he says that the list included two women and eight girls. In addition to that, the police themselves found out one girl who had been injured. It is admitted that the Crown Solicitor had that list in his possession not only before the trial but a good many days before the trial. The Rev. Robert Barron saw the Crown Solicitor on the first day of the Assizes, some days before the actual trial came on, and discussed the evidence with him. He produced his list, but was told that that list would not be evidence. I quite agree that the list could not be evidence, but I wish to submit three points for the consideration of the House. The first is that the Crown Solicitor was well aware that certain women and children alleged that they had been injured through the action of the rioters, and that he took no steps what-
    244
    soever either to prove or to disprove their statements, which, it is true, were not on oath. Secondly, to have proved injuries to women and children in this particular case would have very considerably aggravated the seriousness of the offence, and therefore it was the duty of the solicitor prosecuting for the Crown to have produced evidence to that effect. Thirdly, in reference to the statement made by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture on the 6th February in this House, when he said that the statement made by the learned judge at the trial to the effect that there was no evidence and that nothing had been proved as regards injuries to women and children was not challenged by anyone, I submit that the only person who could possibly have challenged a statement made in court was either the counsel representing the Crown, or somebody else connected with the prosecution. I cannot see that it was the business of anybody, either in the Press or elsewhere, to question a statement made by the learned judge in his charge to the jury, except one of the counsel conducting the case. The Government are well aware that this matter has been taken up by the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, who have recently gone to the trouble to have upwards of two dozen affidavits taken. They have circulated them, and they have demanded from the Chief Secretary that there should be a sworn public inquiry, a demand which I earnestly support, despite the fact the right hon. Gentleman says that such a thing is entirely out of his power. There is one other point I should like to refer to; that is that it is common knowledge that since this outrage took place there have been various small disturbances and law-breaking in various parts of Belfast. Various people were arrested. The prosecution of many of these people has been carried out in absolutely unusual and extraordinary methods. Men have been arrested, discharged, re-arrested; they have been brought before this bench of magistrates, and taken away and brought before a selected magistrate in a way that has been calculated, in my opinion, to kill all respect for the administration of the law in the minds of the accused. Let me refer to one very small case in detail, that is in connection with two men who have been charged with an offence committed as long ago as 17th September last. It has been admitted by the detective-sergeant who has given evidence in this

    245

    case that the evidence was absolutely complete within a very few weeks of the offence having been committed. Five months after no action has been taken. As a matter of fact, the warrants were only put into the hands of the police on 6th March, considerably more than five months after the alleged commission of the offence. This, I submit, is one more instance among many recent actions of the Executive in Ireland calculated to impair respect for law, and also to impair confidence in the administration of justice.
    Mr. MULDOON: My first duty on rising is to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down on the eloquent little speech he has delivered. I am sure I may also congratulate my hon. opponents above the Gangway on the distinct accession they have received to their debating strength in this House. I hope we shall have the pleasure of hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman on many future occasions. Both hon. Members who have spoken have brought against the Government a charge of general failure in the administration of justice in Ireland. I must say at once that I have upon the present occasion no brief for the administration of justice in Ireland. There are many things done which I should like to see done differently. But I think there is one fact to which the Government can point in their administration of justice in Ireland, namely, that they have reduced crime and outrage there to a figure to which it has never been reduced in the history of the country. I have here a résume of the charges which the judges of the High Court have delivered at the recent Assizes. This résume covers the thirty-two counties of Ireland. I will not read the extracts in detail. I deal first with the province of Ulster, where, with the single exception of Belfast city, the record is good. The learned judge who presided in the Crown Court there remarked that in some respects the conditions were favourable, and in other respects unfavourable. The condition of every single county in Leinster is described as "peaceful," "very good," or "almost enjoying an entire immunity from crime."
    In Munster every single county is favourably reported upon, and even the county of Clare is described as "having experienced a distinct change for the better." The county of Kerry is described as "fairly satisfactory"; Limerick as in a "peaceful state"; Tipperary, North and South,
    246
    as in "a perfectly satisfactory condition." The county of Galway is described as "not satisfactory, but improving." I commend that state of affairs to this House, and I say that never previously in the history of the country has so good a report been produced from the Assizes. Both hon. Members referred to what they regarded as the comparative failure of justice. I regret to say there have been in one or two cases a failure of justice, but the most glaring case of the failure of justice has occurred in the last ten days in the city of Belfast. I may have to refer to that before I sit down. I must express my thanks to both hon. Members for having raised the case of Castledawson again. It is a case in reference to which we upon these benches have no complaint whatever to make. The more frequently it is raised the better we like it. The more it is understood in this country the better we like it. Our attitude in reference to it is that we deplore most heartily the fact that this incident at Castledawson arose. We regret it exceedingly. But we say that nothing is to be gained by exaggeration. Lying and untruthful statements have been made in reference to this affair…
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Where?
    Mr. MULDOON: I will read them before I sit down. They were made by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale), who said in the "Morning Post"…
    Mr. C. CRAIG: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Member to talk about "lying statements" having been made by a particular Member? He has referred to my hon. Friend below me as having made one of these statements.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not understand that the hon. and learned Member used the words "lying statements" in reference to any statement made by hon. Members in this House. If so, that would certainly not be in order. The hon. and learned Member is, of course, entitled to refer his remarks to those outside the House.
    Mr. MULDOON: I did not intend, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh as having made lying statements. I should not be guilty of such a thing. But the hon. Member did quote, in the "Morning Post," statements made by the Rev. Mr. Barron, the Rector of Whitehouse, which I say were absolutely

    247
    inaccurate. I have the evidence of Mr. Barron himself that they were absolutely inaccurate. I will read it…
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Member entitled to make these references to me without the slightest justification?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member says that he is going to read a statement.
    Mr. MULDOON: Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to this very interesting topic of Castledawson in my own way. The first remark I have to make is that the Rev. Mr. Barron is the beginning and end of Castledawson. If he had not been there the story of Castledawson would not have been told. Nothing would have been known about it. It would have disappeared like one of those little riots which so frequently take place in the North of Ireland, which are dealt with at Petty Sessions, and returned for trial. Counsel appears on both sides. There is a conviction and a short term of imprisonment, and there is an end of the transaction. The Rev. Robert Barron went from Whitehouse with this excursion party, and returned home with them. Afterwards we have the most extraordinary activities by this reverend gentleman, the most extraordinary accounts of that transaction, suggesting, indeed, that the reverend gentleman himself has mistaken his vocation, and that if he had not selected the Church he would have been a mighty good war correspondent. He has a good deal of skill in his art, because he never published the name of a person injured at Castledawson until the 6th February of this year, although he was examined on oath twice upon the subject. Another statement I make, and I am prepared to verify it. Immediately after the Castledawson affair Mr. Barron appeared in the pulpit and on the platform, gave interviews to newspapers, and sent reports to hon. Members of this House. Let me quote from these. It must be remembered that when he spoke the reverend gentleman spoke as an eye-witness of the affray that took place, first in an interview with the "Northern Whig." In that paper, on Monday, 1st July—the incident having occurred on the 29th June—the reverend gentleman, in the course of a very lurid account, said:—
    "In a moment the Hibernians were in the middle of our children with their pikes, striking and stabbing
    248
    right and left. They also used bludgeons and threw stones. Our teachers and the young men behaved heroically."
    That is the first statement made. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh quoted that statement in a letter which he addressed to the "Morning Post" on 5th July.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Perhaps you will read the letter.
    Mr. MULDOON: Yes. The letter of the hon. Member reads:—
    "The discussion in the House of Commons dealing with the disgraceful outrage perpetrated on Saturday upon defenceless women and children by members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians took place so late on Tuesday night that the Press were unable fully to report it. May I therefore ask you to allow me space in which to inform the British public of the plain facts of the case, which were misrepresented by Mr. John Dillon earlier in the evening. … Mr. Barron himself courteously saluted the leaders of the other procession. One of these men seized the Union Jack, which was carried by a small boy, and the rest of the Hibernians then rushed at the children. Mr. Barron says that in a moment they were in the middle of our children with the pikes, stabbing right and left, striking and stabbing right and left; they also used bludgeons and threw stones."
    The next extract I have from the Rev. Mr. Barron is published in a paper called "The Banner of Truth and Irish Missionary News." I only quote this because it contains one statement which the Rev. Mr. Barron apparently did not give to the other papers. It might perhaps be unpalatable to the hon. Member for Central Hull. In this he said:—
    "The order has been given that Roman Catholics are to deny everything they do, and their friends in England do the same. Even Christian ministers are not ashamed to utter the same lie."
    Then he proceeds to give to the editor of this religious newspaper an account of the Castledawson not differing from what he had communicated to the "Northern Whig" in the interview to which I have referred. In this House, on 2nd July last, the Noble Lord the Member far the Horsham Division of Sussex raised the question upon the Adjournment. The Noble Lord assured me himself that the statements received from the Rev. Mr. Barron were in his own handwriting. Here is one purple passage from what the Noble Lord read:—
    "Many of our people have been stabbed with pikes, women and children mainly.…"
    And I ask the attention of the House to these words:—
    "Many of them being cut in their struggle for the banner and flag. One of our young men was stabbed right through the hand. The struggle lasted for a considerable time, and so terrified were the children, that many of them fled as far as a mile from the scene, where, cowed and terrified, they crouched in ditches

    249
    and hedges. Several are seriously ill as a result of what has taken place, and many others will carry the scars of the struggle of this wanton attack to their dying day."
    That was the evidence of a man who swore before the Assize Court in Derry and swore before the magistrates when making his deposition, that he himself took special charge of the women and children, and conveyed them in three batches from the scene of the riot to the railway station, and that he had ample opportunity of seeing the cuts and scars and that was the description he furnished to the Noble Lord, and it was read in this House, and published broadcast. Now that same reverend gentleman, although appealed to again and again, never gave the name of a single woman or child injured, and the reason, of course, was plain. If he said that Mary Kelvie or Margaret Simmons had been struck or stabbed it would have been easy for the police to go and see these women, and see whether there was any truth in the statement or not, but wild horses would not drag from him the name of a single person struck or stabbed, and no hon. Member above the Gangway until the 6th February, 1913, ever gave the name of a woman or child injured. Upon that occasion the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Down (Captain Craig) for the first time read out a list of persons whom he said had been injured, and struck and stabbed, and he said he received them in a telegram that day from the Rev. Robert Barron. The next appearance of the Rev. Robert Barron, to which I wish to refer is when we have him before the magistrates sitting in the Court in Derry when the depositions of himself and a large number of witnesses were taken. The rev. gentleman upon that occasion was upon his oath, and he was examined and cross-examined.
    I notice the charge is made against the Crown Solicitor of Derry that he is a partisan upon the other side. I know he is not a Nationalist, and I hold no brief for him, but before the magistrates the solicitor who appeared for the Crown was the Sessional Crown Solicitor, who, an hon. Gentlemen suggested yesterday, should have been the Crown Solicitor, because, I suppose, he was one of those who signed the Covenant. He had charge of the Crown case when it was before the magistrates, and he examined the Rev. Robert Barron, and he left that examination without ever suggesting that any woman or child was struck or stabbed, or giving the name of a single woman or child
    250
    who was stabbed. Let me quote one extract from that examination. I am sorry I cannot lay my hand on the extract, but I can quote the substance of it from recollection. He said that he saw men injured, but he was challenged to say whether he saw women or children injured, and he said he did not, and in cross-examination he said he took particular charge of the women and children, and conveyed them to the station, and conveyed them practically to their houses, and I would point out to the House that of the bogus list he since supplied of children whom he suggested were physically injured at Castledawson upon that day some of them live in the very village to which he belongs. What is the next appearance of the Rev. Robert Barron, to which I now call particular attention? On 7th August the Rev. Robert Barron wrote a letter to the "Times" in which he made the following statement:—
    "So far as I know, no woman or child was struck or stabbed, but many of them suffered from shock and fright."
    That was the reverend gentleman, who told us about the scars that they were to carry for life, and who went home with them, and who wrote that lurid account the following day. No doubt women and children present at such scenes naturally suffer from shock and fright, but physical injury is a wholly different thing. He absolutely denied, under his own hand, that the women and children were struck or stabbed, but without one single word of explanation of the extraordinary account he sent to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham or of the extraordinary interview he gave to the "Northern Whig" newspaper. What is the next step? He had another opportunity. He was examined before Mr. Justice Wright at the trial at Derry. It would be almost an impertinence for me to say that Mr. Justice Wright is one of the most experienced criminal judges in Ireland. He was many years Crown Prosecutor at Green Street Court-house, Dublin, and he was the Tory Solicitor-General for many years, and no one could suggest that he was not perfectly competent to try a case such as that which came before him. The Rev. Robert Barron was examined before him, and when it came to the point of the question of physical injury to women and children the learned judge took the Rev. Robert Barron in hand. Here is an extract from the report of the trial:—
    "The witness was proceeding to say that the children were seriously injured, when Mr. Wylliem…"

    251
    He was counsel for the prisoners—
    "objected, saying, 'No one had mentioned the matter that day, and witness had no right to make the statement.'
    "His Lordship: Is it physical injury?
    "Witness, producing a paper: I have a list of them here.
    "His Lordship: Never mind the list. Did you yourself see any injury to the children?—I saw the injuries to the men.
    "Mr. Wyllie: Yes, to the men.
    "Witness: Eight or nine of the men were stabbed and received serious blows about the head and body."
    And the Rev. Robert Barron left the witness box in Derry without giving the name of a single person injured, or without justifying in the smallest degree the lurid account he wrote to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham or the interview he gave to the "Northern Whig." Fourteen witnesses were examined for the Crown, and twenty-three witnesses were examined for the prisoners at that trial. Every single witness of that thirty-seven declared they saw no injury to the women or children, and that none appeared afterwards to have been injured. And what did the learned judge say in charging the jury after that great body of evidence was given? He first of all said:—
    "The case was of some importance, but not of transcendent importance. He could not agree with Mr. Wood that it was a case that could have been disposed of at Petty Sessions."
    And he went on to say:—
    "Practically every witness for the Crown agreed that a rush was made for the second flag, and that that had started the row."
    Continuing, his Lordship said:—
    "He was glad to know that women and children had not been struck by pikes; he did not know whether the newspapers had headed their reports of this affair as 'Attacks upon women and children'; he was glad to say he did not read any of them. At any rate, what had been absolutely proved …."
    It was not a matter of inference. It was a matter the learned judge took to be absolutely proved.
    "What had been absolutely proved in that Court was that no injury had been inflicted upon women or children, and he was glad to hear that proved in Court. It detracted so much from the seriousness of the charge, and they were glad to think that nothing so dastardly or unmanly had taken place."
    Proceeding, the learned judge said:—
    "Fourteen witnesses, thirteen policemen, and the Rev. Robt. Barron had been examined for the Crown. In regard to the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Barron, he admitted to Mr. Wyllie that after the occurrence and in the heat of the excitement, he was interviewed by a representative of a Belfast paper, and that he had used very much stronger language than when he was upon his oath."
    That, in short, is the history of Castledawson. It is a history which begins with the Rev. Robert Barron, and ends with him, and he has made no serious statement in this Castledawson affair, which he has
    252
    not contradicted himself, either upon his oath in Derry or in his letter to the "Times." As regards the other charges made about Belfast, I notice there has not been very much put into the indictment to-day about what took place at Belfast following this unfortunate occurrence in July last. What we do know, from the Lord Justice Cherry in Belfast the other day, is that, although eighty persons were treated in hospital for injuries received during the unfortunate shipyard dispute, not one single person was convicted. Lord Justice Cherry, in one of these cases, complained bitterly that religious issues were raised in every case, with the result that in no case would a jury convict. Let me read one extract from his charge to the jury in Court in Belfast:—
    "It was a most disgraceful thing for the city of Belfast, that a respectable workman could not come home from his work at night, and could not safely pass a group of men of the opposite religion to himself without incurring the risk of being attacked. That was what was most important. The man was attacked because he was a Roman Catholic and a Nationalist, and for no other reason. It was not suggested that he gave any offence. He was a poor hard-working man, who, from early morning to evening was working in the Sirocco Works. He Was going home when he was set upon and beaten in the way we have heard. It was a terrible thing that that could happen in the streets of Belfast."
    He went on to say:—
    "It would be a still worse thing and a still more disgraceful thing if it had happened, and if evidence of the clearest character were given as regarded who were his assailants, if a Belfast jury would not convict them. He told the jury that plump and plain, and in that case, as far as he could judge, there was evidence of identification of the accused so clear that it was absolutely impossible to conceive any clearer. One could not conceive any criminal trial taking place, from petty larceny to manslaughter, where a man was charged with any offence they chose to name, in which there could be clearer identification of the accused than in the case the jury were trying. … Juries who were accustomed to their business, and who minded their business, would disregard evidence of that kind. They had evidence as clear as it could be, and it was their duty in his mind to act upon it."
    5.0 P.M.
    The jury did not act upon that advice, and out of a dozen trials that took place in Belfast, there were two disagreements, and in every other case the accused were not convicted. It is not in the indictment of the Government that eighty persons were treated in the hospital for serious injuries, and no single person was convicted. That is a most glaring case of the failure of justice that has taken place in our time in Ireland, and I am glad the hon. Members above the Gangway have given us this opportunity of discussing the administration of justice in that country, because we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by a full disclosure of the facts.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: With one observation made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I entirely agree, and that is in regard to what he said about the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Antrim (Major M'Calmont). It would have been almost presumption on my part to have done it, because my hon. and gallant Friend is exactly the same age as myself, although I have had a longer Parliamentary experience, but I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think I ever heard a speech which contained so much matter put so shortly and clearly, and I congratulate him upon that speech. I want to deal faithfully with the speech we have just heard, but, like him, I want to proceed in my own way. I will promise to deal fully and faithfully with the whole of what he has said about the Castledawson affair. I want, in the first place, to formulate one or two more counts in the indictment which we bring against the Government. I want to put before the House two sides of the various proceedings which have taken place in Ireland. In Ireland, as in this country, the prerogative of mercy is exercised by the Lord Lieutenant, on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers—that is to say, on the advice of the Chief Secretary of the day. I want to call attention to a very recent occurrence in which this prerogative has been exercised and the way in which it has been exercised. On 19th December one Patrick Arkins was convicted of an offence at the Cork Assizes. There was a farm at Toormore, county Clare, which had been in the possession of one McMahon, who was evicted from it twenty-five or thirty years ago. When McMahon was evicted a certain person named FitzPatrick purchased the goodwill of the farm from the son of the tenant who had been evicted. No suggestion has been made that the sum of money paid was not sufficient, and FitzPatrick enjoyed peaceable possession on the farm for a long time. During the last few years Mrs. FitzPatrick has been subjected to a long serious of outrages, the culmination of which was a cattle drive, which took place on 19th December, The only person arrested for this offence was the man Arkins, who apparently was not one of the ringleaders. He was not accused of being a ringleader, but he was present on the occasion and took part in the unlawful assembly, and was caught in the act of destroying a fence. He was charged with taking part in an unlawful
    254
    assembly and with destroying the fence. He was convicted and Sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, and I should like to read to the House what the judge said in passing that sentence, because it is of some importance in this connection. The judge was Mr. Justice Dodd. Of course, a judge is supposed to have no political principles or political opinions, but I should not be far wrong if I said that when this judge did hold political opinions they were Radical opinions. Mr. Justice Dodd said:—
    "The prisoner was probably one of the least guilty."
    And then he goes on to say:—
    "If he, even after he was found guilty, had come for ward and expressed regret, and handed to the police the names of those who were with him that night, to be dealt with as the police thought fit, then he could ask for mercy. But instead of doing that he preferred to adopt another course. He would not tell who the other guilty parties were. He came forward as a foe and asked for mercy. When order was restored in the district from which the prisoner came it world be the proper time to make application for mercy. His lordship was certain that when that condition prevailed in the county, and the police could report to the Lord Lieutenant that there was no disorder there, the Lord Lieutenant for the time being would be very pleased to exercise his clemency. Until then those associated with the prisoner were in a state of war—war against the Government and war against the police. During the case the authorities had got an indication of what existed in the district. The prisoner's side had given away more than they thought, and his lordship, though he had spoken to no one outside the Court, could know that it was under consideration whether some of the witnesses for the defence would be prosecuted for perjury or not. They had done nothing to help the Crown. The jury had brought in very properly a verdict of guilty, and now the prisoner, still unrepentant, came forward as a foe and asked for mercy. There was not even a whisper of penitence. The sentence of the Court was that the accused he kept in penal servitude for seven years."
    And so Mr. Patrick Arkins disappeared from the 19th December to serve his sentence of seven years' penal servitude. What happened? Certain hon. Members in this House interested themselves in his case, and the hon. Member whom I see in his place was one of those who thought it right to bring the matter before the notice of the Chief Secretary.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I had it before that.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Well, at any rate, the Chief Secretary became seised of the matter by some means or other. What happened? Arkins, who on the 19th December was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, was walking about outside on the 4th of March on a ticket of leave. I understand that there is an agitation on foot for a free pardon, and his friends hope that they will be able to obtain it. I think that beats the hunger-

    255
    strike hollow, and the performances of the Home Secretary are nothing to the performances of the Chief Secretary for Ireland if, after remarks of that kind made by a judge in the course of his exercise of judicial authority in sentencing a prisoner, these words are to receive no more respect than they have done from the Chief Secretary, because the prerogative of mercy in this case seems to have been very lightly exercised by him. It is impossible to discuss this question without a certain amount of justifiable indignation, and I do not want to be more provocative than is absolutely necessary. I want the House for a moment to consider how those who break the law in the South of Ireland are treated. The House will have noticed a statement that the learned judge spoke about the state of county Clare, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down had something to say on that topic. Here is the latest information available with regard to county Clare. Here, for instance is the evidence of a district inspector in that county which was given at the Constabulary Barracks, Ennis, on 27th November:—
    "District Inspector Davis, Corofin, gave evidence that from January, 1919, to that date there were 104 serious outrages in his district."
    This inspector's district is only a little bit of the county. He further stated:—
    "In forty-two cases firearms were used, twenty-seven were malicious injuries, thirty-two were of threatening notices, one ease of bomb explosion outside a house, one robbery of arms, and one attempted bribery."
    I am informed that in Clare, between January, 1910, and October, 1912, there were 457 cases in fifty-four of which firearms were used, and that is a picture of the state of things existing at the time which this learned judge referred to. This system of agrarian outrage and intimidation has formed part of what is known as the graziers' agitation which has been going on for a long time. I have been careful to look up what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had to say with regard to convictions in the palmy days of cattle-driving, before the Home Rule Bill was introduced. In the year 1908 the right hon. Gentleman gave the figures for cases up to 12th December, 1908, the number of cases was 1,051. Proceedings were taken in 162 out of that number and 1,582 persons were implicated. Out of that number how many were convicted? Only seventeen out of 1,582. Let me call the attention of the House to what another eminent judicial authority has said within the last
    256
    few weeks as to the state of things in that part of Ireland. The right hon. Mr. Justice Kenny, addressing the Grand Jury at the Connaught Winter Assizes in the County Crown Court, Limerick, on 3rd December, said:—
    "The county of Limerick was stated to be in a peaceful state, but he could gather from the reports before him that such peace was only superficial since the July Assizes. There were six cases of argon, two of maiming cattle, three of malicious injuries, five of threatening letters and notices, and one of firing at a dwelling house. There was a number of people under police protection. … With regard to Roscommon and Galway, although he was informed there was a slight improvement in a portion of the latter county, the condition of things seemed to be still deplorable. In Roscommon there was a large increase of serious crime. There were seven cases of arson, four of threatening letters and notices, and police protection had to be afforded to several people. The statistics of county Galway showed that portions of it enjoyed an unenviable reputation for outrage and intimidation."
    And he gives the cases.
    "His Lordship regretted to say that in all the counties where that most cowardly form of intimidation had been exercised, the exertions of the police had been rendered ineffectual in making anyone amenable."
    The right hon. Gentleman himself has been responsible for a complete statement of figures in a Return which he presented to this House on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Down (Captain Craig). I find from those figures that in the six years 1906–1911 there were 2,350 agrarian outrages and only eight-two convictions. Quoting again from the Return, I see there were 837 shooting and bomb outrages involving injury to or death of 227 persons, whilst convictions were only obtained in 137 cases. Less persons were convicted than were either killed or injured. It is not suggested that any of these shooting outrages or any of the cases I have mentioned took place in the North-East corner of Ireland. There is no such suggestion, and, in point of fact, everybody knows they did not. I mention these cases in order to show how far the Government, have made a really serious attempt to enforce the law in the South and West of Ireland. Contrast that with the state of things when the Government have to deal with offences against the law by Unionists in the North-East corner of Ireland. There is no doubt that the law has been broken. I have myself said so before in this House. It is all very well to affect reprobation, but you cannot affect surprise under the circumstances. You cannot, in view of the state of things which exists, and which has existed in Belfast, wonder that things have become unduly exacerbated. The proceedings of the Government and the way in which the Government have sought to administer

    257
    justice in Belfast have done far more to exacerbate than to allay feeling in Belfast. The Government adopted a most extraordinary method of procedure. A Divisional Court in Ireland, although holding their method of proceeding to be strictly legal within the letter of the law, also took occasion to remark that it was extremely unusual. One Judge in the High Court went so far as to say that the Government procedure amounted to a travesty of justice. They charged certain men with various offences—conspiracy, I think—and, having got them before the Recorder, they then entered a nolle prosequi, which means that they withdrew the case. Immediately after having entered a nolle prosequi they arraigned the men before a Court of which I will only say that it was of a peculiar composition. The Chief Baron, in giving judgment upon the case, pointed out that, according to his knowledge—and according also to the knowledge of the counsel who took part in the case, and according to the best of my own knowledge and belief—there was no case on the records of the Court in which action of this kind had been taken before by the Government. There has never been a case in which the Government, having entered a nolle prosequi, has tried to secure a conviction.
    There was also the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. McKenzie and Harvey were arrested on 7th March, charged with the offence of conspiracy. In the ordinary way when a man is charged with an offence he is arrested as soon as possible after the commission of that offence. He is arrested as soon as the Government or the party concerned have had time to collect their information. That is only fair, and only in accordance with the great constitutional rule of not delaying justice. It is fair to the Crown and it is fair to the person charged, because it gives him an opportunity of collecting any witnesses and of getting any evidence he may wish to collect when it is fresh in the minds of the people concerned. These men were arrested on 7th March, on information sworn on 3rd March for an offence committed on 17th September. It may be said that it took the Government a long time to get their case together and that they took action as soon as they could, but it is on the records of the Court, in the evidence of the detectives concerned, that the Government had all the information they required in October, the offence having been committed on 17th September,
    258
    and that no additional information whatever was acquired after October. That is on record in the evidence of the chief officer concerned in the case, and I say it is a perfectly disgraceful proceeding of the Government that they should have taken action in the way they did. Here you have a picture of the Government on the one hand exercising what I can only characterise as undue leniency to men in the South and West of Ireland, and, on the other hand, straining every turn and twist of the law in order to try and secure convictions against men who happen to be their political opponents. I do not think that is creditable to the Government, and I do not think it is even-handed justice or likely to allay feeling in Belfast. The hon. and learned Gentleman brought a charge against the public citizens of Belfast acting in their capacity of jurymen, and he quoted Lord Justice Cherry, who is the first person who has ever had a word to say against a Belfast jury. What did the Recorder of Belfast say? He had nothing but good to say of Belfast juries. It was not until the Government took these proceedings, which brought justice into contempt in Belfast, as everywhere else, that a very natural feeling of exasperation was created.
    Let me call attention to one other little case which is interesting as affording a sort of idea as to the way in which the Government, approach their duties at the present time. Some years ago, I think in 1898, the Congested Districts Board formulated a scheme for encouraging the erection of better small dwelling-houses in Ireland by the medium of grants, and in order to give these grants they set up a scheme of what are called parish committees. They were first set up in 1898, and they were remodelled in 1905, and again in 1910. I think, on the whole, they have worked satisfactorily. These parish committees consist of various gentlemen interested in the locality, including the resident landlords or their land agents, and they are administered by a president and a secretary. It has been decided, and rightly decided, that the appointment of the secretary must be confirmed by the Congested Districts Board before it is made final, the reason for that being that these parish committees are the channels through which the golden stream of beneficence of the Congested Districts Board flows. They have a very considerable amount of influence and of authority and power; they can direct that stream of

    259
    beneficence into various channels, according as they think right and fit. The Congested Districts Board and the Government therefore decided, and rightly and wisely decided, that before any secretary or supervisor was appointed by these bodies the appointment should be confirmed by the Congested Districts Board. One of these parish committees—the parish committee of Castleisland—in 1911 appointed as their secretary and supervisor one Mr. Richard J. Walsh. The appointment came up before the Congested Districts Board, and it was duly confirmed by the Board.
    Who is Mr. Richard J. Walsh, and what had he done that he should be appointed as secretary and supervisor to direct the golden streams of the Government's beneficence? Mr. Richard J. Walsh is a gentleman who had peculiar and, perhaps, not altogether common economic views. He was appointed in 1911. Two short years before he had an acute difference of opinion with his landlord. His landlord was of the absurd view that when a man occupied a holding he ought to pay rent. Mr. Walsh, I say, held peculiar economic views. He did not agree, and he refused to pay rent. The landlord attempted to recover by the civil power, and the civil power was not welcomed by Mr. Richard J. Walsh. It is reported that on that occasion Sergeant McIntyre, of the Constabulary Depot, Dublin, gave evidence of a march to Walsh's house, commonly known as Walsh's Fort. Walsh had fortified his house, and it was strenuously defended. Tar, boiling whitewash, and other fluids were dashed on the police. That is the gentleman whom the Congested Districts Board delight to honour. That is the gentleman whom they confirm in his appointment as secretary and supervisor of their own parish committee, and I may also add that I am informed that since his election the gentleman in question has celebrated the feast of Christmas not wisely but too well, ending by being locked up and convicted in the Police Court of being drunk and disorderly on 30th December. I do not lay too much stress on that, because at that time of the year revels do take place, and perhaps a certain amount of latitude may be allowed even to people occupying such a public position. It is perfectly absurd of the Government to say, as they do say, that they had no knowledge whatever of these incidents in Mr. Walsh's varied career when they confirmed his appointment as
    260
    supervisor and secretary of this parish committee. If they had not got that information, it was singularly negligent of them to appoint him at all. I am anxious to believe everything the right hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot bring myself to believe that. Everyone in Ireland, even a lunatic or a baby, knew of the history of Walsh's Fort, and the right hon. Gentleman who confirmed the appointment has answered, not one, but a hundred questions in this House with regard to the matter. If further information is wanted, the hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Mayo (Mr. Fitzgibbon), who is himself a connoisseur in somewhat unlawful proceedings, is a member of the Congested Districts Board. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman will get up in his place and say that when Mr. Walsh was appointed as secretary and supervisor to the Castle-island parish committee he had never heard of his name before and knew nothing of his history. I can only say that if that is the way in which the Government business is done, it is a very disgraceful state of affairs.
    Mr. FITZGIBBON: May I say that this is the first time I ever heard of this Mr. Walsh, to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the hon. Gentleman assures me, on his responsibility as a Member of this House, that it is the first time he ever heard of this Mr. Walsh, I at once accept his word. I come now to what the hon. Gentleman has to say in regard to the Castledawson case. He began his speech with very strong language as to the statements made by the Rev. Mr. Barron. But those statements were made by Mr. Barron before the Court of his Church, which, after careful inquiry, endorsed them and asked for a sworn inquiry, in order that the statement might be further dealt with. The hon. and learned Gentleman began by contrasting what he called the methods, or rather the remarks made in his letter by Mr. Barron, with some subsequent statement by that gentleman. Unfortunately my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham is not here, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting him in regard to the matter, but I hold in my hand a letter from the Rev. Mr. Barron, and he says:—
    "I wrote no such letter, and if any such letter exists it is a forgery."
    I have looked up the Debate, and I find my Noble Friend did not purport to quote

    261
    from a letter. That statement is, therefore, a pure invention. What he did quote is evidently part of a newspaper account, and it is a matter of common knowledge that newspaper accounts are not always entirely accurate, either on one side or the other.
    Mr. MULDOON: May I just say that I asked the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham whether he was reading from a statement made to him by the Rev. Robert Barron, or a newspaper, and he replied that it was from manuscript supplied to him for the purposes of the Debate by the reverend gentleman.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is quite a misunderstanding; it is obvious that the statements quoted by my Noble Friend were quoted from documents supplied to him. It has been suggested that the statement that the struggle lasted a considerable time, and that many would bear the scars of it to their dying day, was written by Mr. Barron. Again, I have a letter from that gentleman stating that he wrote no such letter, and, if it existed, it was a forgery. I cannot say more than that. I know personally of nothing about the rights or wrongs of the situation.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Does Mr. Barron deny having written any letter to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: He does not deny that, and my Noble Friend admits that he quoted certain statements from information supplied to him by the reverend gentleman. It has been repeatedly suggested in the Radical Press that there is an inconsistency between Mr. Barron's statement on this occasion and his subsequent statement, but the reverend gentleman's reply to that is that he made no such statement in any letter which he wrote, and that is my answer to that part of the charge. Next I come to the allegation that Mr. Barron did not produce this evidence as to the injuries suffered by women and children, although he said it existed. My answer to that is that on 26th November, two weeks before the Assize trial, Mr. Barron sent to the Crown authorities a list containing the names of the injured persons to whom he referred. That was admitted by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture yesterday. The list, therefore, was in existence. It was in the custody of the Crown two weeks before the trial, and, what is more, it was supplied
    262
    at the request of the Crown and of the local police, who went to Mr. Barron and asked him for it. The Chief Secretary does not deny it was in possession of the Crown. I want the House to be quite clear what our charge is against the Government in regard to this matter. Reference has been made to the judgment of Mr. Justice Wright, and that judgment is being used all over the country by the party opposite and by the Nationalists, who are saying that the judge found there was no proof that any woman or child was injured, and that there was no proof of premeditation. Our charge simply is that, having in their hands proof of which they might have availed themselves, had they thought it worth while, primâ facie proof of injuries to women and children, and primâ facie proof of premeditation, they suppressed both and produced nothing. As regards women and children, the Government admit that a list was given to the police containing the names of those injured. It was given at the request of the police; it contained also the addresses of these persons. I will go further and say that, in the last few days, many of these persons have made sworn statements before a magistrate, and my hon. Friend read one or two by women and children. I have one by a man to the effect that he was in the procession and had a little girl in his arms when the Hibernians broke through, and one of them struck him on the face, knocking him into a ditch with the girl in his arms. I do not propose to read any more statements; they are on record; they were all sworn before a magistrate. Hon. Gentlemen may say that these people are liars. If that is so our case goes by the board. I think it is very unlikely that they are all liars. It is very unlikely there is a common conspiracy among these people, among women and children, to unite in one great big, common lie and to swear to it before a magistrate. If one of these statements is true, the whole case which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to set up goes by the board. It may be asked, "Why were not these people produced at the trial? Why did not the Rev. Mr. Barron produce these women and children?" The answer is that, unfortunately for the aims of justice, Mr. Barron was not the prosecutor in the case. The control of the case rested with the Crown. It was for the Crown to decide what evidence he should call or refuse to call, what questions they should put to Mr. Barron,

    263
    and what use they should make of the list which they admit they obtained from him. On their responsibility they decided to make no use of it. In point of fact not one of the persons reported to the police as having been injured was called. Not one was asked the question, "Were you injured?" or "Is this statement of the Rev. Mr. Barron true?" Not a single question of that nature was put by the Crown counsel Not a witness was called from the list supplied at the request of the police, yet the Crown counsel sat still and allowed the judge to observe that there was no proof of injuries to women or children.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: What about Mr. Barron's letter in the "Times"?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Crown counsel and the Crown Solicitor with that list in their pockets sat still, and allowed the judge to say that there was no proof given of injuries to women or children! But whose fault was it that no proof was given? It was the fault of the Crown. They were the only people who could have given the proof, and they did not do so. The right hon. Gentleman has a heavy responsibility to discharge to this House to explain why no proof of the kind was given.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: What about the letter in the "Times"? Be candid.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A great deal was made of the suggestion by the judge that he was glad there was no proof that this was a premeditated affair. No evidence was called to show that it was premeditated, but there was evidence at the disposal of the Crown which would have shown that it was, for I have it on authority that they had in their possession the testimony of a police-constable which would have gone a long way to prove premeditation. This police-constable (McHugh) was called as a witness in the next case, that against the Protestants, and the sum and substance of his evidence was that he heard a man named Beeston say that there would be a row, and that the Hibernians were well able for it. Was that constable called at the trial? Was that question put to him? He was not called, and no question was put to him. The Crown counsel and the Crown Solicitor sat there with this evidence in their pockets, which allowed the judge to say there was no evidence of premeditation, and no questions whatever were asked on
    264
    the point. That is not open-handed justice. There is one brand of justice in Ireland for the cattle-driver, and there is another for the Unionist.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is not true.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman himself is personally responsible. I would not for a moment make any suggestion of the kind, but for the doings of his underlings he must bear the Parliamentary responsibility. The rod of office has been used in this case, I firmly believe, to muddy the wells of justice. When you ask us, as most hon. Gentlemen do, what we are afraid of under Home Rule, and why we express the fears we do with regard to the passage of some such Bill as that which was recently before the House, I answer: This is a class of thing which makes us have fears for the future. It is the fact that the administration of justice, even under present conditions, is not even fair. Remember that under the conditions that may come to pass under that Bill your judges are going to be appointed by and be responsible to an Irish Executive and an Irish House of Commons, and that their Executive is Irish and not English. If these things are done in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The peroration to which we have just listened from the hon. Gentleman probably is the reason and may be an excuse for the long speech he has made. I hope to deal with his various points. I quite agree with his opening remarks in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member (Major M'Calmont) upon the maiden speech he delivered. Although we cannot help being sorry for the reason that brings him here, we are glad that he is here, and are sure that he will maintain the honour and distinction of his name. I think his sermon was a little better than his text, but he chose the text, and is entitled to be congratulated upon having preached an excellent sermon upon a very inferior text. I think the Castledawson incident is one of the best examples that could possibly have been given of the harm that is done to a good case by unnecessary exaggeration and rhetorical assertion, because there is no doubt that the incident in its origin and its method was a very shocking outrage. There is no doubt whatever that the Hibernians were the instigators and originators of a disturbance which certainly bore a cowardly and most

    265
    disagreeable aspect. Therefore, if hon. Gentlemen opposite and their newspapers had been content to reprobate an attack of that kind upon grown-up people who were assaulted and injured, not, I am happy to say, to death, or indeed permanently, but still so as to inflict upon them a cruel and painful outrage—if they had been content to confine themselves to that, they would have had a good case.
    The proceedings took the form, I am glad to think, of legal proceedings, criminal proceedings, and the culprits turned out, when they appeared in the dock, to be first offenders, which shows what these horrible factions and religious fights can produce. The learned judge said that a more decent-looking set of fellows he never saw before him, and it would have been a great grief to him if he had been obliged to think that they had, in addition to the sin of making a wanton attack upon a peaceful Sunday-school party, been guilty of wantonly attacking women and children, or indeed if the outrage had been worse than it was. He went on to say that he was glad they were free from that, and proceeded to sentence them to three months' imprisonment. I will deal with the exercise of clemency, such as it was, later. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did he not exonerate them from any attacks upon women and children?"] In this miserable story everybody claims the right to tell it in his own way, and even I must share in the privilege of stating the case. The learned judge was evidently struck with the respectable character of these people as they appeared in the dock. They were all first offenders, and he rejoiced to think that they were not in any way guilty of wanton attacks upon women and children. It appears that there are persons who are interested in proving that this attack by these Hibernians was not confined to an attack by throwing stones on a mixed assembly composed partly of adults, partly of women, and partly of children, but that it is absolutely necessary to bring home to certain persons that women and children were stabbed—that is the expression that was used—with the pikes or halberds, which I dare say are formidable enough things, which are carried by the Hibernians as part of their adornment or equipment, or whatever the right word may be. We have had a trial, and now it appears that we must have it all over again on the floor of the House, that an Act of Parliament is to be passed authorising a sworn inquiry to be held
    266
    for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Rev. Mr. Barron was right or wrong in making allegations, if he did make them, or when he did make them, that women and children were physically injured and brutally assaulted by these Hibernians.
    All I can make is a chronological statement as to the facts. This incident, this cruel and wanton proceeding to which I have referred, took place on 29th June, 1912. The first statement the Rev. Mr. Barron ever made was made in the "Northern Whig" of 4th July, 1912, when the matter was fresh in his mind. During the whole of this painful incident, which I have no doubt did make a powerful impression upon his mind, he, as the custodian of his flock, appears to have acted with a great deal of courage. He collected his people together, and behaved as a valued pastor would be expected to behave. Five or six days after the occurrence he gives the account which appeared in the "Northern Whig." No mention whatever is made by him in that statement of women and children having been injured. If it did happen he must have been aware of it, because he was all over the place. He was flaming, like Ariel, all over the scene. He behaved with great courage. He collected the women and children together, and did his very best for them, and yet five or six days after the occurrence he does not mention the incident, which is now the sole basis of our Debate. Then he wrote a letter to the London "Times" on 1st August, 1912, and in that letter also no reference whatever is made to injuries to women or children. In fact, he says they were not hurt—that was his case that they were not hurt in the sense of being particularly attacked, stabbed, or anything of the kind. So we get his statement on the 4th July and again on the 1st August. On the 26th November he furnishes a list to the police. Here I may say that Mr. Barron, since he knew that the matter was to be one for criminal proceedings—twenty-five defendants had warrants issued against them—was exceedingly anxious that I should give him a personal guarantee that he would be called as a witness. That seemed to be only right and proper, and I said that so far as was necessary I would give him a guarantee that he would be called. On the 26th November, 1912, I believe he furnished a list to the police. At any rate, he certainly furnished them with a list prior to the trial. That list he

    267
    sent on to me after the trial, and here it is. I believe this is an autograph letter—at any rate, I hope so, and that it is not a forgery. It is written from—
    "The Manse, Whitehouse, Belfast,
    "January 4th, 1913.
    "List of Members of Whitehouse Presbyterian Sunday School excursion party who were injured by Hibernians on 29th June, 1912, at Castledawson:—
    Men: Silas Renwick, stabbed in the hand by a pike.
    Samuel McKelvey, stabbed in forehead by a pike.
    James Mitchell, stabbed in head by a pike.
    William Edward McCullagh, struck with weapon on the eye.
    Robert McClay, struck with pike on head."
    He mentions five other persons, all of whom were struck with pikes or bludgeons. They were all men.
    "Children struck: Pearl McKelvey, aged 12, struck with stone, seriously injured.
    Maggie Birney, 15, struck with stone, hurt.
    Sarah Brennan, 16, knocked down and kicked."
    Those are the children. Then seven women were mentioned with these particulars:—suffered from shock, in doctor's hands; suffered since from St. Vitus Dance, in doctor's hands; convulsions, very ill since; had a fit that night; ill for weeks afterwards; nervous breakdown; hat covered with blood, very ill that night. Those are the women, and it is perfectly clear, and no doubt the case that these women suffered from the shock and had not suffered from any physical or actual injury done to themselves. What is important is that three children were struck with stones. That is the allegation, and it is a serious one.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: May I see that letter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, certainly. The allegation made against the Crown Prosecutor is certainly very serious. It is that with that list in his hand he did not state that the three children were struck with stones. [An HON. MEMBER: "Kicked."] One was kicked.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: One was struck with a pike.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, all three of them were struck with stones. Really the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me is not the Rev. Robert Barron, nor was he present, I believe, on this occasion. That is the list, and the allegation is that the Crown Prosecutor, with that list in his hands, committed a dereliction of duty, he having clear evidence of riot and of violent assaults by these people and that he ought to have called evidence to show that three children were struck with stones,
    268
    and one of them alleged to be kicked, by whom it is not stated. One may easily be kicked in a crowd running away. I have never heard such a ridiculous allegation made against a person who was bringing a case against certain persons of riot and assault who was able to prove that they had been guilty of these serious outrages against a considerable number of men. They did not encumber the case any further by investigating it. The fact that a list was furnished proves nothing more than that they had been struck with stones, and one said he or she had been kicked. That is a most monstrous charge to make against a member of a learned profession conducting a case on behalf of the prosecution. There was no allegation or suggestion made up to that time by anybody of these serious offences which are now brought out. Now, what is alleged? At the trial on 21st December, 1911, the rev. gentleman was called—this man who has taken such an active part in this concern, who had proved himself at all events a very considerable master of language, who had made the very best case he possibly could. He was called, and yet we are told he was so tongue-tied in the box, so dominated, so tyrannised over by Mr. Justice Wright—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—that when he was asked a question on the very point, "What allegation do you make?" he plainly said he made none. Mr. Barron does not need even the advocacy of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. H. Campbell). No doubt he will get it for nothing, but he does not need it in any way whatsoever. He was there at the trial, and he was quite able to take care of himself and to put forward any case of injury to women and children.
    I do not wish to say anything against the Rev. Robert Barron at all, but it is rather curious that eight months after the event and six weeks after the trial two ladies were introduced into the case, a Miss Humphreys and a Miss Chanceller, who, according to their own account, were unconscious. Miss Humphreys received most serious injuries, being struck by a pike over the shoulder. She was a member of his congregation living in the same parish as himself, and he never heard of it or discovered anything about it until he came to make a visitation of his congregation eight months after the event. I find that rather difficult to believe. At the same time all I can say is that there must be an end of litigation

    269
    at some time or another. The incident took place in June. The trial was not until 21st December. It was tried by a most competent judge, and witnesses were called. The Rev. Robert Barron himself was called and every possibility was given him of introducing anyone he chose. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]. Why not? We knew nothing whatever about Miss Humphreys or Miss Chanceller. They do not appear upon the scene until six weeks after the trial was over. The only persons we knew anything about were the three children. There was no occasion to call these other women who complained of shock. We were dealing with people who had received serious injuries and wounds. We had a long list of men who had received such wounds and we had the names of the three children who have been mentioned, who had been struck with stones and one kicked, and the Crown Prosecutor proved quite enough to get a conviction against these persons without calling the children said to have been struck with stones, as part of a school party who had in no way been wounded or savagely attacked, I am sorry to say, many people went about the country giving the impression that the children were assaulted and cruelly wounded and stabbed by the Hibernians. Not a single child was stabbed. Not a single woman was stabbed. That much at least has been clearly established, and there is no such allegation except with regard to these two persons, who have really come upon the scene too late and after ample time had been given for full discussion and consideration of the question. I really cannot see how anyone can make a charge against the Crown that they did not prosecute in this case, and prosecute to conviction, the persons who were accused of having broken up the party. With regard to the allegation that the police heard something in a railway train, I hear of that for the first time. It is said some police-constable, in a train, heard someone say the Hibernians knew there was going to be a row, and that they should at all events have cross-examined the constable. For all I know they may have done that.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They produced him in the case against the Protestants, but not in the case against the Hibernians.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The evidence he gave against the Protestants was not the evidence on which the Protestants were attempted to be convicted. There was no
    270
    evidence before the Crown Prosecutor before the constable made it in the box. I remember when the case first came on I rejoiced that it was going to be made the subject-matter of criminal proceedings, and I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. H. Campbell) agreed with me that we could have no better form of inquiry into the case than criminal proceedings. They have had that. These Hibernians were put on their trial and were convicted of a serious outrage committed upon the male portion of the school treat, and they received their sentence. Then the Lord Lieutenant has been accused of exercising the prerogative of mercy in a strange manner. The sentence was three months. If that had run out, if these persons had misbehaved themselves and had not got good marks, their term would have expired on 3rd March. If they had got good marks, which they all did, for they all behaved exceedingly well in prison, they would have been let out on 16th February. As a matter of fact, they were let out on 4th February. They were let off twelve days from the sentence which they would have received.
    We received, as one generally does in Ireland, petitions from residents in Castledawson of all classes and professions, Unionists, Conservatives, Nationalists, Orangemen, Liberals, clergymen of all denominations, praying for the remission of the unexpired period of the sentence. More than a third of the signatories were Protestants, among them being the rector of Castledawson and Mr. Alexander Clark, J.P., proprietor of a large linen factory in Castledawson. The fact was that, though it may seem to suit hon. Gentlemen opposite to describe these Hibernians as ruffians, and although I admit they behaved in a ruffianly way, they were not, apart from these religious factions, ruffianly persons. None of them had come across the law before. Their appearance attracted the favourable notice of Mr. Justice Wright, and the clergy and gentry of the neighbourhood combined in presenting this memorial, and as the result of the memorial they were let out twelve days before they otherwise would have been. If it had been left to me—I knew nothing about it—I would have left them there for the twelve days, because hon. Gentlemen are always nowadays calling in question the action of the Lord Lieutenant. He thought he could let them out twelve days before the conclusion of the sentence. To say he did this

    271
    contrary to the wishes of the neighbourhood is not true, because the memorial I quote is evidence of that. He let them out, and perhaps you are entitled to say they ought to have been in prison twelve days more than they were. I do not suppose that would have done them any particular good or any particular harm, and to raise this as a case against the Lord Lieutenant for the manner in which he has exercised the prerogative of mercy is unreasonable. I therefore think on that part of the case we might surely have let bygones be bygones. These people have been imprisoned for the length of their sentence, having regard to their good behaviour, less twelve days. A conviction was obtained—not always a very easy thing in any part of Ireland where religious feelings or strong passions are excited. A conviction was obtained and you bring this case up again simply because the Rev. Robert Barron asserts as a matter of fact, that he thinks there were two women who were injured, though he admits he did not discover them until after the trial; and to make an allegation against the Crown Prosecutor that he was certain of getting his conviction and therefore did not insist on going into the case of the three children unfortunately hit with stones is a most unreasonable exercise even of the undoubted right of an Opposition to criticise. So much for the Castledawson affair. With regard to the other case, the hon. Member drew a picture of the state of things in Clare, and Clare, as everyone knows, for centuries past, has been a great trouble to all administrators in Ireland.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not at all.
    Mr. BIRRELL: What is always the difficulty in disturbed districts like Clare or even in the North of Ireland, where religious difficulties arise? It is to obtain convictions, and the great thing you want to do is to obtain convictions. I put it to any human soul who knows anything at all about the condition of things in the West of Ireland or in Clare, what chance are you ever likely to have of getting a conviction from a jury if you sentence to seven years' penal servitude a boy…
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: What age?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Say twenty-one. A boy who the judge himself said was probably the least guilty of them all. The judge
    272
    did not mean that this sentence of seven years should be carried out, but he said to the boy, "You did not split upon your comrades, you did not let us know who your associates were. The condition of this country is very bad. I send you to prison for seven years, and you will be held there more or less as a hostage." I am not criticising the judge, though I do not think that is a wise action. He distinctly said an opportunity would soon occur, if only the people would indicate in some way their sense of shame, for the prerogative of mercy to be exercised. In my opinion that was not the wisest possible way of getting a conviction in Clare, but the judge had got a conviction, and a sentence proportionate to the offence would, I think, have been the obvious course for him to adopt. He never meant for a moment that a person should be kept in penal servitude for seven or for six years because he had knocked down a wall, although it was a bad case. It was a case of persistent persecution of a particular person, therefore it is not right simply to say he was sent to prison for seven years for knocking down a wall, but the judge himself said he was not the person most responsible. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, when he comes to sit upon the bench, would never pass such a sentence, though I dare say it would be better if he did, because the prisoner would be able to be let out sooner than he otherwise would have been if a reasonable and proportionate sentence had been passed.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will never come up before me.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice. I am taking a case which involves no political prejudice. It was a difficult case, and when it came before the Lord Lieutenant I was consulted, and therefore the responsibility is mine as much as the Lord Lieutenant's. It was as difficult a case as I have ever had to decide upon. One thing which was clear to me was that the sentence could not stand. That was impossible, and therefore we made the best arrangements we could. I think the condition of things in that part of Clare is very much better now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, an improvement is noticeable, even there. Instead of allowing a sentence of this sort to be rigorously adhered to—it was not our intention to adhere to it—it was better to allow the

    273
    boy out of prison without having to undergo confinement for six or seven long years. He is now out on ticket of leave, under conditions which give a considerable hold on him. I know from the police that he is by no means the dangerous character some people represent him to be. I think, so far as this Debate has gone, we may be satisfied and rest quite content with the issue as regards the Castledawson affair. I was very glad that the persons who took part in that outrage received and served sentences they thoroughly deserved.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: It is quite true, as the Chief Secretary observed, that it was necessary to say something in defence of the gentleman who has been so much assailed. I think the House likes to get advocacy of that kind, because it is likely to be more disinterested than if you are paid for it. Let us see what is the exact nature of the charge we bring against the Executive in regard to the Castledawson case, because the issue has been a little obscured by the Chief Secretary. If it were a question of accuracy of recollection, or the precise consistency of the various statements made by the Rev. Mr. Barron, I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. But that is only an incident of the case. It is not our complaint. Our complaint is of a very specific character It has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson). It is that at the trial the learned judge was allowed to remain under the impression by the Crown counsel who conducted the prosecution, first of all, that this attack had been made without premeditation; and, secondly, that he was allowed to believe that in this attack neither women nor children were injured. The learned judge said so in the speech he made to the jury and also when sentencing the accused. He said the matter assumed a much less serious aspect than it might have done, because he was glad to see that on the evidence produced by the Crown there was complete absence of premeditation, and no injury to women or children. Our complaint is that that false impression was deliberately produced on the mind of the judge by the improper conduct of the counsel who appeared for the prosecution. I have been in this House a good many years, and cases of this kind and discussions on the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have cropped up here from time to time. I have never yet made an attack upon any member of my own profession in Ireland in
    274
    relation to his conduct when acting for the Crown. But this appears to be such a great scandal that I would not consider I was discharging my duty if I did not endeavour to have this matter fully discussed in the House.
    I am not concerned about the Rev. Mr. Barron. I have never seen him. All I know is that he is not a rector. He is a Presbyterian minister of a congregation at Whitehouse, and, so far as I know, he has never taken any part in politics. There has never been any suggestion that he ever attended political meetings. There is no evidence of the kind, but he has been made the subject by the hon. and learned Member for East Cork (Mr. Muldoon) of a very grave charge indeed. The hon. Member thought it consistent with his duty to charge the reverend gentleman with having produced a bogus list of injured people, and to state that he did not produce it until weeks after the trial. He should have known that was false if he had known anything of the facts of the case he is undertaking to challenge. He has made a very grave and gross charge, and if he had taken the trouble to listen no later than yesterday he would have known that the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), in the regrettable absence of the Chief Secretary, stated that the Rev. Mr. Barron handed in the list on 28th November last—that is to say, three weeks before the accused persons were put on their trial. Then the hon. Gentleman charged this clergyman, who has no interest in the matter except to protect himself and his flock, with getting up a bogus list. That shows the sort of justice and fair play we are going to get. The hon. Member charges him with fabricating that bogus list and not producing it until weeks after the trial. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not producing it publicly."] The hon. Member said nothing about "publicly." I took down his words. He said that the reverend gentleman never suggested that there had been any injury to women or children until he produced a bogus list. That is a gross charge, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman persists in it and has not got the good grace to withdraw. Let us look into the matter a little closer. The right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate even in reading his own documents. I do not blame him, for he would not have noticed it at first. He thought that the list only contained the names of three children, and that the rest were women. They are all children, and ten names are given.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Do not interrupt. I have pointed out that you have stated that, with the exception of three, the rest were women. The whole ten were children. The first three acutely suffered physical injury, one from being struck, another from being struck with stones, and another from being knocked down and kicked. The ages of the children ranged from five to twelve years. All suffered in various ways from the frightful shock they got on that occasion. The list which is described now as bogus, and as not having been produced until February last, was in possession of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in January, and it was in possession of the police on 28th November last. What did the police do with it? I wish to show how the prosecution was conducted. I do not think that English Members understand the situation in regard to these prosecutions in Ireland, because they are not conducted in the same way as in this country. In this country the individual aggrieved very often is given charge of the prosecution. In Ireland, I am almost safe in saying, that 90 per cent., I might say the whole 100 per cent., of the prosecutions are conducted by the Crown. They call the witnesses, and in this particular case the Rev. Mr. Barron had no more power to interfere with the prosecution or to suggest, or control, or dictate who the witnesses were to be, than you or I. On the 28th November he sent to the police the list of persons injured. I am informed—I do not vouch for it, for I am only speaking from information—that the police actually in the interval between 28th November and 22nd December, when the accused were put on trial, went round the houses and verified in each case the facts stated here. I challenge contradiction of that if it is inaccurate. Therefore Crown counsel in charge of the case knew before the men were put on trial the allegation which had been made in respect of a number of specific individuals who had suffered serious injury. Though the police had visited the homes of the people and found the facts as stated in the list, the case was conducted by Crown counsel without ever calling a single one of those who were alleged to have been injured. Not only so, but when the reverend gentleman was called to give evidence, and when he proceeded to state that, though he was not aware of his own knowledge that women or children had been injured, he had a list
    276
    of them, and had ascertained that they had been injured, objection was properly taken by counsel for the accused on the ground that that was not evidence, and that the only way it could be proved was by producing the injured people. Counsel for the defence knew his business. So also did counsel for the Crown, but he was not there for that purpose, and the judge was allowed to remain under that false impression when he gave his mild sentence. He said he was satisfied that neither women nor children were injured. How could he come to any other conclusion? Evidence was not presented to him, and the officials who could have placed it before judge and jury deliberately abstained from doing so.
    There is another matter in connection with the prosecution which has a very nasty appearance indeed. The learned judge said that he was pleased to see from the evidence that this was a mere accident. It was accidental that the two processions by a fortuitous chance met on the same piece of road, one going and another returning. What are the facts? Before the magistrate a constable named McHugh was produced, and he made a deposition in which he gave a long account of travelling in the train with the members of the Hibernian procession; of hearing them talk of the other procession, and state that they would be there to meet them, that they would have a row, and that they would get the better of them. That was sworn to, and Crown counsel had that in their briefs when the case came up at the Assizes. They deliberately abstained from calling that man, and from giving that evidence, which was vital to the question of premeditation and deliberation. The result was that again the judge was led into a wrong conclusion, that this was a mere accident, wholly unpremeditated, When the Crown counsel had in the brief before him evidence of deliberate premeditation. The counsel who represented the accused on that occasion was a distinguished member of my profession, and a Member of this House, and in the open Court, in the presence of the judge, after these facts came out, he challenged the Crown counsel with improper conduct, with partisan and unfair conduct, and the learned judge neither reproved him nor censured him in any way, because the facts had come to the learned judge's knowledge, and I believe that he was as much ashamed and annoyed at what had taken place as anybody else. That is with regard to the

    277
    Castledawson incident. Let me now say a word or two as to the extraordinary proceedings that have been going on for some months in Belfast. I would be the last man to attack the right hon. Gentleman for the utmost vigilance in enforcing the law, and for resorting to every means that are legal and within his power with a view to bringing the guilty party to justice. But what we do complain of is that for the first time in the course of his long administration this anxiety and vigilance have been displayed in the case of Belfast, and his counsel, acting, of course, under his direction, and at least in a way for which he is responsible, have resorted to devices which the King's Bench declared to be unprecedented, in the administration of justice in Ireland or in any part of the Empire, and which they declared had turned the whole proceeding into a perfect farce or comedy, though I would rather have said tragedy. These men are brought up before the Court to be tried in the ordinary course before a jury. The hon. and learned Member thought it necessary to go out of his way to make some imputation on Belfast jurors. All that I can say is…
    Mr. MULDOON: Look at what a learned judge said the other day.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: He would be the first judge in my long recollection who ever said anything except in praise of the high character of Belfast juries. I was counsel for many years in Belfast. I was in the riots of 1886 and in the riots of 1893. For many years it was my duty to defend, and in later years it was my duty to prosecute, and I say deliberately that, during all those years, I never knew a single case of miscarriage of duty in the case of a Belfast jury. Further, in the most exciting times, in 1886 and in 1893, the judge who chiefly came down there was a distinguished Liberal Roman Catholic and a great lawyer, Chief Baron Palles, who presided in the Courts on those occasions, over and over again, publicly and privately, particularly in public, bore testimony to the high character, the intelligence and fairness of Belfast juries. In 1886 and 1893 there was no difficulty when the case was proved in getting convictions whether the man was a Catholic or a Protestant. I have defended and prosecuted Catholics. I have prosecuted Protestants and defended them, and I say, without fear of contradiction, that I never found any case of the kind, even in the most exciting periods in Belfast, when there was any
    278
    difficulty or hesitation on the part of a jury in doing their duty, whether the accused person was a Catholic or a Protestant. And I remember many cases, which excited a great deal of public interest, in which Roman Catholics were being tried in connection with these political offences, where I had the honour to appear for the defence or the other way, in which Belfast juries promptly acquitted them. That being so, I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman go out of his way to try to throw a slur upon the Belfast jurymen. What was the cause of his attack? He said that there was an appalling state of affairs. Eighty persons were sent for trial in Belfast, and there was not a single conviction, and the wrath of Lord Justice Cherry is roused at this reflection that he could not get a conviction out of eighty cases. That distinguished gentleman was Attorney-General here for some years. He was Attorney-General during the period when there were 2,000 agrarian outrages, and when out of the whole 2,000 there were only eighty-two convictions. I never heard him even deplore the fact. He was Attorney-General during a period when there were in three years alone 800 outrages with firearms, in which thirty lives were taken, and 130 people mutilated, and there were prosecutions in only 5 per cent. out of those 800 cases. I never saw any tears falling from the right hon. Gentleman's eyes during the time when he was Attorney-General, and he has reserved all his moral indignation, not for Clare, not for Kerry, where there has not been a conviction in an agrarian case for years past…
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Order, order! You have no right to refer in that manner to the learned judge.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: He has reserved all his indignation for Belfast. I pass away from that. I quite recognise that the hon. and learned Gentleman has got quite enough of it. I now come to what did take place in Belfast. Some of these men were put on trial before the Recorder and a jury, in the ordinary way, and the case being doubtful the jury gave them the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted them. There were a number of other men awaiting trial before the same judge and the same jury, and the Crown counsel then took a step, which I do not deny was within their right, but which I say was, and the Court of King's Bench held to be,

    279
    without precedent; that is to say, they stopped the prosecution. I have ransacked the books, and I cannot find that that was ever done before in the history of the Empire, except in one case. Then it was done in order to get the prisoner released, because the Crown were afraid that the jury were going improperly to convict, and they stopped the case, and entered a nolle prosequi. In this case, the right hon. Gentleman's advisers stopped the case, and refused to prosecute in order to get a subsequent conviction. That is without any precedent or any parallel in the history of our jurisprudence. The Lord Chief Baron himself said so in giving the judgment of the Court, and in fact the thing became such a grave scandal in the Court, when it was investigated, that one of the judges went out of his way to say that for all time, as long as he remained a judge, whenever the Crown entered a nolle prosequi, he would take the verdict of the jury in any event, so as to save the man from the risk of further prosecution and conviction.
    What is the next thing they did? They picked out their own magistrate, a man called Emerson, and they brought up a lot of these men before him. Some of the other local justices who had exactly the same right there as he had, came and sat on the bench. He gave orders to the police, with the consent of the Crown Solicitor, whose conduct throughout the whole business has been most intolerable in the insolence of his manner and demeanour towards the magistrates, that these gentlemen should be all excluded. The moment this was brought before the King's Bench they declared Emerson's conduct to be a farce and upset the entire proceedings, and they issued an order prohibiting him from acting any longer as a magistrate in these cases. That is the sort of justice which is meted out to these men who happen to be Unionists and loyalists in Belfast. Was that sort of thing ever tried in the case of these cattle drivers and moonlighters and intimidators in Clare during the whole course of the right hon. Gentleman's administration? I know case after case—I could quote them if challenged—within the last eight years in which magistrates have packed the bench in order to refuse information against cattle drivers and moonlighters. Did the right hon. Gentleman proceed to prosecute these men as he did these mechanics and working men
    280
    in Belfast? Did he send down some of the most eminent counsel he could get to prosecute them? He never did. He let the cases go by the board. On two occasions he did pass over the magistrates, and though the magistrates had refused the information the right hon. Gentleman got a bill sending up the cases to the Assizes. But the moment the bill was found his counsel got up and said that he was not going on with it, and he entered a nolle prosequi for the purpose of getting these men off. The nolle prosequi in Belfast was for the purpose of securing a conviction.
    There are one or two other instances in contrast to that. Take, for example, the case which has often been mentioned in this House. It is a case that affected me at the time, and I have since drawn attention to it, and I never shall cease to do so so long as I have a voice to raise in advocacy of what I consider to be a just cause. I refer to the case of Mrs. McCann. That woman sent a petition to the Lord Lieutenant, in which she set out that her husband had committed two criminal offences, first, the criminal offence of wife desertion, and, secondly, the criminal offence of stealing her baby. I saw the other day that the English police boarded an American liner at Southampton for the purpose of arresting and taking off an Englishman who had deserted his wife, and who was charged with wife desertion. Was there any charge of wife desertion in the case of this young woman of twenty-two, who had two little children, one of them at the breast? Her husband deserts her, kidnaps her children, and rifles her property. It is said by the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Lieutenant that this is not a criminal matter, that it is a matter for the Civil Courts. Why, any attorney's clerk could have told them that it was a matter for the criminal law both in regard to the wife desertion and in regard to the larceny of the wife's property. But she was an unfortunate, helpless, Presbyterian girl, and they let him go, and from that hour her children have never been traced, and I suppose that on this earth she will never see them again. The right hon. Gentleman can congratulate himself that, owing to the inaction of the Executive and their refusal to take action on the plainest of cases where the matter was clearly within their juristion, they have allowed this unfortunate woman to remain without her children for all this time. I take another case. The

    281
    Unionists of the town of Limerick, acting strictly within their rights, held a public meeting for the purpose of protesting against the Home Rule Bill. There were a number of clergymen and other residnts in Limerick who attended that meeting. When they were coming out they were set upon, insulted, beaten, and stoned, the clergymen particularly suffering in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman comes down, his advisers intervene, and a number of persons are arrested. They are sent forward for trial, and every one of them is acquitted.
    What becomes of the anguish of the hon. and learned Member for Cork? He will never forget, he said; he will always think with horror and dismay over this gross miscarriage of justice in Belfast. But what about these men who are brought up for attacking these defenceless clergymen and others in Limerick, all of whom are acquitted? Did the right hon. Gentleman change the venue there, or make any application to the judge, before the case came on, to change the venue out of the disturbed city of Limerick? They were tried in the venue in which the offence occurred, and, of course, they were promptly acquitted.
    There is one other case to which I desire to refer, that of an unfortunate shoemaker named Long, who lived in Limerick. When the present King went over to Ireland this man, to show his loyalty, hung a Union Jack out of his window. That same afternoon a mob, headed by a Limerick borough councillor, broke open his house, assaulted him, and tore down and burnt the flag. This member of the Limerick. Borough Council was arrested, and was tried, curiously enough, before Mr. Justice Dodd, who for months had been sitting as a Radical Home Rule Member on the benches opposite, and, so far as his political leanings and qualifications were concerned, it hardly lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to criticise his action. Mr. Justice Dodd sentenced this man, for the very gross offence, to a month's imprisonment with hard labour; and, next day, the Limerick Borough Council, to mark their sympathy with this criminal, adjourned the whole of their business for a month. The distinction which the gentleman obtained was that, with a mob of 300, he was cowardly enough to invade one man in his home, and to abuse that man and destroy the loyal emblem which he had displayed. For that the Limerick Borough Council adjourned all
    282
    their business for a month. What happened to that man? He was let out and he got a free pardon. Why? It is alleged that one of the Law Officers—we have never seen his opinion and would like to see it—stated that there was no power to give the man a month with hard labour, and he ought to have a free pardon. The result was that he was not only let out, but he absolutely got a free pardon, the object of the free pardon being to enable him still to adorn the Limerick Borough Council, of which he was such a distinguished member.
    Let me give one other case, and I apologise to the House for doing so, but I only desire to mark the contrast which exists in the treatment of these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members below the Gallery know me well enough to be aware that derisive cheers will not stop me. I wish to give one other illustration of Castle justice since 1906. There was a man named Larkin, who a year and a half ago was tried and convicted of embezzling the funds of the society to which he belonged. He got twelve months' imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman let him out at the end of six months, and within a week he was the organiser of a most disastrous and silly railway strike which took place in Dublin. The railway men struck because they were asked to handle a wagon-load of timber which came into the yard, and which belonged to a certain timber merchant whose men were on strike, and this sympathetic strike spread among the railway company's servants. In the course of the disturbance which arose in consequence of the strike, Larkin made a speech in which he publicly advocated the propriety of shooting and assassinating blackleg labourers. He did it openly in his journal, and a few weeks afterwards he repeated it orally at a public meeting outside the railway station. He said that, he was not ashamed to have said it, and he admitted his responsibility, adding that he was prepared to stand by it, and that they were just as much entitled to shoot these men as the Government or the War Office to shoot deserters. The railway company, having a number of men working, became very uneasy, and sent a petition to the Lord Lieutenant for help, and asked him what he proposed to do with regard to the man Larkin. The reply came back that the Lord Lieutenant had been advised that Larkin's incitement was not a criminal offence. I suppose he was advised by the same Gentle-

    283
    man who advised that the Limerick borough councillor ought to get a free pardon.
    That is the sort of thing that has gone on for the last six years, and the reason why it is necessary to bring these matters before the House is that at least this country may know what is going on. Let me mention what is common knowledge to everybody, that it has been boasted that while the right hon. Gentleman is nominally Chief Secretary and Governor of Ireland, the real administration during his time has been in the hands of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They have said so themselves, and they have boasted of it. Therefore, we have really had a foretaste of Home Rule. We have been for six years under the control of an executive manned, or at least run by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. That is the sort of treatment we have got. That is what is meted out to those who happen to come within the meshes of the law, if they are loyalists or Protestants—contrasted with the treatment meted out to individuals from the South and West of Ireland. All I can say is that it is idle for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not live in Ireland, and who only hear of these matters second hand, to express astonishment at our determination never willingly to submit to such an executive. We would he perfect fools if we were to take in exchange for our past experience the prophecies, pledges, and promises which hon. Gentlemen have given, but which they are unable to perform, however willing and anxious they may be to fulfil them. We got those pledges and promises in 1898, and they have turned out to be futile and of no avail. All assurances of fair play and proper treatment which were then given have turned out to be absolutely false and illusive. Even hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have to admit that now. We have the experience of the past six years of the unfair and partial spirit with which the law has been administered, and which is found in the record of the cases that I have mentioned. I have taken special care to state nothing of any kind in those cases which is not on record, and which I am not prepared to verify if challenged by any single Member. The House has listened to the Debate with patience, and we have had an opportunity of stating our grievances, which have been fully ventilated, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should
    284
    be satisfied with that, and not press his Amendment to a Division.
    Earl WINTERTON: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to make a reference to a statement made by the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Muldoon), and which contained an inaccuracy in regard to a speech made by me last July. I do not want to go over the whole ground again, but in the course of the speech I made certain quotations from a newspaper published in the North of Ireland. Some six weeks ago the hon. Member for East Cork saw me in the Lobby and asked me if I had seen a letter from the Rev. Mr. Barron. In reply to the hon. Member, I said I had seen the letter, but, after my speech was made. The hon. Member for East Cork made a speech in which he stated what I had told him—and he repeated the statement in the House—that I made a quotation from a letter received by me. I have only risen to say that I never stated anything of the sort, and the hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension. I only hope in future, when he comes to Members in the Lobby to ask them a private question, he will not use what he is told to support what he states on the floor of the House.
    Mr. MULDOON: I never spoke of it on the platform, and I was intending at the time to make use of the extracts which had been used by the Noble Lord, and purporting to come from the Rev. Mr. Barron. I asked him whether those were found in newspapers or sent to him, and the Noble Lord said, "The letter wag written to me by the Rev. Mr. Barron for use in the course of the debate. I can show you the original; I kept the copy." Those were his words.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Reference has been made to a case that occurred in my Constituency, to which the hon. Member for East Down (Captain Craig) referred—I mean the case of Patrick Arkins, who was convicted of the offence of throwing down a wall, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. I brought the case before the House, and therefore I am entitled, I think, to say one or two words in explanation of it. The charge has been made more than once that there is difficulty sometimes in the county of Clare and in other portions of Ireland to obtain convictions. The Chief Secretary pointed out that to give a man seven years' penal servitude for the offence of throwing down a small portion of wall would surely be an occurrence not

    285
    likely to help convictions in the county, because the people would say that it would not be safe for them to convict, as they could not be certain that a proper and appropriate sentence would be given. I asked the Chief Secretary to review this case, and he did so, and this prisoner had his sentence reduced to three months—a sentence quite sufficient for the offence with which he was charged. The hon. Member for Down in referring to my Constituency said that there were a number of outrages and crimes perpetrated there. There would be nothing easier in the world than for him or any other Member of this House to select any constituency or a portion of any county in Great Britain, and to bring forward all the crimes that had been committed there in a stated period, and to make it appear that the conditions were extremely bad.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I observe an hon. Member reading a newspaper. That is contrary to the Orders of the House.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have not the slightest objection so far as I am concerned.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I say in self-justification that I was reading an extract bearing on the subject with which the hon. Member is dealing.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member appeared to me to be reading the journal in the ordinary way.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: There would be nothing easier—by the process which I have suggested—than to make it appear that any district in this country was given over entirely to lawlessness. To listen to hon. Gentlemen from Ulster, when speaking of Ireland, it would appear that Ireland is full of crime of every description, whereas anybody who takes the trouble to examine into the facts will easily find that Ireland from every point of view is far freer from crime than either Scotland, England, or Wales, or any civilised country in the world. That is a statement which I make most emphatically, and which I defy anyone to contradict. Those whose business it is to study the statistics of crime and the charges made against us, know as a matter of fact that what I say is true with regard to Ireland. It is certainly very hard to listen to speeches the language and terms of which must have the effect of making the people of this country believe that Ireland is
    286
    not free from crime, as Ireland undoubtedly is at the present time. Hon. Gentlemen like the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, seem to labour under the idea that we in Ireland desire to see crime of some sort prevailing there when everybody knows perfectly well that whatever crime prevails in Ireland, and in my Constituency at any rate, certainly arises from the fact that the policy of the Government and of successive Governments has not been carried out. I am very glad to say that there is very little agrarian crime in Ireland, but undoubtedly until the system of land purchase has been completed there will be excitement and irritability shown. You cannot expect that people who have to go on paying old rents will rest entirely satisfied when they see their neighbours buying their land under more favourable terms. That is bound to create a certain amount of discontent and trouble. We have done everything in our power, and I think it is quite unfair of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway not to say so, to condemn and discountenance crime and outrage of any description whatever. It is only within the last few weeks that I saw an immense mass meeting of my own Constituents, representative of all classes in the county, at which the strongest condemnation was given to everything in the shape of violence and outrage. I think that the hon. Gentleman who made these charges might have pointed out that even in the few parts of Ireland where disturbance still continues, there has been a great improvement, and, as a matter of fact, in no county at the present time is there anything at all in the shape of an abnormal shape of disturbance or of crime. Therefore, for any judge for any reason whatever to take a respectable young farmer's son who has been led into the foolish course of interfering with the fence of another person's farm and knocking down the walls, and to send him to seven years' penal servitude is, of course, directly calculated to arouse resentment, and to do a great deal of harm in the country.
    I ask what would have happened in this country if a man convicted of the offence, the comparatively trifling offence, had been sentenced by a judge, not for what he was convicted of, but because of what other people had done, what would have been said here if a man in those circumstances had been told by an English judge, "You will be kept in penal servitude for seven years because the district in which you

    287
    happen to live is in an unsatisfactory condition, and because you have not given me the names of people whom you way know to have been connected with crime and outrage." Such a case was never heard of in the whole administration of justice in this country, and had such a case arisen it would not have been allowed to stand for a single moment. I therefore say that the charge made against the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in this matter is a charge which upon examination would not bear investigation. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary intends to keep this young man for seven years upon what is called ticket-of-leave—that is to say, that he is to report to the police as if, instead of having committed a comparatively trifling crime, for which he has been punished with three months' imprisonment, he had committed some ordinary crime for which people are sent to penal servitude. I hope the Chief Secretary does not intend to continue that police supervision, because I think, in the first place, it can have no good effect. The young man is a farmer's son, living in the country, and his whereabouts are always known to the police, who see him probably every day. He has no intention of going away, and I think, in view of all the circumstances, the time has arrived when he might be freed from this humiliating and unnecessary regulation of reporting at the police barrack. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that justice is not being done as between Nationalists and Unionists in Ireland. The extraordinary fact remains that arising out of all these disturbances not one single Unionist has been sent to prison, whereas the Nationalists all have.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: No, no.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think it is so, and until the contrary is shown to be the fact I shall believe it to be so. That state of things does not in the least degree look as if there was partial action on the part of the Government. What happens in these disturbances is that the people on both sides get excited, and there is a little trouble, and there is something in the shape of rioting. Far worse things take place in Hyde Park almost every Sunday in this country. We hear from various parts of England of disturbances arising out of various movements at which there is more physical damage done and more excitement and trouble of every kind.
    288
    People regard those things as in the ordinary course of events. When they occur in Ireland they are elevated into some political movement, which is entirely incorrect. As far as I am concerned, and those who sit on these benches, whether the disturbances originate from those who are supporters of ours, or, as we all know they have done very often, from supporters of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, we equally condemn them. If I liked I might give stories quite as strong and, I think, quite as discreditable of the action of supporters of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway recently in the shipyards in Belfast, when Catholics and Nationalists were driven out for no reason but because of their religious and political opinions. I do not propose to do so. I hope that this disturbance will speedily cease, and I think that every mean in this country who wants to see good feeling prevailing in Ireland and good feeling prevailing between Ireland and this country will deprecate these belated attempts to make bad feeling continuous by raising these debates. I would not have intervened at all but for the reference made to my Constituency. I have only got to tell the Chief Secretary that when he says that the county of Clare for centuries has been the cause of trouble he is very badly informed. The county I have the honour to represent has been in the foremost in the van of progress in Ireland. I would not be standing here with my Friends as a Catholic Member of Parliament if it had not been for the action of the grandfathers of the people who are now my Constituents. Therefore I hope, when next he returns to Ireland, that the Chief Secretary will come down with me to my Constituency, and I will show him that he is entirely wrong in what he has said.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) concluded his speech by saying that he would not have intervened in the Debate if it had not been for what he called these attempts to stir up bad feeling between the different parties in Ireland. I should not have attempted to intervene in this Debate if it had not been for that entirely unjustifiable remark of the hon. Member. I think it is very unjustifiable when attempts are made, as they are bound to be made from this side, to show what we believe to be genuine shortcomings on the part of the Administration in Ireland, which necessarily from the very nature of the case must resolve themselves to some extent

    289
    into contentions between the different political parties, that it should be immediately objected that our motive is to stir up bad feeling in Ireland or that that necessarily has that effect. The hon. Member for Clare was very indignant, or appeared to be indignant, that my right hon. Friend mentioned a particular case which concerned one of his constituents, the case of the youth called Arkins, who was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for throwing down a wall. I would like to repeat, because it ought not to be lost sight of, that my right hon. Friend, in bringing forward this case, did not, as I understood him, in the least commit himself to the proposition that the Government ought to have kept this youth for seven years in penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman and the Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) pointed out, in the first instance, that it is not right in a case of this sort to assume, as the hon. Member who has just spoken seemed to assume, that the mere knocking down of a wall, which was the technical offence of which this youth was convicted, was any more than a similar action might be under other circumstances.
    The hon. Member spoke of similar occurrences taking place in Hyde Park or anywhere else in this country at any time, any day. It is quite true, I suppose, that much graver offences than throwing down a wall may go with much lighter punishment, but what has to be borne in mind is that the knocking down of the wall was an act in a long-continued series of persecutions directed as part of an agrarian movement against an unfortunate widow woman, who had committed the unpardonable offence, so far as I know, of being successor in title to somebody who had given offence to the United Irish League. Thus the real offence was not the knocking down of the wall, but it was the taking part and showing that this continued animosity and persecution was not allowed to die down, and from time to time some act took place to show that the persecution was still in operation. That is the sort of offence for which this punishment was given. I would like to call the attention of the House and that of the hon. Member, who appears to think it a great grievance that this trifling case should be mentioned, of the language which was used by the counsel for the Crown in the case. He said that the case was part of an organised system of outrage, and he
    290
    went on to say, "extensive lawlessness prevailed in certain districts of county Clare, where they had in broad daylight boys armed with Winchester rifles firing volleys from the hillside." It is impossible to contend, in face of a statement of that sort, that this particular offence should only be treated as if it were the mere trifling matter of knocking down a few stones of a wall. I want to repeat that I do not think anybody on this side would commit himself to the proposition, although that was a much more serious offence than it appeared on the surface, that on that account it should have been visited with penal servitude for seven years.
    I should be entirely out of order if I did anything in the way of criticising the action of the learned judge. I have no intention of doing so. I find it difficult to understand from the reports of this case on what principle the learned judge acted. I think it is very difficult to understand why the learned judge should have held out hopes to this youth of a remission of punishment or a more lenient view when information was given as to his fellow conspirators and associates in the crime. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I would be very sorry to think worse of this young criminal because he refused to give away his associates. I think we all feel that. But I find it most difficult to understand on what ground it was stated by the learned judge that this long sentence had to be imposed because the youth had not given the desired information. But when the learned judge, who had all the circumstances before him, had actually passed a long sentence of penal servitude, it was most ill-advised that the Government should so quickly have shown to the whole countryside that the sentence had no seriousness whatever in it. The Executive Government by their action have brought into contempt both the learned judge and the administration of justice in Ireland. With regard to the Castledawson outrage, the Chief Secretary laid stress on the fact that the Hibernians who took part in this horrible outrage were not ruffians, or hangers about at street corners, but people of respectability. I believe that to be absolutely true, and that is one of the saddest parts of the whole business. We are accused of stirring up bad blood in Ireland. It is the Government themselves, however, who, in the course of the last year or two, have stirred up such an amount of bad blood that two perfectly

    291
    respectable bodies of people cannot meet on the King's highway in Ireland without going off like two explosives which cannot exist in the same atmosphere. A Presbyterian Sunday school seems to me to be the essence of respectability, and according to the right hon. Gentleman the other side were also distinguished by their respectability. I was very much surprised at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of little children having been hit with stones. He seemed to regard it as a comparatively trifling matter. He congratulated himself and his party on the fact that no women or children had been hit with pikes, and it seemed to be of no consequence that they had been hit with stones.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I said nothing of the sort. I was sorry that anybody should have been hit with stones or anything else. But the allegation was that women and children had been spiked, and that I denied.
    Mr. M'NEILL: I withdraw the statement if it misrepresents the right hon. Gentleman. I understood his position to be that being hit with stones was such a trifling injury as compared with the other that it really did not very much matter. But that is not the view which we take. A strong case has been made out by my hon. Friends against the Government. I do not care the least about Mr. Barron as an individual. How far he is to be trusted or how far his evidence is reliable, I am not at all called upon to discuss. What we say is that at some period before the men accused of this outrage were put upon trial, it does not matter whether it was in July or in November, he had put in the hands of the Government the material for sifting these allegations. Great stress has been laid on the fact that this particular list of persons injured was presented to the Government, as if that was the only means which the Government had of finding out whether or not any women or children were injured. One of the first duties of the prosecution was to satisfy themselves, quite apart from any statement by Mr. Barron or anybody else, whether any injuries had been inflicted. In addition to Mr. Barron, another gentleman who had some official connection with the Sunday-school, a Mr. Irwin, stated only the other day at a public meeting in Belfast that he himself gave a
    292
    statement to the police describing what he had seen. Therefore the Government had at their disposal means of discovering for themselves whether or not women and children were injured. Look at the results to-day of their neglect to take that course. It is quite clear from the way in which the trial was conducted and from the answer given by the Vice-President yesterday that what the Government Prosecutor had in mind was to present to the Court the very minimum of evidence against the prisoners that would carry a conviction.
    Mr. BIRRELLdissented.
    Mr. M'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept that. The Vice-President was asked yesterday:—
    "Why was not the evidence bearing on the wounding of these women and children brought before the Crown Prosecutor in Court?"
    And his answer was:—
    "Counsel for the Crown saw that the evidence given before the Petty Sessions Court was sufficient to convict them, and they were convicted on the evidence."
    It is quite clear from that that what was in the mind of the prosecution was, "How much evidence is absolutely necessary to obtain a conviction? We will not offer beyond that one tittle of evidence which might go to aggravate the offence with which the people are charged." The result of taking that course is the dispute which has raged ever since. I do not believe there can be any question on the matter of fact that there were a number of women seriously injured. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think there were any women seriously injured. There were four children hit with stones, and a number of other children were very much frightened and alarmed. I am not endeavouring to make nothing of the injuries the children sustained, but no women were hurt at all.
    Mr. M'NEILL: Earlier in the evening there was some discussion as to the age at which a girl became a woman. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman considers a person eighteen years of age a woman.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That case was not on the list.
    Mr. M'NEILL: I am not saying that it was on the list. I do not wish to be tied to the particular list sent by Mr. Barron. That is exactly what I am complaining of.

    293
    Surely it was the duty of the Executive Government, altogether apart from Mr. Barron, to find out who had been in the procession and to discover whether anybody had been injured.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police made that their business; they went all round making inquiries.
    Mr. M'NEILL: I do not know what the result of those inquiries was, but I know that in consequence of the action taken by the official body of the Church to which these people belong a considerable number of women or girls, if you call persons eighteen or nineteen years of age girls, have made statutory declarations regarding what they suffered on that occasion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman contests those statements or not. His officers say that there was no opportunity in Court for these facts to be brought out. They are now put on record in the only way in which they can be put on record on oath, but the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, brushes the whole thing aside, and is apparently not willing to accept the statements which these women have made. If the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters are taking up the line that these declarations are false, how do they account for the fact that these young women have suddenly come forward and made their declarations on oath? How do they account for the fact that Mr. Barron has taken this step? He is not a politician, and if he had not seen his Sunday-school treat attacked by Hibernians we should probably have never heard his name mentioned in this House. How does the right hon. Gentleman account for this subtle conspiracy on the part of a Nonconformist clergyman, his Sunday school teachers and scholars, who come forward before the magistrate and put down in affidavits evidence which is untrue? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to go to that length, I cannot see how he can continue to contest—at all events the fact—whatever conclusion he may draw from the fact—that a number of women and children upon this occasion were seriously hurt, seriously injured. That, at all events, is the case to which we tie ourselves. We think we have proved it up to the hilt, and the point we make against the Government is that they deliberately, by their action on the prosecution or before the judge in Court, purposely took steps in order that these facts might not become known.
    Mr. NEWMAN: In the short speech made by the hon. Member for East Clare, there was a cool assumption on behalf of himself and his colleagues, that they were the executive in Ireland and not the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member may be right in taking that position for himself and for hon. Members below the Gangway. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, certainly boasted that the United Irish League, and the secretary of it, the hon. Member for West Belfast, were in effect the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Member for East Clare went on to claim for the South of Ireland a state of absolute peace. It is the peace of terrorism. The peace we have in the, South of Ireland is that of the minority, and not that of a strong majority as there is in North-East Ulster. The small minority know perfectly well that the Executive is not there to help us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Absurd."] We know that if we persist in our protests we will get our heads broken. The hon. Member for East Clare claimed that what little crime there is in Ireland was nothing in comparison to what there was in England. In England, he alleged, there was far more crime than in Ireland. Well, our Divisions are populous in England, and bigger than in Ireland. The Division that I represent at present has in it something like 190,000 individuals. What we do complain of is where there are outrages there are no convictions, and nobody is ever arrested. Day after day I get letters from the South of Ireland giving me details of outrages. What do I do? I put questions to the Chief Secretary, and the replies wind up, as the House knows, with the old tag, "No arrests have been made." No arrests are ever made! In my hands I have got three accounts of outrages committed quite recently. Two of these accounts are from a Nationalist paper, the "Tuam Herald," and the third from the "Connacht Tribune." The first is given under the date 6th March, 1912. It says:—
    "A series of explosions took place in the town of Athenry on the night of flab November. This is the second time that the town has been roused in terror by the discharge of powerful bombs, which had been employed with the object of destroying the walls which surround the Horse Show grounds. Abort 11 o'clock on Monday night (11th November) the first explosion took place, and as the night was intensely dark the street at Swangate was all ablaze when the explosion took place. Considerable damage was done to the walls. Some cars passed a few moments previous to the explosions, and pedestrians also had narrow escapes. It is only by a mere chance that some persons were not injured. A remarkable fact is that the street is the direct route to the canteen, and police are coming to

    295
    and fro from the canteen every ten minutes, yet no one can give any clue as to who are the perpetrators."
    The second relates to county Galway. It reads:—
    "A daring outrage took place at Creggmure, Loughgeorge, on the night of 16th November, 1912, when a house was entered by two masked men late at night. The owner of the house was out at the time, and only his aged mother was in the place. The two men demanded the two guns which were in the house, and the terrified woman surrendered the weapons. The matter was reported to the police at Galway on Sunday morning, and Mr. Heard, district inspector, at once motored to the scene of the outrage. No arrests have been made."
    Here is the third, another shooting outrage:—
    "On Sunday night (10th November. 1912), the house of a farmer named Bane was fired into at about 11 o'clock, and the windows of the dwelling were seriously damaged as a result. Most of the inmates were gone to bed, and happily none of those who were about at the time got injured. A number of motives have been assigned for the shooting. The police are engaged making inquiries, but up to the present nothing has resulted from their labours."
    The Royal Irish Constabulary is the finest body of its kind in the Empire, but if its men are getting slack in their work it is simply because they know that no encouragement is given to them…
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot allow that to pass, because it is quite untrue.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I accept what the Chief Secretary says. I am only repeating what is being said in many parts. Hon. Members below the Gangway claim to be the Executive, and claim to be able to keep the Irish people peaceable and quiet until the time Ireland gets Home Rule. If that be so, may I suggest to those hon. Members chiefly concerned that they should keep out of the local Press a great deal of the seditious matter that finds its way into it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that point; he is only entitled to discuss matters for which the Chief Secretary is responsible.
    Mr. NEWMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for this, I submit. After all he is the Executive. I suppose there is some kind of Press law in Ireland as well as in other countries? I was motoring a couple of years ago in the Eastern Balkans, and I arrived at a certain town where the chief newspaper had been suppressed by the Austrian authorities. I was shown what the paper had said that incurred the suspension. It seemed to me ridiculously mild. Yet that paper was suppressed. We
    296
    have heard lately about that great French newspaper, the "Matin." Do hon. Members below the Gangway realise that the "Matin" was suppressed yesterday in Alsace-Lorraine by order of the German Emperor…
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are discussing now our domestic affairs; debate must be relevant to something the Chief Secretary can do without further legislation.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I take it, Sir, that the Chief Secretary is responsible, and that the Irish Executive can prosecute an Irish newspaper for publishing seditious matter. Is that not so? May I give one quotation from a paper called "Irish Freedom." It, begins:—
    "We bate you, bloody England, still…"
    [Laughter.] Hon. Members below the Gangway may laugh, but I will ask them to recollect that this is read by a great many Irishmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense," and "They never hear of it."] I continue:—
    "We hate you, bloody England, still,
    Though time has shed seven hundred years
    Since first your savage sons did fill
    Our valleys with their scarlet spears,
    We hate as only those can hate
    Who, free in freedom's paradise,
    Are lured into the desolate
    Bondage of pain by wiles and lies."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Chief Secretary is not a censor of Irish poetry. I have been trying to show the hon. Member that he can only in his speech deal with things that are under the control of the right hon. Gentleman; that it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman as Chief Secretary to administer. He ought not to bring forward outside matters.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Surely, the Chief Secretary ought to suppress a newspaper that publishes these things.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would require a good deal of legislation to do that.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Surely, Sir, the Chief Secretary is entitled to take proceedings against a paper? Let me give one more quotation. Hon. Members below the Gangway know the "Limerick Echo." This particular paper…
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to go into that.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I bow to your ruling, and I will not persist with any further quotations. But I do say that a great deal is published in the local Irish Press that does a great deal of harm, certainly in the South, West, and East of Ireland. Papers are read and studied, and when you get inflammable young men reading these quotations on seditious subjects it must do a certain amount of harm. I am only sorry that hon. Members below the Gangway cannot see their way to have these seditious matters suppressed. Be that as it may, I am only sorry myself that we are not going to take this to a Division. We, certainly, in the South of Ireland, have a great deal to complain of in the non-administration of the law at the present time. It may be that they are teaching us, the minority, what we may expect, and that they are letting us suffer a little bit during the next eighteen months or so, so that we may get accustomed to their rule.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

    RIGHT OF CAPTURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I have given notice of my desire to call attention to the question of the Right of Capture of Private Property at Sea; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable to establish by international agreement, as a principle of naval warfare, that enemy merchant vessels, except as carriers of contraband or in case of blockade, should be immune from capture."
    Under the rules of debate I am not able to move that Resolution, but I would wish to raise the question, and to press it upon the representatives of the Foreign Office. I think it is a matter on which the House of Commons ought to express its opinion. There have been Debates on the point once or twice in recent years. I think there has never been a Division upon it. I am inclined to think that it is time that the House of Commons should press this matter more vigorously and more definitely upon the attention of His Majesty's Government. Those of us who wish to see this right of capture abolished would beg with all due deference to ask the Foreign Office whether it cannot enter into negotiations for the purpose of securing the abolition of this custom. I had purposely intended to attach this question to the Vote of the Foreign Office, though the discussion comes
    298
    as a postscript to the Naval Debates that we have been having during the last few days. I am thinking of it, however, not only as a question involving the proper method of carrying on naval war, but also in its wider bearings, and I fully agree it must be a question of international agreement. We could not be expected to surrender this right except on the understanding that other Powers agreed to do the same thing, and the whole matter does require, I fully recognise, an international agreement to he arrived at—a concert of Powers for the reform of the customs of naval warfare, and I am equally well aware that the terms in my Motion are, all of them, in need of close definition. But, at the same time, I hope that it may not be beyond the power of the Foreign Office to arrive at a concert of Powers for the purpose of the reform of the customs of naval warfare. I know it is said that such an idea is ridiculous, but it was just as easy to ridicule the idea of a concert of Powers in Europe for an arbitration tribunal, but in spite of all ridicule that has been done and has passed into the region of the commonplace. And so, for my part, I do not despair of the chances of arriving at agreement in reference to these very chaotic and anomalous customs of naval war.
    The discussion on the Declaration of London, with which this subject is connected, prepared everyone for the difficulties that beset us, and I do not for a moment pretend that I, who cannot claim to have any expert knowledge of this subject, can speak with any dogmatism, but the bearings of the argument, as I think, are pretty clearly in favour now of the abolition of the right of capture, and it is therefore with that idea that I ask the attention of the House and the representative of the Foreign Office to this matter this evening. I have said that I want to deal with it for a moment, not merely as a question of naval strategy, but in its wider bearing. I think many persons who would be inclined to sympathise with the idea feel that it is an obscure and technical matter, best carried on by experts, of whom, as I say, I do not pretend to be one, in reference to a remote contingency that we all hope will not occur. But if we do not discuss these matters in times of peace we should certainly not have time to discuss them in times of war, and if a change is to be made it can only be made after a good deal of preliminary sifting and much

    299
    further discussion than we have had. I frankly confess I think this is a matter which ought to appeal not merely to experts in naval war, but also to those who realise the stress and strain of international competition in armaments, and it is in this connection I frankly admit I am attracted to this discussion.
    We heard the First Lord of the Admiralty lay great stress upon the helplessness in which any individual Power finds itself in reference to this competition. I do not greatly quarrel with the line he took. To summarise his arguments he urged that international competition in armaments was impossible to avoid, and yet was a great disaster for all nations. It was, in fact, collective insanity for nations to continue and it might be national suicide for a single nation to stop. I cordially agree. I have always felt it is impossible for an individual nation to take any real step for the reduction of armaments and for the cessation of this international competition, but it is wholly possible to proceed by means of a concert and agreement amongst the Powers. Then, if that is the case, does it not come to this, that you should cut at the roots of international competition and that you should try and weaken the forces which are bearing upon all nations and impel them helplessly along the path which imposes these enormous, ever-growing, and incessant burdens. The prospects which the First Lord held out in the recent debate was a gloomy one. So far as military competition goes, one sees the end of it. You have the whole nations of the Continent in arms, but in the question of naval armaments where is the limit? The limit is an indefinite one, which depends upon the amount of money the nations of Europe are ready to pour into the bottomless abyss, and it is for that reason that I think we ought to welcome the chance of cutting at the root of this international competition and doing something which would operate on all nations. All I am asking now is, if it is a good thing to do it, it will not merely be good in time of war but in time of peace as well. It will have the effect of finding some remedy and restricting this international competition.
    After all what is the stock argument of the jingoes in every nation? Their stock argument when it comes to a question of naval expansion, is the absolutely vital necessity of protecting their commerce in time of war. We all know the famous sen-
    300
    tence in the first German Naval Law. The whole argument for increase was based upon the necessity which every industrial nation must have which is dependent upon overseas supplies for the organisation of a naval force to protect its supplies and commerce upon the seas, and we have had the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) in recent debates arguing that our real danger is not so much invasion, but starvation, and that our real point of weakness is the trade routes and the necessity for protecting them. I think the Noble Lord will agree with me that if at all events you can remove commerce destruction and commerce protection from the programme of naval wars you would relieve the Admiralty of immense preoccupation and in that way if you suppressed this right of capture you would weaken and restrict those arguments which are urged with irresistible force in each nation that you must have an ever-greater and an ever-more expanding Navy in order to protect the commerce of the nations. This risk of commerce destruction provides the cheap fuel for the navy leagues of all nations in all their arguments and scare campaigns in favour of ever-greater and ever-expanding navies. I should like to urge this point upon the attention of the Government. I do not say this change need necessarily begin with all nations. We saw the great difficulty of getting agreements with all nations in the negotiations leading up to the Declaration of London, but it would be possible to get agreements with the United States which up to the present have never given up the right of privateering, and if you are to celebrate a hundred years of peace with the United States you might celebrate it in a worse way than by a treaty in which we and the United States should agree in this matter. Considering our relations with the United States, and the probability of never having war with them we might, I think, well make an agreement of that kind with advantage.
    8.0 P.M.
    I do not know how far the traditional attitude of Germany towards this question has been modified in recent years, but there has always been a party in Germany which has stood for this change, and the effect of making a single agreement upon a single point is very far reaching. We have seen that in our relations with France, and we have seen how a single agreement in reference to individual points spread an influence of good will which

    301
    revolutionised our relation with that country, and I cannot help thinking that if two nations are, as I believe they are, bent on peace in spite of the jingoes of both countries, an agreement upon this point might have a very far-reaching effect in removing suspicion and spreading an atmosphere of good will between the two countries. At all events in asking the Foreign Office to take steps in this direction we have to remember that it is our country which has always stood in the way of this change, and yet there have always been great names in our history who have believed the change not merely desirable in the interests of humanity, but also in the interests of the country itself. Cobden was certainly in favour of it, and his name will appeal to those upon this side of the House, and John Stuart Mill changed his mind and declared in favour of it after the Declaration of Paris in 1856. I believe it is also true that the late Lord Salisbury told Lord Avebury that he was now convinced that the right of capture should be surrendered. I know what the arguments of the Foreign Office have been in previous debates. What were the arguments that were used at The Hague? It was said we were surrendering a weapon that might be of real value in our naval wars. On the other hand, there are certain advantages which might accrue from it. We were not prepared to give up simpliciter, but we were prepared to surrender it as part of a bargain. If you are going to tie up a change which it is difficult to obtain with another change which is still more difficult the possibility of realisation becomes remote, and if you are going to say that you will only surrender this right of capture on condition that you secure as a quid pro quo some general agreement for the reduction of limitation of armaments I do not think that is a very hopeful mode of procedure. On the other hand, I do not deny that the best line of progress may be by the methods of bargain and negotiation, although I think the elements and terms of the bargain ought to be much more connected with the right of capture at sea. If you are to deal with the question practically, you have got to secure a larger amount of agreement than prevails at the present time as to the nature of contraband. You have to define under what conditions and in what circumstances a blockade is to be allowed, and we ought to get an agreement on the question of floating mines. Upon none of those points
    302
    was there a satisfactory arrangement in the negotiations leading up to the Declaration of London. I fully realise how chaotic the laws and customs of naval warfare are, but those three points are all interdependent and connected with the question of the right of surrender, and within that area there is sufficient opportunity for making a bargain with foreign countries if you wish to.
    If the Foreign Office tells us it is impossible for them to come to any agreement without settling those points, I should not quarrel with them, but I do not think that the bargain which is to be come to, if they insist upon a bargain, should deal with questions which are only remotely relevant to the question itself, and if these three points could be fairly defined I think it might be quite proper for the Foreign Office to drop this right of capture without further conditions and without asking for further terms. I cannot, of course, deal with this subject at length, but no doubt many hon. Members have read Lord Loreburn's articles in the "Manchester Guardian," and I will only touch on certain points in reference to this question. In previous debates it has been argued that the surrender of this ancient custom of ours would leave our country disarmed and impotent in the case of a naval war. I think that rests on some vague reminiscence of the part which commerce destruction played in the old wars of the Napoleonic years, but we ought not to be dominated by Napoleonic traditions in a world which is very much changed from the world of a century ago. Supposing we left commerce destruction and commerce protection out of the programme of naval wars, is it really contended on the other side that there would be no use and no value in the British Fleet? Surely we should still have the power to destroy and crush the enemy's fleet. It is true that we cannot be invaded while our Fleet is in being, and yet it is said that we have no power to bring pressure to bear upon our enemies. That is an argument which it seems to me impossible to maintain. If you have a dominant and supreme Fleet which has swept the enemy's fleet off the sea, you can still use the traditional methods of naval war, for they are still open to us, to conquer the overseas and outlying possessions of the enemy. That was the method of the most successful war of the eighteenth century.

    303
    I think the advocates of commerce destruction and the right of capture put a far too high value on the methods of commerce destruction altogether. Take the Spanish-American War. Does anyone argue that commerce destruction played a very important part in that war? What decided the issue in that war was the destruction of the Spanish Fleet and then the capture of their outlying possessions. I do not know of any Power with which we should be at all likely to go to war where we could not bring this weapon of the Fleet to bear. My argument in this connection is that we can drop commerce destruction and yet have an effective and potent weapon of attack and at the same time a far greater security in our defence. I put it that when we are told from the other side that we are surrendering the one vital power of offence we possess, that is putting the weapon of commerce destruction on far too high a plane and attaching far too great value to it. We are told that at all events this is one of the most humane methods of making war. That I do not deny, but it does not settle the question, and yet I do not believe that we can treat this method of commerce destruction as one of those arcana imperii or State secrets we have got as a naval nation which it is of vital importance for us to maintain. Historically it is the lineal descendant of piracy. It dates from the time when subjects of the enemy were regarded as the enemies not merely of the State but of the individuals composing the nations which went to war. It dates from the time when sailors were allowed and expected to do a little buccaneering on their own. It really dates from a period when nations were either too poor or too weak to develop national navies, and they allowed privateers to make the war support itself by letting ships prey upon the commerce of the enemy.
    This all links up with the custom of paying prize-money which we have heard about in the discussions on the Naval Prize Bill. The Admiralty found that the present custom of paying prize-money was quite impossible to defend. How can you justify a system under which, if a third-class cruiser captures one of the great liners, the crew thereupon becomes entitled to receive £1,000,000 or £1,500,000? Obviously if the argument is that commerce destruction is the legitimate use of a national power for the needs of the nation,
    304
    it is impossible to argue that it is just to allow private individuals to make their personal fortunes out of the use of a national power. When we were dealing with this question the Admiralty was willing to make a concession in regard to prize-money, and they suggested the pooling of the prize-money, but of course that has disappeared with the loss of the Naval Prize Bill. When the advocates on the other side press upon us that commerce destruction is a vital weapon which we who are not experts cannot appreciate the importance of, and when they say that in some mysterious way it is the very lifeblood of the British Navy, I think that is putting the question entirely too high and exaggerating enormously this particular method of war; and surely it is leaving out of sight other methods of naval war which have been far more effective in the past, and are likely to be just as effective in the future. My real argument is that although this method of fighting is not an inhuman method, yet it is a weapon which may recoil and produce grave disaster. We are told that it was this great weapon which produced the downfall of Napoleon, but I very much doubt that it would have produced the same result if it had not been for the land campaigns which ended at Moscow and Leipsic and Waterloo. If I am wrong on that historical point, I venture to say that the modern world in which we live has changed so vitally in the course of the last century that we have got to look at the question with fresh minds to realise the changed condition of the world in which we live…
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I have no criticism to offer generally with regard to this proposal. It seems to me one of the ordinary natural

    305
    developments of the railway system, and I am sure that the House will wish that the railway company should have those small additional powers which are referred to in this Bill added to it from time to time so that it may more efficiently serve the public; but this is the only opportunity one has of raising the general question of the administration of the railways, and a point which has concerned me very much has been the Sunday work, particularly as it applies to stationmasters. With regard to this Bill, I can say that the company have been good enough to supply me with very specific information as to their Sunday traffic. I will give the information to any hon. Member who cares to read the letter. It is quite clear that they have only a very few Sunday trains, and that they treat their staff in a most satisfactory manner. I am pleased to acknowledge that, and to say that anyone who has the genuine interests of the stationmasters at heart can compliment the railway company on the handsome manner in which they treat their staff.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. NEWMAN: I object to a couple of Clauses in this Bill, Clauses 11 and 17, and I have another matter against the company affecting another part of my Constituency some distance removed from Enfield, where they are withholding train facilities that they ought to give. My first point may seem a small one, but it is one of some importance to the populous and growing district which lies to the north-west corner of the town of Enfield. This particular point was before the company, both in 1898 and in 1911, and on both occasions they deliberately omitted to meet the local authorities. The company want to divert and stop up 849 feet of an old footpath at King's Oak Plain, Enfield, and substitute for it a footpath of 1,773 feet. It is one of the old rights of way across the old Enfield Chase. I know it myself. It has been in existence for several hundreds of years, and it is a source of
    306
    convenience to people in the district to the north-west of Enfield. It is one way of getting to St. John's Church, and it is used extensively by a great number of people. It has a good foundation, it is 7 feet 6 inches wide, and it does not cost much to keep it up. The Great Northern Railway Company propose to give in exchange a longer footpath. It is not really a footpath at all, it is a farm road with a width of 20 feet, and it is liable to be cut up, because it has to be used for the traffic of a farm lower down. It will throw an expense on the local authorities to keep in order this wider and longer passage as compared with the present narrow passage. When the company in 1898 obtained power to construct the existing branch line, which will, I understand, in a few years be in the nature of a main line, they did not apply, as they might have done, for power to close or divert this particular footpath. They did ask for that power in 1911, but the local authorities objected, and they withdrew. Why should they not leave the path as it is at present and simply throw a footbridge across the railway. It would not be a case of the bridge rising one end and going down the other, because, as a matter of fact, there is a cutting, and I am given to understand the cost would only be something like £200. Why cannot the company meet the local authorities on this point? It is not fair to ask them to expend the ratepayers' money in making and keeping in order this longer footpath.
    The present proposal will necessitate a level crossing, and I submit there is a great danger in that. If the extension is made to Stevenage, I understand there will be a great deal of traffic, and in that case a level crossing at this point would be a real danger. There ought to be a bridge, and one can be made perfectly easily because there is a cutting already. Surely the company ought to be able to meet the local authorities and spend this small sum. The district authorities ought not to have to appear before a Committee of this House and employ counsel at great expense to the ratepayers of Enfield, whose rates are already over 10s. in the £, in order to get their point met. There is a second point connected with a locality some distance from Enfield, the New Southgate district in my Division. The Great Northern Railway Company, of course, are monopolists. There is no other line there at all, and they can do what seems good to them. It ought surely,

    307
    however, to be to their interests to be as careful as they can to meet the wants of the community and to try and help to develop the district. In this particular district, which is being very rapidly developed and where we seek to have a station, there are already literally hundreds of houses, and their rateable value is no less than £8,000. There are over 600 houses there, and, only a short time ago, the Hertfordshire County Council had to enlarge their school, because the population of the district had absolutely outgrown the accommodation provided. It is a locality where people like to build houses. The company themselves advertise it as the "Northern Heights of London," and invite people to come and live out there. Yet they will not provide a station! There is no great difficulty about it. Curiously enough, a certain number of years ago, there used to be a station where we want it now. It was used mainly for burial purposes. There was a big cemetery there, but it was done away with owing to local agitation. We ask now for a station which may be used by live people instead of by corpses. I quite admit that this is a comparatively trifling matter to a great trunk line, but we Enfield people think we have a right for consideration in this matter. If, instead of a trunk line, we had something like the District Railway or a Tube Railway, how gladly would they avail themselves of getting traffic from these 600 houses, which, in a few years, will increase to 1,000. They would not like to see the traffic diverted to tramways or omnibuses. We are, however, in the hands of monopoly. It is open to the Great Northern Railway to develop this part of Barnet. They can get the land easily, and every facility will be afforded them by the local authority of Friern Barnet and East Barnet. There is also an official demand for this, because the local authorities have supported it in a Memorandum which they have forwarded to the Great Northern Railway Company. I submit our case should be considered, at any rate we ought to be granted the footbridge I have mentioned.
    Mr. ALDEN: I think the hon. Member has made out a good case for the reconsideration of this matter by the railway authorities. As representing a neighbouring and friendly authority, I wish to say a word or two in reference to the question of the footpath. It seems to me it is a
    308
    dangerous custom to interfere with old-established footpaths. But if the exigencies of the case require that a footpath should be interfered with, it is essential that the railway company should give an adequate quid pro quo. I do not think it is too much to ask that, instead of a level crossing, which is really what it amounts to, there shall be a footbridge thrown across the cutting, thereby making it perfectly practicable for people to get from one side of the line to the other without danger to life or limb. The other alternative is a level crossing, and I think the House will agree with me that the Board of Trade ought to set its face against all level crossings. It may not be possible to lay down a hard and fast rule, but public opinion has grown in this direction, and there is no doubt that this Department of the State should be extremely careful before it allows the old practice of level crossing to be perpetuated. I suggest that the railway company take this Bill back, and reconsider this point. The local authorities are not asking a great deal. At the outside, the expenditure would not exceed £400, and surely it would be worth the while of the company to concede that. On the question of the railway station also, I think a good case has been made out. It is true that there are not more than 600 houses at this place, but I know from personal experience it is a rapidly growing district. Within a very measureable distance of time, the Great Northern Company should favourably consider the question of putting a small station there.
    Mr. WARDLE: I know something of this district, and I support the hon. Members in their desire for a footbridge instead of a level crossing. Level crossings should certainly be avoided wherever possible. Anyone at all acquainted with the statistics of railway accidents, whether it be from suicide or from accident, must know how largely level crossings contribute to the enormous total of fatalities which occur upon our railways. Every opportunity for decreasing those fatalities should be taken advantage of. I cannot see why there should be the slightest objection to putting up a footbridge, and keeping this footpath in its present position, rather than that there should be a level crossing. I very much dislike the idea of doing away with these old footpaths. There are many reasons why they should be preserved. They are preferable to new roads, whether it be the old cart road, described by the

    309
    hon. Member, or a newly-made road properly macadamed. The preservation of old footpaths is in the interests of the amenities of the neighbourhood. With regard to the suggestion that the station is to be between Oakley Park and New Southgate, I do not quite follow that part of the argument. There is no great difference between those two stations, except for the tunnel, but that is a point which must be settled with the railway company.
    I rose to speak on another question, of which I have given a short notice to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, I take it, will speak for the railway company. In the year 1906 the members of the clerical staff of the Great Northern Railway Company presented a petition to the company, asking that they might have representation upon the committee which governs the superannuation fund. They pay their quota to that fund, but have no direct representation on the committee of management. This petition was numerously signed, but it did not receive the attention which it should have received at the hands of the company. I believe the superannuation fund is not absolutely confined to the clerical staff, but it is mainly on behalf of that staff. It will be remembered, also, that a Departmental Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the whole question of the administration of railway superannuation funds. They did me the honour to elect me a Member of that Departmental Committee. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that in all cases where railway superannuation funds were in existence the staff should have the opportunity of electing an equal number of representatives upon it with the company—that is to say, that the committee should be composed as to half of the contributors themselves and as to half of the representatives of the company, either directors or managers, as the directors might think fit. The Board of Trade said at the time that they would bring to the notice of the various railway companies the representations of this Departmental Committee, and would seek to get those recommendations carried out; and they promised that if the railway companies did not carry out the recommendations they would consider whether further legislation was necessary in reference thereto. I do not want to suggest in a matter of this kind that legislation is necessary. Representations have continued to
    310
    be made by the clerical staff, to myself, and to others outside, that they are still without representation on the committee of the Great Northern Superannuation Fund. In March of last year, in response to a question I put, the Board of Trade assured me that in correspondence they had had with the company the company had informed them that they were making arrangements for an election of committee men from the clerks. Nothing further has been done, so far as I can gather, front that day to this. Therefore I take this opportunity of entering my protest against this Bill being allowed to go through unless the company fulfil the promise which they definitely made through the Board of Trade to this House that they would see that the clerks had an opportunity of electing their representatives. I believe the hon. Baronet himself chairman of the superannuation committee, and is in a special position to give effect to this promise. I therefore appeal to him to do so.
    There is one other matter of which I have not given the hon. Baronet notice; but, while the hon. Member for Enfield was speaking about this particular footway, it occurred to me that there is in his contstituency and in the neighbourhood where I live a much more acute problem than the footway at Enfield. If he lived, as I do, at Bowes Park he would know that the facilities for passengers getting off the platform and away to their homes after leaving the train are very meagre indeed, and that something ought to be done. I believe that at this station when I went to live there first, now fifteen years ago, there were probably about 2,000 season ticket holders. I shall not be speaking beyond the mark if I say that to-day there are 5,000. Yet practically the same facilities have to suffice for the passenger traffic to-day. I am reminded by an hon. Friend of mine who lives there that, in addition, the company have increased their season-ticket fares. It would not in the least surprise me if some day there were an accident of a very serious nature there. The crushing to get up and down the steps of the station, and the flimsy nature of the structure, are such that I hope an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of Bowes Park Station and that an attempt will be made to improve the conditions there.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have a point to put before the Great Northern Company, and probably the hon. Baronet when he speaks will find it convenient to reply. I say at

    311
    once that I do not appear in any hostile spirit to the Great Northern Railway, for my experience as a trader leads me to say that I would rather the large transactions to which I am a party should take place with that company than any other company, and that the way they conduct their business and treat their customers is a matter I gladly acknowledge to be entirely satisfactory. At the same time, I want to ask specifically a question with regard to the treatment which the Great Northern Railway accords to its stationmasters, particularly with regard to their Sunday labour. The stationmasters have no union; they are not given to agitation, and try as loyally to serve the company and the public as any body of men. The courtesy and behaviour of the stationmasters in England will bear favourable comparison with those of any other country.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is now entering upon a topic which affects the question of the general policy of railway companies of this country. I must ask him not to pursue that topic in connection with this Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: I suggest, Sir, that I am entitled to make one general observation in a sentence before I apply my remarks specifically to this company, because it is only by comparison that one can form an accurate judgment as to whether the Great Northern Railway ought not to treat their employés on Sunday in a better fashion. I have no intention of pursuing that topic.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would not have again interrupted the hon. Member were it not a matter of some considerable importance on the Second Reading of a Railway Bill. He has already dealt with the same topic on the previous Railway Bill. It is obvious from that and from the tenour of his various remarks that he is dealing with the question of general policy, and I must ask him not to pursue it in a general way.
    Mr. BOOTH: If I may address you, Sir, on that point of Order, the fact that I challenged the Hull and Barnsley Bill on a specific point is no reason why I should not challenge the Great Northern Railway upon that point when their Bill comes before the House. I frankly admit it is my intention to raise this point on each Railway Bill, but only for the purpose of
    312
    dealing with the specific railway and the particular Bill which is before the House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a matter of some importance. The hon. Member has made it perfectly clear that he is raising a question of general policy. I must ask him to be kind enough to observe the ruling I have already given.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it your ruling, Sir, that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is not entitled to raise the question of the conduct of the Great Northern Railway Company with regard to certain classes of employés on this Bill?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. I think the hon. Member for Pontefract sees my point quite clearly. It was not that point. It is quite easy, of course, to raise such a general question as that of eight hours a day or £1 per week, and apply it to every particular railway as it comes before this House. That is undoubtedly a question of general policy. The hon. Member for Pontefract is perfectly frank, as I am quite sure he always is, and he admits that it is a question of general policy that he is raising, and which I have ruled out.
    Mr. BOOTH: I did not mean to admit that I am raising any question of general policy, and I hope while keeping a sharp eye you will allow me to develop my case. What I want to ask the representatives of the Great Northern Railway is for some specific information as to how, on their railway, they treat their stationmasters with regard to Sunday labour. I invite the hon. Baronet to tell the House frankly whether there are, at any of their stations, masters who are requested by the company to serve the whole of Sunday all through the year. I am not raising this in any Sabbatarian spirit, though I freely admit that strengthens my plea.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is endeavouring to raise a general policy by inquiries addressed to the hon. Baronet. I do not think I should be justified in allowing that question to be put in view of the ruling I have already given.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am quite willing to bow to your ruling, because it will relieve me of a responsibility but I appeal to you whether I ought to be ruled out, with regard to the Great Northern Railway Bill, from dealing with questions of the way they treat a large body of their servants.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am giving my view on this particular Bill and the hon. Member is in my view raising a general policy. The hon. Member does not formulate any specific and definite charge against the Railway, so far as I have been able to observe, with regard to any special class. He is only asking a general question of a Member of the House if a certain state of affairs exists.
    Mr. THOMAS: Do I understand your ruling to mean that if the hon. Member or any other hon. Member can show that the conditions governing the stationmasters or any other class of workmen on the Great Northern Railway are different from those of any other railway company, that matter is not legitimate to be raised on a Bill seeking further powers for that railway company?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member raises this specific charge against a railway company on a Bill before the House with regard to railway servants it differentiates it from the general condition of railway service. That is an entirely different matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: That is exactly my mission here this evening, and I will make that clear, because as far as I understand the position they do not treat their stationmasters on Sundays in the same way that the Hull and Barnsley Railway treat theirs. And, therefore, I am raising the position and asking why the Great Northern Railway Company cannot be as considerate to their stationmasters with regard to Sunday labour as other railways are. If you wish me to make a specific point I have great pleasure in doing it. It was only because of my appreciation of the Great Northern Railway that I hesitated about making a specific charge. In response to your appeal I feel it my duty to do so, and the hon. Baronet will see it is drawn from me somewhat reluctantly. I therefore say my information is that some of the stationmasters upon the Great Northern Railway have given practically the whole of Sunday, and every Sunday throughout the year, and I claim that there is no necessity for that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is very evident that there is nothing whatever about stationmasters in this Bill. It is merely an omnibus Bill, dealing with very small points, and further, if there is any grievance felt by the stationmasters, their proper course is to go to the Conciliation
    314
    Board which was set up by the Board of Trade at the end of 1911. I did not interrupt before because I did not wish to waste time, but there is really nothing whatever in this Bill which deals with stationmasters, and my reply, of course, will be that on this Bill I cannot enter into any question whether there is any personal grievance on the part of the stationmasters or anyone else.
    Mr. THOMAS: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether on any Railway Bill seeking powers from this House it is not within the province of any Member to raise any question affecting the employés or the interests of anyone concerned with the railway company, and furthermore, on the further point raised by the hon. Baronet, seeing that the stationmasters are expressly excluded by the Great Northern Railway Company from the provision of the Conciliation scheme and have no power of redress under that scheme, whether this is not the only opportunity to raise it?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no mention in the Bill of the stationmasters on this line, but the practice of the House does not shut out considerations of the general administration of that particular railway. But, of course, the result is that if the Second Readings of such Bills as these are simply taken as an occasion for a survey of the general policy of railways, it is obviously making use of this occasion for a purpose which the rules of the House do not contemplate, and it is for that reason that I have interrupted the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) so often so as to emphasise the general rule, which is a most valuable one to preserve intact. The general discussion of Railway Bills must be limited to the particular railways concerned, although I quite agree the specific point which is raised is not included in the Bill which happens to be before the House.
    Mr. BOOTH: I thank you for making it clear, and I also thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that the answer which the hon. Baronet thinks he is going to give me does not meet the case at all, so perhaps he will give me a more direct answer. The reason I do not mention a particular station upon the Great Northern line must be obvious. I, of course, could be very specific, but I appeal to hon. Members whether I ought to be expected to give the name when there is no necessity for it. I want the Great Northern Railway not to treat it with regard to the personality of

    315
    the stationmasters now holding office, but with regard to the hours of the stationmasters themselves, particularly at wayside stations. I was asking whether it is reasonable for a loyal servant of the company and of the public to be expected to work practically the whole of Sunday, and every Sunday, through the year. He gets no chance to take a walk with any of his family; he gets no opportunity whatever to take his children to a place of worship, or for a drive in the country, as he may be disposed. They have a large amount of ability at the head office, and with a little rearrangement of business and with a supply of relief masters they could easily, without any great cost, make a better arrangement and give their stationmasters a chance from time to time to have a few hours off more frequently on a Sunday, or occasionally to have the entire day off. If the Great Northern Railway is as wise as I think it is, it will meet these points; but unless they and other companies do something in this matter, my opposition will become a little stronger.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) has objected to the Bill on the ground that it is going to block up or divert a certain footpath at Enfield. I venture to submit that that is entirely a Committee point. I myself believe that the diversion of this particular footpath will not injure anybody. After all, that is only an ex-parte statement on my part, in the same way as the statement of the hon. Gentleman is an ex-parte statement on his part. Neither of us can bring forward in this House evidence to show whether he is right or I am right. But this House has set up a tribunal before which the point can be brought and before which evidence can be adduced. The Enfield District Council have petitioned against the Bill on that ground, and can therefore present their case to the Committee. I do not think anybody in this House, on whichever side he sits, will deny that there is a probability that the Committee will give a fair and impartial hearing to the Enfield District Council, and I do not think anybody will assert that the tendency of a Committee of this House will be in favour of the railway company as against the local body. Therefore I think the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, so far as regards the footpath, is not one that should have been moved. The objection should have been brought before the
    316
    Select Committee. The hon. Member has raised another point, namely, that he desires a station to be built between Oakleigh Park and Southgate.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Oakleigh Road Bridge.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am informed that, supposing a station were to be built there, it would have to be put in a cutting which leads to a tunnel. I have here a letter written to the hon. Member, in which all these particulars have been given. Therefore it would be practically impossible for the company, except at great expense, to erect this particular station. The hon. Member talked about "monopoly." If my information is correct, there is considerable competition with trams in that direction. [HON. MEMBERS "No."]
    Mr. NEWMAN: There will be if we do not get a station.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think there can be any ground for saying that there is a monopoly. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) very kindly gave me notice three hours ago that he would raise some objection with regard to the superannuation committee, of which I happen to be chairman. His objection, as far as I understand it, is that the clerical staff do not elect a certain number of members to sit upon that body.
    Mr. WARDLE: They have no opportunity.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, they cannot elect members if they have no opportunity. A certain number of that body sit upon the committee of the superannuation fund. Of course, as the hon. Member knows, there are—I forget the exact number—six or seven, I think, of the clerical staff, higher officials, who sit upon that body and who are supposed to represent the clerical staff. With regard to this I would point out that it hardly arises on a small omnibus Bill of this sort which is merely to give powers to widen the railway in one or two places and to do small work of that description. I did not expect that this question would be raised, and although I happen to be chairman of the superannuation board, I should not only have to ask the other members before I pledged them to any course, but I should also have to ask the board of the company who are the ultimate tribunal before whom these matters come. All I can say is that I will represent to the superannuation committee the

    317
    statements which have been made by the hon. Member for Stockport. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) says there is a particular stationmaster who has to work very long hours. He does not give the name.
    Mr. BOOTH: More than one.
    Sir F. BANBURY: He does not give any names. I am not objecting to that, although I have read in the newspapers that the hon. Member has been very desirous when charges are made to have them formulated. He does not formulate any charge, but, speaking generally, he says that there are certain stationmasters who work long hours and who, he thinks, have a claim for getting their conditions bettered. All I can say upon that point is that it does not arise under this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member that stationmasters as a class, not only on the Great Northern Railway, but, so far as I know, on all the railways of the United Kingdom, are a deserving body of men. It is not the desire of railway companies, and certainly it is not my desire, to do anything to prejudice their livelihood. But it is evident that there are in working a railway all sorts of conditions which must apply. At a great station where there are a variety of men under the stationmaster, the conditions cannot be the same as at a small station where there are only the stationmaster and one porter. Different conditions must arise. It would be impossible to enter here into the details of the duties of stationmasters, and all I can do is to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, inasmuch as it will neither make nor mar the conditions of stationmasters. I do not see that it is is in my power to do anything more.
    Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), with the ingenuity he usually displays, undoubtedly succeeded in side tracking what is the real object of the opposition to this Bill. There has never been, and there is never likely to be, a Bill introduced into this House dealing with stationmasters, or any of the other questions that have been raised to-night. Therefore, if Members of this House are not allowed to raise their general objections when railway companies are seeking additional powers, what opportunity have they of raising the question at all? I submit that when a railway company or any other body come to this House for new or additional powers
    318
    it certainly should be within the competence of this House to say whether the power already possessed by that body is rightly used or not, and unless that position is maintained then the whole power of a Member of Parliament to influence legislation or protect the interests of the people who cannot protect themselves is absolutely destroyed. The hon. Baronet said, dealing with the first point, that this undoubtedly is a Committee point. He said that the Enfield Council applied for a locus to be heard upon the particular point in dispute. The hon. Baronet is the very first to grumble about the increase in rates and taxes. He is always pointing out how they are going up, and surely when a local authority have a real grievance of this description they ought not to be put to the expense of appearing with counsel before the Committee in a matter of this kind, and, when a case is made out, the Great Northern Railway Company should satisfy the point before they come to the Committee.
    With regard to the position of the superannuation committee, it is true, as stated, that the higher officials have representation. That is not the point at all. All that the hon. Member for Stockport asks is this, that the great majority of the men who subscribe to this fund shall at least have an opportunity of administering the fund. They simply say, "We contribute our money to a fund which is ostensibly for our benefit. We are the people directly involved." Surely upon the principles of democratic government it is not too much to ask the Great Northern or any other company, and not only to ask, but to insist absolutely, that if there is an institution of this kind with 90 per cent. of the men involved contributing their money from week to week, they ought to have the power of naming their own representatives to share in the management of that particular fund; and it is absolutely absurd to ask this House to countenance any other situation. I would have no hesitation in saying that if a test was to be made on this Bill or any other, and the Great Northern Company were to suggest for a moment that in a fund of this description, where all the men ask for is representation, that they should not have the opportunity of electing their own representatives, the majority of the Members of this House, regardless of the side on which they sat, would have no hesitation in supporting the demand of the men. I would urge the hon. Baronet to go a step further than the mere

    319
    suggestion that this should be considered, because the fact remains that now nearly four years have elapsed since the Departmental Committee of this House, after hearing the Great Northern Company and the railway companies themselves, and having sifted the whole of the evidence, said that, in their opinion, this ought to be done.
    This recommendation having been made three years ago, we ought to be in a position at least to-night to say to the hon. Baronet, "Do what the Departmental Committee recommended, what we think is just and honourable, and, although this has not been done in the past, give a guarantee from to-night that it shall be done," and I hope that we will insist that at least the guarantee shall be given. Now take the next point of the stationmasters. The hon. Member, in my opinion, decided rightly not to name any station or stationmaster for this reason, that while, if a Member of Parliament by innuendo makes a suggestion that he can prove, he is at least in a position of being able to protect and defend himself, and therefore in that case we should be fully justified in asking him to have the courage of his convictions and mention names; but the hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that when the names of men who are humble railway servants were mentioned, either in this House or outside, the first opportunity was taken to shunt those men. I therefore hope that no names will be mentioned, but that the broad general question will be considered that here is a class of men who, while there is a trade union open to them, are in such a position that they are discouraged, to put it no higher; and so far from their being an organised body, the officials do not countenance it, and they will certainly give no preference to the men who join the trade unions. That being so, they must have some opportunity if they can get no redress for their grievances, or have their grievances heard, and on this occasion all that the hon. Member asks is that you shall recognise as an employer of labour that seven days per week should not be expected from any man, whether stationmaster or anything else.
    The simple proposition laid down is that you to-day employ as stationmasters on different parts of the Great Northern system men with small salaries, men with large responsibilities who are doing faithful service to the company, and who are rated for seven days' work in the week. That is not human, it is not just, and it ought not
    320
    to be tolerated. Therefore the simple proposition is that you should at least recognise what some of the railway companies are recognising, that no man should be asked to work seven days a week, but that every man should be entitled to at least one day in seven. These may appear to be trifling points, but again I submit that the privileged position of a railway company is such as to render it absolutely essential that before further power or authority is given to these bodies a free opportunity must always be given to the House of Commons to raise any legitimate point; never mind whether it is included in the Bill or not. While none of the points raised are included in the Bill this evening, I do submit that the answer of the hon. Baronet is not a satisfactory answer, and that unless a more satisfactory answer is given, then the House ought not to give further powers to a body that have not shown themselves capable of giving justice to the men on the points which have been raised.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: There is one point in connection with this Great Northern Railway Bill which I should like to mention. I am very sorry that I was not able to raise it before the representative of the railway company spoke in this House. It is with regard to the nuisances that are created by the Great Northern Railway along the route of their line. I see that mention is made in Clause 12 of the diversion of footpaths within the borough of Peterborough. If the hon. Baronet will travel up and down that line, as I do, once or twice a week, he will notice that there is an embankment on the Great Northern running for a very long distance which is made up of straw and refuse, and other waste material, which in summer time is really a very serious nuisance to the passengers. I do not think anyone can complain of the permanent way of the Great Northern; I think everyone who travels on that line can congratulate the railway company on the manner in which they maintain their permanent way. I do say, however, with regard to these embankments along the line, that they constitute a very serious nuisance. Last year attention was called to an embankment between Knebworth and Welwyn. Knebworth is a garden city—in fact, one of the prettiest spots on the line. A great nuisance was created there last year by placing tons upon tons of refuse, forming a very large tip. The attention of the Local Government Board

    321
    was called to it, and I believe it has been discontinued. But this long embankment, of which I have spoken, is still continued, and there is being put underneath the embankment refuse, upon which rails are placed. During summer time myriads of insects of all descriptions fly about, and follow and enter the railway carriages. I call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact, for we know that he is a very active director of the Great Northern Railway Company.
    I think none of the travellers on that company's line can complain either about the rolling stock or the permanent way; still, I think they have a right to be protected against this nuisance, and if it is to be continued, I think the attention of the Local Government Board must be called to it, in order that the directors of the company may discontinue, and in fact abolish, this very serious nuisance. I do not myself altogether agree with objecting to Railway Bills unless something is within the Bill itself to which objection is taken. I thought there was something in Clause 12 with regard to the diversion of roads within the borough of Peterborough, and, as to this embankment, which is outside the borough, I trust that we shall get a pledge from the hon. Baronet that he will undertake to get it dispensed with. The hon. Baronet takes an interest in dogs, and he is promoting a Bill for their protection. I wish to appeal to him to protect human beings. I appeal to him to consider the point, which is really a very important one, for I have heard many complaints from those who travel up and down the line, and I trust he will give an undertaking to deal with the matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We will look into it.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to say a word in reference to the suggestion contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. I have been in the House for seven Sessions, and I have frequently heard Railway Bills discussed. I remember, during the first Session I was here, that the Labour men were returned in such large numbers that they made I should say nearly the whole business of railway administration the subject of debate in this House. It seems to me that not only to-night, but for some time past, there has been a tightening up of this business. I recollect that last Session a discussion relating to the wages on a particular railway was ruled out of order. In regard to the tightening up of this
    322
    business, someone seems to be suspicious that Labour men are going to use private Bill legislation for the purpose of bringing grievances on to the floor of the House, instead of, as some people would apparently prefer, endeavouring to obtain a settlement by a strike and a struggle outside.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entering on a question which is not before the House.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: What I am protesting against is the statement of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees that he did not think there ought to be these debates on Railway Bills unless there was something in the Bill itself to which objection could be taken.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I simply expressed my own opinion.
    Mr. J. WARD: And I am simply expressing mine, which is in complete contradistinction from that of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London must know that the greater part of the subjects in this Bill are subjects which could by no stretch of the imagination come before the House for discussion. They are points for Committee. But the regulations for a superannuation scheme could not come before the Committee, and the charge made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) is that those regulations have not been carried out, and the present appears to be a good opportunity for discussing the matter. It is not a subject general to all railways, because some companies have carried them out. But the hon. Baronet suggests that it is a subject which ought to be discussed in Committee. Everybody knows that it is a subject which could not be discussed in Committee; the question of superannuation is rarely considered in Committee. It is one for this House to consider, and I hope that instead of the conditions being tightened they will be broadened.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): Very little need be said on this Bill from the point of view of the Board of Trade. The discussions on Railway Bills are often very useful in bringing railway companies into touch with the feelings and opinions of their customers as represented in this House. I have no doubt that in the present instance the representations

    323
    which have been made will in a number of cases prove effectual. I have no doubt that the Great Northern Railway Company will give earnest consideration to the representations which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, especially as my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns) may be invoked in that direction if attention is not given to the matter. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, it will be admitted that it is really a Committee point—the question, I mean, of the diversion of footpaths. It is not a question on which this House, on the Second Reading, can give an opinion; it could not possibly do so, not having heard the evidence. With regard to the building of another station, my information agrees with that of the hon. Baronet. The station proposed by the local district authority was to be at the mouth of a tunnel, where there is a cutting, and where the erection of a station would be extremely costly. I understand further that at either end of the tunnel there is a station within a little more or a little under a half a mile, so that I think the hon. Member will admit that the case is not an overwhelmingly strong one. The very suggestion that competition will come in the shape of 'buses and trams will no doubt have its due effect on the company when that state of affairs arises. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) I think he is perfectly correct in saying that the railway company did promise, and I think the hon. Baronet has forgotten it, that the staff should have representation on that Superannuation Management Committee, and, as my recollection goes, we received from the company last year an assurance that the matter had been referred to their solicitor, who was to prepare a scheme.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I believe he is doing that at present.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I trust that is the case. The promise having been given, I have no reason to doubt that the company will fail to fulfil it.
    Mr. WARDLE: It is a long time ago.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I admit the lapse of time seems to have been considerable, but if the hon. Member will put himself in communication with me I have no doubt he will get an explanation from the rail-
    324
    way company and that the matter can be satisfactorily arranged. The larger question of the treatment of stationmasters is as you, Sir, ruled, substantially a matter of general policy, and it could only be regarded in this Bill as portion of a particular policy. I think the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) will admit that it could hardly be settled by a declaration on the discussion of the Second Reading of the Bill such as this. Considerations being what they are, I submit there is no case for refusing the Bill a Second Reading, and I hope the House will give it that Second Reading without a division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Another point I was making was that the conditions had been very seriously changed, and I instance four points in which that has occurred. In the first place you have got the development of railways, and the problem remains, how are you going possibly to cut off the supplies from a country with which you are at war when that country is in railway communication with five or six other States through which supplies can come? The second is the changed position of neutrals as a result of the Declaration of Paris; and then you have the spread and practice of insurance, and, fourthly, the much greater extent of overseas trade of the Empire, which a century ago was only £63,000,000 and now cannot be less than £1,700,000,000. All those four points must be taken into account by the advocates of the maintenance of the right of capture. I am quite aware how difficult it is to form any forecast as to what may happen in the case of naval warfare, but suppose we were at war with a naval Power, and chat everything went in the fleet actions as we could wish, and that our commerce destruction was fully and successfully organised, nevertheless the nation with which we were at war, so far as I can see (sweeping away technicalities as to continuous voyage and all the rest of them on

    325
    one side), would be able to secure a large part of the supplies it would require under the neutral flag, or, if its seaports were blockaded, those supplies would be able to be imported through the neutral ports, Amsterdam, Antwerp, and so on, which it would not be within our power, under the conditions of naval war, to blockade. I am quite willing to admit that there would be losses, and that we should be able to inflict a certain amount of commercial damage and injury on the mercantile marine of the enemy Power, but where is that loss going to fall? To a very large extent it would simply recoil on ourselves, and to an extent which we cannot exactly calculate, would undoubtedly be borne by British underwriters and the insurance world.
    Here you have a perfectly absurd position so far as the insurance world is concerned. It contributes to the upkeep of the Navy. It is bound to take these risks. If it refused to take them we should lose the supremacy in the business of insurance, and a large part of the business would go to the Continent. It takes these war risks a twelve month before they run out, and no one can know what the international position will be during the rest of the year. No cruiser engaged in commerce destroying is in any way able to tell whether the loss which it is inflicting is really inflicted upon the enemy or upon ourselves. If you strike at the enemy's fleet you are inflicting a loss upon the enemy nation as a whole. Even then, the fleets are sometimes insured. I know, as a matter of fact, that within a month or two of the outbreak of the Spanish American war the Spanish fleet was insured in this country, and I rather think it was insured at the time it went to the bottom. At all events, so far as commerce destruction goes, you are simply attacking and ruining, it maybe, one portion of the British nation, in the vain, futile, and fond hope that you are bringing the enemy nation to its knees. On the other hand, supposing you manage to inflict a really serious and disastrous loss on the other side, there will be a financial crisis. As we know, a financial crisis goes round the world, and in the modern interdependence of commerce, a good deal of that loss would simply recoil upon ourselves. Hence working out the possible financial effects of the use of this weapon of commerce destruction, you may inflict a loss and perhaps ruin upon individuals, but I cannot see that you can subjugate a nation.
    326
    Therefore, my argument is that this is not now a really effective method of waging naval war, and that its use would very likely recoil upon ourselves with serious damaging results.
    If I were to quote what has been said on the other side, I should put the case much higher than I think it can be put. We are told by the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) that our real danger is starvation, and not invasion. He is so sensible of the danger that he asks the Government to set up granaries; he says that we must have a swarm of cruisers—six or eight ships upon each route; he warns us that General Bernhardi has declared that a war against British commerce must be boldly and energetically prosecuted; and apparently he feels that unless proper measures are taken an enemy might be able to bring us to our knees by the use of this weapon. I think that I am estopped from putting the danger to ourselves quite as high as he would put it. I quite admit that if once our Navy were crushed and beaten, anything might happen. But assuming that the Navy is not crushed and beaten, I, who have argued that commerce destruction will only inflict loss, but not crushing ruin on a country, cannot proceed to argue that our opponents would be able to inflict any really crushing loss upon ourselves. Clearly, if I did so, that would be putting the case much too high, and I should be guilty of a real inconsistency of argument. Nevertheless, I think that a considerable amount of loss might be inflicted upon ourselves by the commerce destroyers of the enemy which might slip out and do considerable damage on the trade routes.
    All the evidence of the old wars—and I have gone into that question very carefully—shows that the real danger of commerce destruction and the loss inflicted upon us was at the outset of war, before the Fleet actions were decided, and before we had established our superiority. I quite admit that at the outset of war we might suffer very considerable loss. We are far more dependent than any other Power upon our overseas supplies. But so long as the Navy remains paramount I do not think that the loss will be irreparable. If I am right in my analysis, if this weapon is not an effective weapon for bringing an enemy to its knees, if it can be surrendered and yet leave us with an effective weapon of offence, I think the balance of argument is rather in favour Of surrendering the right of capture, thus relieving ourselves from

    327
    the great pre-occupation of guarding our commerce and our trade routes, and, as I should say, allowing the navy to devote itself to its proper work of guarding the country against invasion, of crushing a hostile fleet, and of covering the expeditions which might go forth from these shores. That is the argument that I venture to put before the House. I believe that commerce destruction at sea is not a weapon of essential importance, but that it is really an obsolete method of attack which has lost its effectiveness owing to the change in modern conditions. It is ineffective for subduing an enemy, while it exposes us to grave risks. I believe that its surrender would check the forces which make for international competition in naval armaments, and it is for that reason I press it on the Government. I believe that the friends of peace in this country and in Germany, where there is a party working for this end, would do well to concentrate on this point as being the most effective way in which they can arrest this ever-growing competition and establish the relations of all the Powers interested in overseas commerce on a far sounder footing of goodwill.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I think the House will agree that the hon. Member for Lincoln has delivered a most interesting speech on a most interesting subject. There is no doubt in the world that a great many people will agree with the views that he has put forward. But there are two sides to the question, and I think the hon. Member deserves credit for bringing forward this Motion in order that it may be debated on the floor of the House. I imagine that the cardinal motive in his mind was to reduce the horrors of war and to make an effort in the direction of peace. I would entirely support him in the direction of reducing its horrors, but I do not think that it would ever be wise to reduce the severities of war. The severities of war, in my humble opinion, should be as stringent as possible, for the simple reason that we wish to end the war as soon as ever we can. Now the hon. Gentleman's view, if adopted, would really produce a set of circumstances that would have a small portion of the country engaged in war and the whole of the rest of the country at peace. You could not well have only the fighting services engaged in war. That would not be in the
    328
    direction of ending the war quickly. You might arrive at the conclusion of the matter upon finer lines and let the matter be settled, as in the olden times, by two knights—by merely having two gentlemen who would go out to meet each other, and the whole honour and safety of the country and of the campaign would be settled by these two gentlemen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Whichever fell would be the one that lost. There are other views of the question which, I think, the House would like put forward as against the views which the hon. Member has so clearly placed before us. There is one paragraph in his Motion which says that enemy merchant vessels, except the carriers of contraband, or in the case of blockade, shall be immune from capture.. That opens out the real question that he touched upon: Will not food be contraband in war? There is no doubt it will be. The hon. Member referred to neutral ports. We have no neutral ports. Our frontiers are all sea frontiers, and that is one of the weak points in the Declaration of London.
    Other nations can by land transit get not only their food, but their raw material through neutral ports. When neutral vessels come with food to this country they will be subject to capture by the enemy; and the real question is—as the hon. Member has so very fairly stated in regard to my views—and I feel very strongly on the point—the whole question for this country in war is that of starvation. We are so dependent upon our trade, not only for our food, but for our raw material—I think five-sixths of our food comes across the seas. We are also dependent from overseas for our raw material, from the working up of which our workmen get their wages. The hon. Member pointed out if we exempted private property from capture at sea it would to our advantage. But he will agree with this: that we could not possibly take up such a suggestion as that unless every other nation agreed to it. Is it likely that they would agree to it? I do not think so. The hon. Member has very well put it forward; this is our weakest point. But we may defend our merchant ships. The other night I ventured to say to the House that by far the biggest thing, in my opinion, that has been done in this matter was the suggestion of the First Lord of the Admiralty to arm ships of the mercantile marine. They are, not to be aggressive, not to be cruisers; these ships, with merely a few guns on board, will protect themselves against the

    329
    only vessels that really can attack them with any success, and that is the mercantile marine vessels of other nations. It does not want a large ship. It does not want a speedy ship. A tramp of 9 knots with two 4.7 guns on board can be a merchant ship one moment and a man-of-war the next. She can go to neutral ports as a merchant vessel and see what ships are there and what is going on there, and, coming outside, can hoist the pennant and be a man-of-war.
    Unless you provide against this you are in a very serious danger from secretly organised armed merchant ships that may have orders to put down six ships on, say, one of our trade routes. The only way to meet this, is not to have privateers, as the hon. Member suggested, but to have our ships armed with a few guns to prevent their being attacked, not by a man-of-war, because a man-of-war would not do it. We should know a man-of-war. It is always a man-of-war. The real danger is that of being attacked by the mercantile ships of other nations. The House should remember this: if a few ships on our trade routes carrying food or raw material were put down, the rate of insurance would go up to prohibitive prices. They would create a gap. It would not be filled, because the most nervous man in the world is the shipper, not the shipowner. From the time the shipper gets his cargo on board until he gets his telegram giving the date of arrival he is more or less forever running into Lloyd's or the other insurance offices. The rate of insurance would be so great that the shipper would not ship. Therefore on the question of our food supply we should be in a very serious state in this country. That is one of the reasons why I was so glad that the First Lord of the Admiralty said the other day that he intended to arm the mercantile marine. I repeat what I said then, that that is more useful to this country to protect ourselves against this vital danger than if you were to lay down fifteen "Dreadnoughts." "Dreadnoughts" cannot command the trade routes. That is our great danger, a sudden organised attack on our trade routes.
    The hon. Member spoke about three questions—mines, blockade, and contraband. They are all very important. All these and very many more would enter into the question if once we tried to exempt private property at sea from warlike action. The question of contraband is the most important of all, because we
    330
    must know that food will be contraband if this country went to war. The art of war has always been and always will be to strike the enemy in the weakest place. Our weakest place is our food supply. We must do nothing in any way to risk that food supply. I would like to know, if I may ask him a question, as to whether or not he has studied the question of food being contraband? On that one single question I do not think his ideas—though I see a reason for them—would hold water for one moment—that is for this country to exempt private property at sea from warlike operations. I have spoken about neutral ports. I have also spoken about the question that when the country goes to war the severity of that war cannot be too stringent. You want to end the war as soon as possible. Every person in the country should feel the result of that war; else you will never end it; well, I will not say that, but not so quickly. So far as the hon. Member's views go as to securing peace, I am heartily with him. Anything that anyone can say or do to help to secure peace for our country, and for the world, I am heartily in favour of. But I have always argued that we secure peace better by being very strong so that it is unlikely, and almost impossible, that we should be attacked. Our Navy used to be the dominant factor for the peace of Europe. It is no longer the dominant factor, as witness the ententes. We never had ententes when we had a strong Navy. We lost our chance in 1909 of having a strong fleet, and being clear of all foreign complications. My idea is that you are far more likely to go to war, or to be drawn into war, because of ententes than we were when we rested on our own right hand, and were absolutely supreme at sea, and when that supremacy made other countries always look to see what we in Britain would do. I sympathise with the hon. Member's views entirely, as far as they go in the direction of peace, but I am afraid that I cannot concur in any way with his idea that the capture of private property at sea, being exempt from the declaration of war, or warlike operations, would secure the peace at which he aimed.
    Mr. ALDEN: I should like to take up the points made by the Noble Lord as to the maintenance of peace. I suppose he considers that our Navy exists for the purpose of maintaining peace; that in his

    331
    view, if we have a powerful Navy, it tends to maintain the peace of the countries of Europe?
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Yes.
    Mr. ALDEN: If the Navy is for the purpose of maintaining peace, it does not exist, I should expect, for the purpose of destroying commerce. Surely the two are opposing principles, and I should hope that because the Noble Lord stands so strongly upon this ground, that the Navy does maintain peace, he would be in favour of the abolition of this principle of the destruction of commerce in time of war. I want to allude to one or two other points made by the Noble Lord, because I feel that up to the present my hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Roberts) has had all the best of the argument. The Noble Lord contended that food would be contraband in time of war. I do not think he has any proof that that is the position.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Rice was contraband in the war between France and China, and rice was the staple food of the Chinese.
    Mr. ALDEN: I do not think this country ever admitted that rice was contraband, and I think this country would be the very last to admit that corn was contraband in time of war. What would the United States say, supposing we were to declare that corn was contraband?
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: The Convention of London admits it.
    Mr. ALDEN: I do not admit it. I think it is a subject for argument, and my point is that if it were possible for food to be declared contraband, it is all the more necessary that the principle laid down by my hon. Friend should be accepted. The Noble Lord also said that this is our weakest point. I admit it is. I admit that Great Britain will have far greater difficulty than any other country in protecting her commerce and food supplies, and I admit also the enormous importance of protecting our food supplies. But if that is our weakest point, then would it not be to our advantage to make efforts to come to terms with other nations at The Hague Conference, and eliminate this possible source of great, weakness.
    10.0 P.M.
    That is a point on which I join issue with the Noble Lord. He admits that it is our
    332
    weakest point, but he would make no possible effort to bring other nations together to come to
    terms on this subject. I am in full accord with the Noble Lord that you must have a strong Navy to protect your commerce, but if, on the other hand, you have made no effort, nay, so far from making any effort, if you have been the opponents at The Hague Conference, which has led to the opinion that our Government is not in favour of taking any such steps, it seems to me you have no excuse whatever, and in that connection I am in agreement that the very best possible thing that could happen to this country would be the abatement of this armament building in Germany. The very finest thing that could happen to Great Britain would be that Germany should, as we think, look at this matter a little more reasonably, and not press on with their battleships at the rate they are doing, and that they should not press on in another direction also. Well, in answer to that, I ask the Noble Lord to put himself in the position of any patriotic German, and I am perfectly certain, if he were a German at this moment, he would say, "It is the duty of Germany to go on building to protect her commerce, which is growing so very rapidly, and whilst Great Britain refuses to come to any terms and acts as an opponent at The Hague Conference on this subject of the destruction of private property at sea, we must build so rapidly and to such an extent as to give us a chance of protecting our own very rapidly increasing commerce." I do not know whether the Noble Lord thinks I am reasonable enough in that belief, but is it not the case that if he were a German he would take that view? Therefore, the least we can do, is to ask Germany and other European countries to consider this question. I do not say we should be able to come to terms, but I think civilised nations ought to make an attempt to come to terms, and I cannot conceive that anyone, who calls himself at this day, a civilised being or a Christian—I will leave out Christianity altogether—who calls himself a civilised being, can consent any longer to the proposition that we are to destroy commerce at sea in time of war, knowing perfectly well that thereby we cause infinite suffering to millions of human beings who are not in any real sense responsible.
    Let me take one other point—the question of insurance. The Noble Lord pointed out what insurance means, and what an immense cost it is, and how much greater

    333
    it is likely to be in the future. Is that not another reason for accepting the arguments of my hon. Friend? I do not say it is an argument which would carry enormous weight. If it is really the question of the life of a nation, we should not count the cost in money, but insurance is a very big point, and it is going to be a very much bigger point in the future. It is going very likely to shipwreck nations, and to bankrupt nations in the future, and that being so, I think the Noble Lord will admit it is an additional reason for reconsidering this question. I do not know what view the Government take at this juncture, but I hope the position has changed since the last announcement made by the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Government will see their way to make some overture. Why lay down the hard and fast rule that they will never consent? Why not make some definite overtures, and allow the matter to be carefully considered at the next. Hague Conference? I do not say it is possible to come to an agreement at the next Hague Conference, but it might be considered, and in the future, we might see our way more clearly. I very heartily support the Resolution of my hon. Friend and I should like to congratulate him upon the very interesting and historical speech which he has made, apart altogether from the principle he has laid down, which I think is a very sound one.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): May I re-echo the last sentence of the speech of my hon. Friend in which he congratulated the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) upon the able and interesting speech he has made to the House. I have been trying to read some of the speeches made in support of the arguments the hon. Member brings forward, but none of those speeches put the case so well as he has done to-night. I only hope he will be as happy after listening to me as I have been in listening to him. There are two points to be dealt with, one is the position of this question as between this Government and other Governments with a view to international agreement, and the other point is the argument on the merits of the question itself. In regard to the first point, I think there must be some misconception, at any rate in the mind of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), who spoke last. He suggested that we ought to make some overtures, and in dealing with this question not always give a
    334
    direct negative. The hon. Member who introduced this discussion made the point that we could hardly be expected to act by ourselves, and said that a settlement could only be arrived at by international agreement. He also made the point that it was a question which ought to be looked at and considered in connection with a reduction of armaments, and I quite agree with him there. But that is exactly and precisely what we have done. I shall have to quote to-night from documents which are before the House, and I will only quote a sentence or two to make my point. My first quotation is from the instructions to the delegates at The Hague Conference, 1907, in which this sentence appears:—
    "If, for instance, nations generally were willing to diminish their armaments, naval and military, to an extent which would materially relieve them from the apprehension of the consequences of war, and by rendering aggression difficult would make war itself improbable, and if it became apparent that such a change could be brought about by an agreement to secure this immunity from capture at sea under all circumstances, and was dependent upon it, the British Government might feel that the risks they would run by adhering to such an agreement, and the objections in principle now to be urged against it, would be outweighed by the general gain and relief which such a change would bring."
    That is a step, and I think it is made more clear and definite by the Report of the proceedings of The Hague Conference, which says:—
    "The British delegation, who nevertheless declared that their Government would be prepared to examine the question of the conclusion of an agreement to abolish the right of capture if such an agreement could promote the reduction of armaments."
    On 6th February the Foreign Secretary, dealing with this quest on, said:—
    "Those who have read the instructions to The Hague delegates to the end—not merely the first two paragraphs—will realise that His Majesty's Government have left the door open to them or to their successors to reconsider this question, should there be a real indication on the part of the Powers generally that it is likely to become a material point in effecting such a reduction of armaments as would really tend to diminish the apprehension of war."
    It seems to me that that is a very definite opening of the door, and practically amounts to an invitation to other countries to walk in at the door which in that way is opened. Surely we ought to consider it as being one of the primary matters of this controversy that we have made quite publicly certain definite offers to consider this question in a friendly way with other countries if such an agreement was accompanied by a reduction of armaments. That being so, it seems to me that the efforts of my hon. Friend and those who agree with him would perhaps be better employed in influencing other Governments to respond to this invitation

    335
    than trying to influence this Government to open even wider the door which is already fairly widely opened. In spite of this, I am bound to say that whatever the hon. Member for Tottenham may say as to the feeling of any average German, that the German Government has made no sort of indication of any willingness to discuss the matter in this connection.
    Mr. ALDEN: Is the purport of those quotations to bear out my contention that you expect a reduction of armaments before you decide upon the great principle.
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not think we expect it before we decide upon the great principle, but we do think the two questions ought to go together, and we are perfectly willing to consider them together. We have never suggested that this country, or any other country, should decide it before those two questions are decided, and other countries have not shown themselves willing to take it up. Other countries know their own business best, but still it is a fact that since this offer has been on record it has not been taken up, and there has been no indication of any willingness to take it up on the part of other countries most chiefly concerned. Now I come to say a few words on the points that strike me as to the merits of the arguments. It is, of course, a very difficult question. I wish we had three or four times as long to discuss it as we have, because I know there are many hon. Members of the House whose contributions would be extremely valuable, and I am sorry we have not had a fuller Debate. I quite agree with the hon. Member who raised this question that it is not one which needs to be decided by experts. This is a matter upon which every hon. Member of the House who gives his attention to the arguments on both sides ought to be able to make up his mind. But the real difficulty is to make up your mind, and there are very few public men who have given their attention to this subject who have not changed their mind at least once. That shows that it is a very difficult subject to decide, and if, in speaking on the merits of the subject this evening, I venture to put a point of view which is rather opposed to that of my hon. Friend it will be, not because I do not, to a considerable extent, sympathise with his point of view, but in order that those who read this Debate may see
    336
    the arguments on both sides put, and not only the arguments on one side. I will venture to try and put some of the obvious objections which everyone ought to consider and think over, however much impressed with the arguments which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House. First of all, there is the question of blockade. The hon. Member has decided that question in the Resolution which he has put upon the Notice Paper of the House. You have to take one point of view or the other, either that blockade must remain, or that it must be done away with, and in his Resolution the hon. Gentleman takes the easier course of assuming that blockade has got to remain, but in his speech he did not deal with that question. I do not think it can be so easily dealt with as in his Resolution.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not think I made my point quite clear. I said it was an undefined term, and I quite admit that it needs definition. The real point I should like to put to the Government is this: If their views on the question of blockade and contraband are satisfactorily met, will they then consider the surrender of the right of capture?
    Mr. ACLAND: I shall come to the difficulty of agreements between belligerents. It is possible to have an agreement on those very difficult questions when you are dealing as between belligerents and neutrals, but there are reasons why it is not so easy or possible to enter into agreements which under all circumstances will be binding when you are dealing as between belligerents and belligerents. You cannot deal with the question of blockade logically as the hon. Member attempts to deal with it in his Resolution, simply by saying that merchant vessels should be immune "except in case of blockade." After all, the matter ought to be considered as one of principle, and, looking at it from that point of view, I will take, if I may, two illustrations. Supposing we were at war with Portugal, which, of course, is amazingly unlikely, surely, if it, is right that Portuguese ships should be able to come from the ends of the earth to Cadiz, which is not in Portugal, with goods for Portugal, we could hardly maintain that it would be wrong that they should come with those same goods to the port of Lisbon. Take another illustration which I hope is equally as impossible. Supposing there was a war between this country and Germany, and supposing we were blockading Hamburg, if, as would

    337
    appear, my hon. Friend does not ask that German ships should be free to come and go from Hamburg it is difficult to see how he could urge very forcibly that those same ships should be free to come and go from Antwerp.
    Mr. HOLT: Would they not be perfectly free to do so if they were neutrals?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not dealing with the vessels of neutrals, but with enemy ships. Surely, if it is perfectly right that we should be entitled to capture ships if they are going to an enemy port, you cannot, if you are arguing from the point of view of a principle, say it is perfectly wrong that we should be able to capture enemy ships when they are going to a neutral port, particularly when the real object of the voyage is the same, namely, to supply the enemy country with provisions. In that connection, merely to show that this is a matter which has been seriously considered, may I just quote one further sentence from our instructions to our delegates to The Hague Conference:—
    "But on the other hand it must be remembered that the principle, if carried to its logical conclusion, must entail the abolition of the right of commercial blockade. Unless commercial blockade is discontinued there will be constant interference with an enemy's ships and constant disputes as to what constitutes an effective blockade. And when such disputes have once arisen between belligerent Powers it is obvious that the one which considers itself aggrieved by the application of commercial blockade to any of its ports would cease to respect the immunity of the merchant ships and private property of its enemy wherever they were to be found."
    I merely suggest for the purpose of this Debate that the difficulty there referred to continues to exist in spite of the attempt to avoid it in the wording of my hon. Friend's Resolution, namely, that in case of the blockade immunity should not be applied. We get front that the central question touched upon by the Noble Lord opposite—what really ought to be the object of war. That is the central question which is in everyone's mind in considering this question. I must suggest this, that the object of war is, not immunity for your own commerce, but to make your enemy speedily desire peace, and where there is a way of bringing considerable pressure to bear on an enemy without appreciable danger to the lives of non-combatants that is a power which any country must be very slow in deciding to give up. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that this power may be put too high. We have not got a vital power of offence against foreign countries by this power of attacking their ships on the high sea. We cannot bring an enemy to his knees by using this power,
    338
    but so far as it goes it is a power which will have considerable effect on the public opinion of countries in regard to entering upon a war. If by maintaining this power we can maintain a considerable public opinion in these two countries opposed to war, which might otherwise be more diffident about it, all I say is that that power and that public opinion opposed to war because of the possible exercise of that power—these are things which we cannot easily agree to give up. On this matter there are two schools of thought. There are those who would leave unaffected the civil population as much as possible, in the hope that that would gradually make war ridiculous, and on the other hand there are those who would make war such a terrible devastating pestilence that the consciences of men would not tolerate its continuance. But this question that is before us can be decided apart from either of these two theories. This is a way of making a war unpleasant, which is not a way of making it horrible. You cannot say that because the tendency of international agreements is to make war less horrible in all sorts of ways, because the tendency of agreement is to make private property immune, therefore it follows that what you have done with regard to war on land you ought also to do with regard to war at sea. I know that argument is used. They quote from The Hague Règlement of 1899, all those Articles which guarantee in various ways the property of non-combatants even in the theatre of warlike operations, and they say, "If you acknowledge private property of non-combatants on land you ought to do so on the sea also." But if you will look into The Hague Règlement you will see a rather interesting thing. The Article which forbids you to destroy or seize the enemy's property is all subject to the very important qualification:—
    "Unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."
    That is a very wide qualification of the immunity of enemy's property. Secondly, there is, I think, this point, that the immunity of any property on land, so far as it exists, is rather from the point of view of preserving life than front the point of view of preserving property because if you in war-time choose to occupy or seize a man's goods, his farming stock, and his house, you must run the risk of the loss of life and starvation to the man and his family. That fact has been in the minds of those who helped to draw up the agreement of

    339
    1899, when they tried to secure the immunity of private property on land. But on sea you have not got those reasons. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, I suppose, although I know nothing of naval warfare, what would happen would be that some cruiser would overhaul a merchant ship belonging to the enemy and fire a shot across her bows. The merchant ship would haul down her flag, and would be taken back to the nearest port of the captor, and all the men would live like fighting cocks until the war was over and then be sent back to their own country. No single man would lose a square meal over the transaction, and although 100 ships might be captured not one would be sent to the bottom. That differentiates it from the case of private property in the theatre of war on land. That means that you have got a power, for what it is worth, of bringing pressure to bear upon an enemy country without endangering the lives of non-belligerents. That is a thing you can hardly ask any country lightly to give up unless the matter is proved beyond dispute.
    I personally am a strong believer in the doctrine put before the whole world so tremendously powerfully by Mr. Norman Angell, but I am afraid that that fact emphasises my feelings on this question. Mr. Norman Angell wants to bring home to the consciences and the minds of mankind that war is and must be, whatever its result, a great disaster to all the Powers that take part in it, whether they win or lose. But if there are people who do not need converting to that doctrine of Mr. Norman Angell it is the shipowning and mercantile classes, who know that war between any countries with powerful active fleets at their backs would mean the capture of the ships that they own. And I suggest again that we should be very unwilling that anything should be done to minimise the quite obvious desire of the shipowning and mercantile classes in our country and in foreign countries at the present time to avoid at all costs an outbreak of war, so far as they can affect public opinion, because of the known liability to which their enterprise would be subjected if war broke out. My hon. Friend has raised a point about insurance. I am not very fully informed about that, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who sympathised entirely with him on the merits of this question, told me just now that he
    340
    had fallen into the same fallacy with regard to insurance, but he said he had found out since that it was a fallacy. The point he mentioned was that ordinary rates of insurance did not apply to war, and that companies made their own war insurance rates to cover war risks, and although a certain amount of the business might be lost, and the risks undoubtedly were very much greater, they recouped themselves by the high rates that they charge to cover war risks. Therefore, you could not say for a certainty that the insurance business was going to be ruined and great pressure brought on the country from that point of view.
    The last point I should like to make is as to the special position of this country in connection with this question. I think it is a new argument, but I believe it is a valid argument that if we give up this power of bringing war pressure to bear on any other country with which we may be at war, surely there will be a very greatly increased demand from those who think we ought to be able to hit countries on land as well as on the sea, that we should develop that part of our power, namely, the power of invading other countries with large armed forces. It would be forcibly urged that in proportion as we diminish our power of hitting other countries by action on the sea we should be bound to increase our power of hitting other countries on land. I feel sure some hon. Members opposite would use that argument against me and my Friends if we were to give up this power of striking at the commerce of an enemy, and that is an argument they might well think over. I hope the majority of the House will agree with me that just as we are free from any secret engagement which would involve the invasion of any foreign country, so it is not the function of this country to have a large Army, which could never successfully invade a great foreign country, in addition to the preponderating and enormous Fleet which we have to maintain. But surely if we give up a certain proportion of the power which we now exercise through our Fleet the argument that we ought to be able to have an Army comparable to the great Continental armies would increase in proportion as we weakened ourselves with regard to the power we now possess. That is the first argument with regard to our special position.
    Then let us consider what the position might be if we were to give up this power. As I think I heard an hon. Member below

    341
    the Gangway say in an interjection, it would be carrying on war on the principle of limited liability. I think that is a good description of it. We must assume that we shall be a country with a predominant Fleet. We must assume for the purpose of argument that we might be fighting against a country with not such a strong fleet, but with a predominant army. We must assume that we cannot get at them by invasion and that they cannot get at us because we have bottled up their fleet and are blockading it in their parts. Their commerce might come and go, and except for the inconvenience that their fleet is blockaded they are not suffering from the inconvenience of war. What happens? Our Fleet is all the time keeping the seas. We have to keep their fleet bottled up for fear that it might come out for a few hours and liberate the force which we must presume they have ready to invade this country. That is surely a position of very considerable risk, and the further we can keep away from it the better our chance in a war. It is not surely a good thing for us, if war is going on, to be for a very long time under conditions like these, when, owing to some accident, or some happy stroke of the enemy dropping a bomb from an airship, or by the action of submarines, our Fleet might for a few days lose command of the seas, so that the enemy's fleet might be let loose, and an invading force might be landed on our shores. The more pressure we can bring to bear—though I agree we cannot bring supreme pressure—by this method of cutting down their commerce, the more we can shorten the war, and the safer we shall be.
    There is, lastly, one other point which is rather delicate to touch upon, but it is necessary in this Debate. It is rather a difficult point, and I will state it by simply quoting a sentence from the speech which the Foreign Secretary made in the debate in February, 1908. He said:—
    "You cannot rely on a treaty, which affects only belligerents being kept in time of war, with the same certainty that you can rely on rules the enforcement of which interests equally neutrals and belligerents."
    Though I understand what my hon. Freind said about the making of agreements with other countries as to contraband and the use of mines, yet I must enter the caveat that, whatever rules you make, you cannot be so certain that they will be maintained strictly and honourably when dealing with matters between belligerents as when dealing with matters between belligerents and neutrals. When it is a question between
    342
    belligerents and neutrals there is naturally a desire on the part of every country to keep to rules which are laid down, because if you break the rules, a Power which to-day is neutral may become a belligerent to-morrow. When you are dealing with matters between belligerents you cannot quite rely upon arrangements that have been made in the same way as when dealing with arrangements between belligerents and neutrals. I do not say that any Power, if belligerent against another Power, would definitely throw agreements overboard, but there would be a way in which almost as much risk to our supplies of food and raw materials could be caused as if our private property was liable to capture. There would still be all sorts of questions of contraband, however much we might endeavour to arrange these matters under agreements. If it was to be a question that a foreign country could win against us by starving us, it would not be beyond the wit of man to discover reasons for delaying our ships on the sea under the guise of searching for contraband or something of that kind which would have the same effect—it must all be done in a very few weeks—as if our our ships were captured and taken to the enemy's ports. I have only made, or mainly made, these points in order that they may be considered alongside of the very able arguments which my hon. Friend put before the House. The points which I have made are these: That the right of blockade is bound up with this question and must be settled one way or the other with this question; that the analogy from a land war does not wholly apply; that there are special difficulties with regard to the position of this country in a matter which must be really faced; and lastly, that even if a doctrine of this kind were established, it is rather doubtful how far when the real pressure came, we could absolutely depend upon it, and therefore doubtful how far we could modify our naval policy even if this doctrine were accepted. I commend these points to the House to be considered alongside the arguments which we have heard from the other side, and I may conclude by again congratulating the House on the opportunity which we have had of hearing the arguments that have been put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln.
    Mr. CAVE: I should not think of following the hon. Gentleman into all the details of his speech, but I want in a few sentences to express my satisfaction, which

    343
    I think is shared by all my hon. Friends, at the fact that the Government, speaking through the hon. Gentleman, have not receded an inch, as I gather, from the declarations made by the Foreign Secretary in 1908. If they had done so I think that they would have found the general sense of the House against them. What is much more important I think that they would have embarked on a course involving real danger to this country. I am not less anxious than the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Roberts) in the desire to forward peace. We would all like to do what we can to promote general peace in the world, and I believe that the thought at the bottom of his speech is this: he thinks that if we gave up the right of capture at sea we should take a step which might lead to disarmament. I am afraid that he has no warrant whatever for thinking that. The Government have said more than once that if the nations of the world would genuinely entertain proposals for disarmament, we would, along with the proposals, consider this question of capture at sea. There has been no response whatever of any value to that invitation. So long as that is so it is an illusion to suppose that the surrender of the right of capture referred to in this Resolution would be a step towards the goal of disarmament, and if that is so it would surely be folly to give up a power which we believe to be of value to this country on the mere chance that foreign nations will respond by disarming. It would be a surrender of something of substantial value in the mere hope of getting an advantage. There are other points which seem to be of importance in this matter. First, the power to capture merchant vessels at sea shortens war. That is a consideration which surely should weigh with the hon. Member for Lincoln and his friends. I am not an expert in the matter, but we all know that the first principle in war is to hit hard and wherever you can. One way of hitting hard is to hit not only at the belligerent force of your enemy, but at the population behind that belligerent force. If you exempt from damage the trading classes of the enemy country, you thereby lose the chance of influencing forces which if affected by the war would lean towards peace. This method of capturing the enemy's merchant vessels is therefore a method of shortening war and bringing the war to an end. You capture property, you do not destroy life;
    344
    and it is perhaps the most humane method of all in which you can influence your enemy. Secondly, the surrender of this power would, I believe, prolong war. Just see what happens. If you surrender this power of capture, the enemy, weak at sea, would naturally keep her fleet in port so long as we were in command of the sea. Meanwhile, trade would go on. All the arteries of the life of the enemy's country would be at work, and the war might go on, as the Foreign Secretary once said, for ever—meaning that it could go on for an indefinite time. Meanwhile, we are in this position, that so soon as ever a mishap occurs, such as might occur to us, we would lay ourselves open—that is, we may receive a blow which might be fatal to our national life. In other words, we are simply waiting, unable to hit the enemy at all, and waiting for the time when the enemy might hit us. So the loss is all ours, and the gain is all that of the enemy whom we are fighting. In other words, we, as the hon. Gentleman said, should be carrying on war on the limited liability principle, with one arm in a sling. That is a fatal thing for a nation like ours.
    The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that with the surrender of the power of capture you can reduce the Navy. I believe that you can do nothing of the kind. Your Navy will be just as necessary for the defence of these shores and your trade routes; and, indeed, as has been pointed out, there is the danger that some merchant ship of the enemy might convert itself into a ship of war for the time being, so that the danger would be increased, and you would want your Navy as much as ever. The question of blockade is specially exempted from this Resolution. I am disposed to think with the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that if you abandoned capture you would be obliged as a parallel process to abandon the commercial blockade altogether. Whether that be so or not, the hon. Gentleman opposite recognises, in any case, the duty of keeping up the blockade, and you would want your vessels for that. You would want your Fleet for dealing with questions of contraband, which is sure to be extended against you, and it would be a more difficult and a more dangerous question than it is now. The hon. Gentleman said, I think with truth, that you cannot, when the safety of your country is at stake, depend upon a mere agreement being kept by belligerents in time of war. When the

    345
    life of your country is at stake it is dangerous to assume that your enemy, however much bound by the words of an agreement, would keep it in the spirit. Even if you made this agreement you need your Navy to enforce it, and, therefore, you will not be able to reduce by a ship the Navy you require to-day. I desire to add this consideration, which is, I think, sometimes forgotten. Our national life, of course, depends on our command of the sea. If we are beaten at sea, then the immunity of our merchant vessels might be of value to us, but in that case not of much value, because if we are beaten at sea we are beaten altogether. On the other hand, so long as we are dominant at sea, this power of capture is an advantage to us and it injures our enemy. And so at the time when the change now proposed would nominally operate in our favour it would be of no real value to us, and the time when the change would operate against us, namely the time when we have command of the sea is precisely the period when the right of capture is of the utmost value to us and the utmost injury to our enemy. I hope no opinion will be expressed by this House in favour of surrendering this power which, under present conditions, is I believe, of importance to this country.
    Mr. HOLT: I desire simply to make two points, since it would be quite impossible at this hour to enter fully into the question. First of all, I think my hon. Friend made a false point about the blockade, because by the abolition of capture the enemy ship, the ship of the belligerent, would fall into the same place the neutral occupies at present. That is the position if you abolish capture at sea. If you can make a distinction in the case of the neutral ship you can just make the same distinction in the case of the belligerent. The point I wish to emphasise is that from the point of view of protecting our own commerce there is absolutely no advantage in the abolition of the doctrine of capture unless it is accompanied by the total and entire abolition of the doctrine of contraband. If you take the inter-Imperial trade of this country, carried on as it is to a very large extent by regular lines of steamers, very nearly all of those steamers carry amongst their cargoes goods which would justify a plausible charge of carrying contraband. That being so, the enemy cruisers would undoubtedly take the ships into port. It is almost certain that the first Prize Court you
    346
    go to, being, as we know, not always of an impartial character, would find in favour of the enemy. Let us assume, that the final superior Prize Court, consisting of trained lawyers, administers the law in the most just manner conceivable and finds in our favour, that would take a matter of six months or thereabouts. The whole commerce of the Empire would have been hung up for six months while getting the decision in our favour. That is just as bad as having the ships destroyed on the spot, and it would be absolutely impossible to be allowed to continue. No Government and no First Lord of the Admiralty could allow the trade of this country and the various parts of the Empire to be shut up for six months while awaiting a legal decision in our favour. You would have to exert as much force to prevent that temporary dislocation of your trade as would be necessary to protect yourselves from capture, because if you could prevent the enemy's cruisers from interfering with certain selected ships, precisely the same steps would prevent any ships being interfered with.
    What you clearly have to do is to clear the enemy's cruisers off the sea, and to prevent them seizing your ships for contraband you have to do that. Once you do that you prevent them seizing ships for any cause whatever and you are perfectly certain. Therefore I think my hon Friend who urged this point should remember that there is really no advantage to us from a defensive point of view in getting rid of the capture of private property, unless you are going to have the whole doctrine of contraband swept out of existence. The two matters go together. Some of my hon. Friends seem to think that the real loss of insurance falls upon this country. That is quite illusory. You cannot shift the loss by any method of insurance. All that happens is that the class upon whom the loss falls pays a premium commensurate with the risk, thereby agreeing that the damage shall be pooled amongst themselves. Insurance is simply a pooling of the damage amongst the class liable to the risk. It does not shift the loss from the shoulders of the class; it simply shifts it from the individual to the class. If the ships were likely to be captured, the premium would go up by leaps and bounds. If they were certain to be captured, obviously the premium would go up to 100 per cent. There is no reason whatever to think that if we

    347
    gave way on this point we should get any advantage. If it were certain that in exchange for the concession of this doctrine of capture we should get substantial concessions in other matters, such as the use of floating mines, there might be something to be said for it as a bargain. But unless we can get a really good bargain on other points I hope the Government will refuse to give way on this point.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
    Considered in Committee.
    Royal Palaces.—(Class 1.)—Vote 1.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £36,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid."—[Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. Gulland]—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

  POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. BOOTH: This is one of those Bills to which the House ought to give careful consideration. I understand that the Bill is not in charge of hon. Members from Scotland, and numerous communications have reached me from various local authorities in Scotland suggesting that they are perfectly competent to govern their own police and to arrange their own affairs in this respect. It is on that ground that I think we are entitled to some information from the Mover of this Bill. The government of the police raises
  348
  the very important question of the relations between the central authority, that is Parliament, and the various county councils and authorities throughout the whole of Scotland. I have never heard it suggested that those who are responsible for local government in Scotland are one whit behind those who are responsible in other parts of the country. On the contrary, they claim to be…
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).
  The Orders for the remaining business were read, and postponed

  MAIL-CAR SERVICE, COUNTY MAYO.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. DANIEL BOYLE: In asking the attention of the House from the questions of national importance that Members have been discussing for some hours to one that affects my Constituents in the North-West corner of Ireland, I would ask the House to excuse me, for to us the question is one of vital importance. For over sixty years there has been maintained between the towns of Ballina and Belmullet, on the extreme Western coast, a mail car service—the only one in the district. The distance between the two places is 40 miles. The car service is what has been known in Ireland as a long-car service, being used for the conveyance of passengers as well as for the mails. The House can imagine what it means to a scattered population of 20,000 persons to be absolutely deprived of any transit facilities. The Post Office, I understand, have been in communication with the other Irish Departments, and my object is to appeal to the Postmaster-General and the other Departments concerned, whatever may be the cause of their action in discontinuing the service, that in the matter of inter-departmental arrangements some modus vivendi should be found so that the people should not be deprived of this service. I do not think any request in the question I put to the Postmaster-General yesterday is unreasonable. The Departments concerned include the

  349
  Congested Districts Board, which operates in the district. We have had lately an intimation that money was likely to be given to a matter in Ireland that is a vexed question, and about which there is a good deal of feeling: here is an excellent object, not requiring a very large sum, which the Government might come forward and help. The people in the district I refer to are wretchedly poor, and are the first to feel the failure of the crops, and so on. This is the district which, above all others, has been selected to be isolated absolutely from the rest of the community. The importance of this matter to the people concerned cannot be exaggerated. It touches their daily lives at close quarters. These mailcars furnish the only public transit facilities in the district, and now for the sake of effecting a saving of £170 per annum these 20,000 people are to be deprived of even these facilities. This primitive link connecting a whole countryside such as I have described with the most wretchedly poor and scattered population in the British Isles is, for the saving of £170, to be cut off, so far as transit facilities are concerned, from the rest of the world. The nearest railway station is 40 miles away. Price of a car from Belmullet to Ballina is absolutely prohibitive to 99 per cent. of the people. It means two days, and the expenditure at the very lowest of a sovereign, which is a very large sum to people circumstanced as these people are. I hesitate to believe that the Postmaster-General and the other Departments concerned in allowing the withdrawal of these facilities have been fully cognisant of all the surrounding facts of the case. The Department, in reply to my question, admits it is wholly a question of cost. The amount is £170. Does the present Postmaster-General say that the saving of £170 by a public Department justifies the hardships I have described without exaggeration on a population of 20,000 people helpless to provide transit facilities for themselves? In a country with a £200,000,000 Budget the Barony of Erris must be deprived of the facilities of riding on a mail car so that £170 may be saved for the Budget. As a business man I like the application of business methods to public affairs but I decline to worship a business fetish irrespective of the surrounding circumstances. A combination of head and heart is desirable in business as in other affairs of life. The reply of the Postmaster-General mentioned that two other Depart-
  350
  ments declined to provide the subsidy of £170, and that it was not the duty of the Post Office to provide passenger facilities. The Mayo peasant condemned by the Post Office to isolation in his mountain home does not trouble to differentiate between the obligations of the different Government Departments. He knows that the Post Office is a Government Department, and that it has provided those facilities for more than sixty years, and he expects them to be continued. Whether they are continued by one Government Department or another is not a matter for him; he expects the various Government Departments to conduct their own departmental negotiations, and his demand in this case, I venture to submit, is neither extravagant nor excessive. There are three departments operating in Ireland in addition to the Post Office—the Congested Districts Board, the Development Commission and the Board of Agriculture. On a previous occasion when a motor service was instituted in this district for carrying the mails, they came forward and helped with a contribution. I refused to believe that if the Postmaster-General and the officials of this other Department are brought into contact they will allow this district to be cut off in the way I have described. I will quote from a letter written by the Congested Districts Board to the Post Office, which perhaps more eloquently describes than I am able to the hardships. Here is the letter:—
  "It is hoped that you will agree with the Board in thinking that for what may be only a transitory increase in the cost such a service should not be abandoned, and such a very serious injury inflicted upon what is undoubtedly the most backward and inaccessible district in Ireland, with a scattered population of 20,390 inhabitants. The distance between the termini of the service in question (Ballina and Belmullet) is over forty statute miles, and the existing cars also serve localities fifteen miles from Belmullet. The Board believe that the proposal for the abandonment of the pair-horse passenger service from Ballina to Belmullet could not be persevered in by any person who has sufficient knowledge of the district to be able to realise what the condition of the Barony of Erris (in which this is the only passenger service) would be if the proposal of saving £170 a year were to be endorsed by you."
  I think with that calm statement of the case, and the hardship that is threatened to be immediately inflicted upon that section of my Constituency, probably the Department concerned might take a little further time to continue this service, as I ask for a little while until we see whether the Post Office, the Congested Districts Board, the Development Commissioners, and the Department of Agriculture might not all of them help in some way to meet this sum of £170, so

  351
  that the service may be continued. I should like to add that from the people of the district I have had numbers of applications from public bodies and from meetings of the people affected by the discontinuance of this service, and they are greatly disturbed at this isolation they are threatened with. In the coming months in previous years six cars have always been used by labourers coming over to work for a few months in the English harvest fields. How are they to get to the railway station if this service is discontinued. They come over here to earn a few pounds to keep the home together, and nobody suggests that they should go to the expense of taking a car down to the railway station. I ask the Postmaster-General to give sympathetic consideration to my request that the service should be continued until we see whether something cannot be done to maintain it permanently. That is not asking a great deal. I am sure I have carefully avoided either appealing to sentiment or to prejudice or exaggerating in any way. My case rests upon its own merits, and I submit it on those grounds for the consideration of the Departments concerned.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Mayo for having given me the opportunity of stating on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and myself how much we sympathise with him in the action which he is taking on behalf of his constituents in endeavouring to continue this passenger service between Ballina and Belmullet, a distance of some forty miles. It serves a district which is perhaps one of the poorest. It has only a population of some 20,000, and it is perhaps more scattered than any other part of the United Kingdom. On 7th February the contract became vacant, and we put out alternative tenders for both passenger and non-passenger services. The contractor entered upon his contract on 21st February, and he, on his own option, declined to carry passengers. The present position is this: He has undertaken to carry the mails only by means of a single-horse car, but in order to suit his own convenience he is now running a pair-horse car and carrying passengers. The moment the new car which he has on order arrives his contract will debar him from carrying passengers
  352
  even if he is willing to do so. It is impossible, owing to the position of the contract itself, for that contract to be altered. Therefore the only consolation I can give my hon. Friend is to express the hope that the delivery of that car may be long delayed. I venture, as an Irishman with a vivid recollection of my boyish days, to think the force of public opinion is so great in Ireland, and that so much deference is shown to public opinion there, that it is quite possible the car may not be delivered until my hon. Friend has been able, in conjunction with the assistance of the Board of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board, to make some arrangements which will continue the service. I now come to the question of how we have arrived at this state of affairs, and why it is we are unable to carry on any further this service which has been continued for some six years. The whole question is a matter of cost. Thirty years ago, in 1883, we were able to carry out this service for £290. That was increased in the year 1890 to £340, and in 1899 to £450. Fourteen years ago the sum for this passenger and mail service combined was £450, whereas at the present time the contract for a similar service would be £770—that is to say, £320, or 60 per cent. more. We endeavoured in 1910 to run a motor service. A heavy motor carrying mails and passengers was run by the Government. The cost of the service was £700. But we could have had the mails carried at that moment for £500. Nevertheless this motor service at £700 was established because, owing to the fact of there being an improvement in the service, the Congested Districts Board contributed the sum of £100, and the Department of Agriculture contributed £50 while we in the postal service saved £46 on incidental expenses. Consequently there was a difference of £4 which we waived in the Postal Department, and the service was run. But after a year had elapsed it was found that the state of the roads was such that they would not carry the motor service. Representations were made to the Mayo County Council, but that body, not from any unwillingness, I believe, but from inability rapidly to repair the roads, did nothing in the matter, and the Treasury was obliged to relieve the English contractor of his responsibilities in the matter. Then on 13th January, 1911, this service was discontinued, and we had to reestablish a horse-car service. The cost of

  353
  the passenger mail service was £575, whereas at that period we could get no diminution on running an ordinary mail service further than the sum of £3. The cost of running the mail alone was £572, and seeing that the loss was only £3 the Postal Department waived that and the service came into operation. But the present cost of running this passenger and mail service combined will be £770, whereas we entered into a contract for the carriage of mails for the sum of £600. Therefore, it is a matter of £170, and we have no authority to spend public money on anything but the carriage of mails solely. What would my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) and other Scottish Members say if money were expended on objects such as these in Ireland and none devoted to places in the North and West of Scotland. I quite realise that the mere peasant does not differentiate between Departments; it is difficult to make him understand why he is deprived of the service. He looks on the Government as the Russian peasant looks on the Czar. He only knows he is being deprived by the British Government of a privilege he has enjoyed for a great number of years.
  It may be asked, how is it that the cost has increased? We are told that it has increased owing to the dearness of food stuffs and commodities, and also owing to the fact that there is a certain amount of competition in consequence of a steamer running three times a week to Sligo. Further, I am given to understand that it is caused in a great measure by the fact that, although the roads are not fit to carry a large motor and convey mails and a number of passengers, the roads are sufficiently good to stand rough small motors carrying two persons, and these motors are used by a certain number of tourists who come to that part of Ireland for fishing and shooting. As a consequence it deprives the contractor who runs the cars practically of his best customers. Then I would like to point out to hon. Members from Ireland that the cost of the service in that particular part of Ireland is extremely large. They may be surprised to hear
  354
  that the actual deficit on the mails in that part of the world is no less than £1,703. Therefore not only is the Postmaster-General prohibited from doing anything in the way of assisting passenger traffic, but he would scarcely be justified in spending more money in conjunction with the carriage of mails. It may be asked why we have not used our best efforts to get some assistance from the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture. I may point out that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has been in communication for some time with both those Departments. The answer from the Congested Districts Board is that the present service is in no sense an improvement. They say, "We were able to give you a certain subsidy when you instituted a motor service, and there was some improvement in the service, but in the present circumstances we are debarred from doing so." The Department of Agriculture paint out that since we are giving no special facilities for the carriage of fish or agricultural produce, they are debarred from giving assistance. I can only say that, pesonally, I deplore the fact that this service is about to be abolished. I can assure my hon. Friend that if it were in the power of the Postmaster-General and his Department to ameliorate things, they would do so. The only consolation I can give my hon. Friend is that I hope and believe that owing to the pressure of public opinion the car of which I spoke, and which has not been delivered, will not be delivered for some time, and I hope that in the meantime he will be able to bring some pressure to bear on the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend, myself, and the Department with which we are connected, will do everything we can and look at any project which is put forward by those Departments in conjunction with the Mayo County Council, and if that project is put before us we will listen to it with the most sympathetic ear.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Eleven of the clock.

  Licensed Tobacco Dealers (Cork City).
  Licensed Tobacco Dealers (Cork City).
  Development Fund (Ireland).
  Development Fund (Ireland).
  Tea Duty, Sugar Tax, and Income Tax.
  Tea Duty, Sugar Tax, and Income Tax.
  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Sligo District Asylum.
  Sligo District Asylum.
  Reinstatement Application (County Leitrim).
  Reinstatement Application (County Leitrim).
  Army Act (Marriages Without Leave).
  Army Act (Marriages Without Leave).
  Education (Wales).
  Education (Wales).
  Whipping (India).
  Whipping (India).
  Public Expenditure (Wales and Monmouthshire).
  Public Expenditure (Wales and Monmouthshire).
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Grants for Agriculture.
  Grants for Agriculture.
  British Legations (Cost).
  British Legations (Cost).
  European Turkey (Distress).
  European Turkey (Distress).
  Portuguese West Africa.
  Portuguese West Africa.
  Cotton Growing (Sudan).
  Cotton Growing (Sudan).
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Small Arms (Scotland).
  Small Arms (Scotland).
  Public Expenditure (Wales and Monmouthshire).
  Public Expenditure (Wales and Monmouthshire).
  Sugar Production.
  Sugar Production.
  Woollen Trade (Unemployment).
  Woollen Trade (Unemployment).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petitions for additional provision in the following Bills:
Lothian Railways [H.L.]
London County Council (General Powers).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
GOVERNESSES BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
OXFORD UNIVERSITY (ST. EDMUND HALL AND GATCOMBE RECTORY) BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.[H.L.]
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

RICHMOND (SURREY) ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
Petition of the Richmond (Surrey) Electric Light and Power Company, Limited, under their Common Seal, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to confirm an agreement relating to the supply of electricity in the Borough of Richmond (Surrey), and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.

ELY VALLEY GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
(Petition for additional Provision.)
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday the 10 th instant.
METROPOLIATAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.[H.L.]
WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord de L'Isle and Dudley and the Lord De Manley be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Templetown and Lord Mostyn; read, and agreed to.
GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GREENOCK HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION, &c.) BILL.[H.L.]
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL.[H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Vaux of Harrowden be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Northbourne; read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Regulations, dated 28th Mara, 1913, made by the insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer from Voluntary to Employed Rate) Regulations, 1913;

2. Regulations, dated 19th March, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions (Exempt Persons)) Regulations (England), 1913;

3. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners established under the Act as to appeals and disputes under Section 67 of the Act, dated 19th March, 1913;

4. Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to notices by Employers under Section 47 (2):

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 7.)

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable County Councils to acquire existing Ferries by agreement—Was presented by the Viscount Hill (for the Lord Monckton (V. Galway)); read 1a; to be printed; and be read 2aon Monday the 14th instant. (No. 8.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to make further provision with respect to the number and duties of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and with respect to the constitution of the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 9.)

HIS LATE MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I have the honour to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty expressing the indignation and sorrow of this House at the assassination of the King of the Hellences, and I shall also move that a similar Address be presented to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra. It is barely a year, my Lords, since I had the honour of moving a similar Address to His Majesty and one to Queen Alexandra on the occasion of the death of the King of Denmark, and now we are face to face with a still more sudden and dreadful calamity in the assassination of the King of Greece. Our first thought, I think, must be in relation to the loss suffered by Queen Alexandra—that this event produces one more gap in the gradually dwindling circle of the illustrious family of Denmark. We offer, therefore a special weed of condolence to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra at this further addition to the burden of sorrow which Her Majesty has had to bear since her great and irreparable loss of three years ago. My Lords, the King of the Hellenes and many members of his family have been well known in this country. Since His Majesty ascended the Throne of Greece almost 50 years ago, at the early age of 18, he led a life of hard work in that country—a life surrounded

75
with not a few anxieties. He reigned over that remarkable people, having to face not a few serious misunderstandings and some actual crises in his government of the country. But it was generally recognised there, as it was all over Europe, that he genuinely desired the good and the progress of his people, and there can be no doubt that the people of Greece recognised the peculiar advantage as regards their international relations which was given to the King by his close family connection with three of the Great Powers of Europe. It is true that for two centuries and more the marriages of Dynasties have not played the part which they used in ancient historical times in framing the policy of nations. But at the same time everybody must have realised that those family connections gave the King a most valuable insight in respect to international relations into the thoughts and feelings of other countries, and that also he thereby won the sympathy and understanding of the Governments and of the peoples of the great States with which he was thus connected. And now, my Lords, at the conclusion of a great contest, he has been laid low by the meaningless act of an obscure assassin. But His Majesty has left behind him the memory of a long career of hard work and a reputation for that dauntless courage which has distinguished all members of his House. In presenting the sympathy of this House to His Majesty the King and also to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra we should all desire, I am sure, to express the hope that the future reign of His Majesty King Constantine of the Hellenes, who has been so conspicuous a figure in the course of the recent war, may be long and prosperous, and that he and his people may enjoy many years of peace after the trying and agitating experience which they have passed through during the last few months. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the indignation and deep sorrow of this House at the great loss which His Majesty has sustained by the assassination of his Majesty the King of the Hellenes, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; to assure His Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns His Majesty's domestic relations, and to declare the ardent wishes of this House for the happiness of His Majesty and of His Family.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is inevitable upon these sad occasions that little should remain to be said by the member of your Lordships' House to whom is entrusted the task of seconding an Address of this kind, and, indeed, the Motion which the noble Marquess has made and the speech in which he has recommended it to your Lordships' House express, so it seems to me, adequately and appropriately the sentiments which are entertained on both sides of the House alike. My Lords, it is unnecessary that I should dwell upon the abhorrence with which we all of us regard this crime. There is, perhaps, just this redeeming feature in the case, that while we desire to give utterance to our reprobation of that which the noble Marquess well described as a meaningless act, we are not obliged to extend our censure to others. So far as we know, the criminal, and the criminal alone, was responsible for this deplorable deed. We have become in recent years only too familiar with crimes of this description. This crime is perhaps singular in one respect, that the catastrophe overtook the late King of Greece at the very moment when his people might well have acclaimed him as a Sovereign who, after a reign extending nearly to half a century—a reign during which His Majesty had displayed remarkable qualities of patience, courage, and perseverance—had been able to bring about a revival in the fortunes of his country which cannot fail to mark an epoch in its history—an epoch which will always be honourably connected with the name of the late King. My Lords, we can be in no doubt that the feelings of respect which the people of Greece entertained towards his late Majesty will be continued to his successor, who commences his reign with every prospect of popularity and success. It is in these sad circumstances that we desire to offer our sympathy to the subjects of the late King, who are now mourning him so deeply. We desire to offer a like condolence to our own King, from whom has been taken by the hand of the assassin a brother Sovereign, a near kinsman, and a personal friend; and there are other Royal mourners who are present to our thoughts at this time. But most of all, our thoughts go out towards Queen Alexandra, to whom the noble Marquess proposes to move a special Address. It is only a few days ago that, on the occasion of the debate on the Address to His Majesty, at the beginning of the session, we had occasion to speak of

77
the great burden of sorrow which Fate had thrown upon Her Majesty's shoulders. How little we thought on that occasion that this new and tragical addition was to be made to that already heavy burden!We all of us pray that Her Majesty may be given strength and courage to bear this new trial. There are some of us who are aware that even in the midst of the distraction of her own great sorrow Her Majesty has been able to evince for the troubles of others the same tender solicitude which she has never failed to exhibit in the past, and which has so greatly endeared her to her people. I beg to second.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra to express the deep sorrow with which this House has learned of the death of His Majesty the King of the Hellenes, and to condole with Her Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns Her Majesty's domestic relations.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to second.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Lincolnshire, the Lord Welby, and the Lord.Redesdale.

FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, this Bill purposes to consolidate and simplify the great mass of enactments relating to forgery and kindred offences. The Bill has already been before your Lordships in the last session of Parliament, and should you
78
assent to its Second Reading to-day I propose to move that it be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses in order that its provisions may be investigated.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved, "That it is desirable that the said Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament" (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and desire their concurrence thereto.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper, and that there is not likely to be any urgent business from the House of Commons demanding our attention here at any rate during the next ten days. Therefore, if your Lordships agree, I would move that the House should adjourn, except for Judicial and Private Bill business, until Monday, April 14.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When does the noble Marquess propose to take the Army (Annual) Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am informed, that the Bill will reach this House about the date which I have mentioned, and therefore it would come up for consideration, I presume, in the course of that week.
Moved., That no sitting of the House for Public Business he held before Monday, April 14.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE signified his assent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.