Sitting of 16 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Railway Bills (Group 1),
Ordered, That the proceedings of the Committee this day and yesterday on Group 1 of Railway Bills be deemed to be and be valid notwithstanding that a Member of the said Committee had failed to sign his declaration in accordance with Standing Order 117.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under The National Insurance Act, 1911, as to the formation of Associations of Deposit Contributors, dated 11th April, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 68.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 24th March, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, established under The National Insurance Act, 1911, as to Notices to be given by Insured Persons transferring from the Voluntary to the Employed Rate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, constituted under The National Insurance Act, 1911, with respect to the time within which a Seaman, Marine, or Soldier serving at the commencement of the said Act may become a member of an Approved Society for the purposes of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 46 of that Act, dated the 7th April, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 70.]

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5050 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act—

County Council of Gloucester (urban districts of Stroud and Kingswood);

Councils of borough of Luton and urban district of Enfield

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVY (GUNNERY).
Copy presented of Result of Test of Gunlayers with Heavy Guns in His Majesty's Fleet, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHIPWRIGHTS (APPRENTICESHIP CONTRACTS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that he is offering to the boy naval shipwrights, now training in His Majesty's dockyards, new contracts of apprenticeships requiring them to elect within fourteen days whether they will accept them or not; whether the substance of the offer is that they must either abandon the right secured to them under their existing contracts of entering His Majesty's dockyards as established shipwrights at the expiration of their first period of engagement, the time served in the Navy to count towards superannuation, or that they will not receive whilst serving in the Navy the new rates of pay granted to naval shipwrights in November last, and that whilst serving in the Navy all promotion above shipwright will be denied to them; and whether, having regard to the fact that the age of these boys varies from thirteen and a half to eighteen years,

    1911
    he will at least extend the period of election till they have served the term of their indentures and one year at sea; and (2) whether there is any clause in the indentures of apprenticeship of the boy naval shipwrights that can be construed as denying to them the right to receive the same rates of pay and the same opportunity of promotion on entering the Navy as the general body of naval shipwrights; and whether, in the circumstances, he will consider whether he ought to impose conditions on the contracts of infants which would deny to them the above rights?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): Boys entered for training as naval shipwrights do not sign indentures of apprenticeship but the ordinary continuous service engagement, by which they undertake to serve in the Royal Navy for twelve years' continuous and general service from the age of eighteen in addition to whatever period may be necessary till they attain that age. Their parents sign a form consenting to the above. The boys have been required to decide whether they wish to remain on the system under which they entered or accept the new system and rates of pay, surrendering the option of return to the dockyard, and are now being required to make their choice within fourteen days. The Admiralty are, however, prepared to consider applications from those who change their minds, if made in writing before they complete one year at sea. Promotion in the Navy is subject to such conditions as may be laid down by the Admiralty from time to time.

    NAVY ESTIMATES (SHIPBUILDING).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether he can give the date when Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates will be taken?
    Mr. LAMBERT: This question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    LOWER DECK (PROMOTION).
    Mr. FLAVINasked whether, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he regarded promotion from the lower deck, with possibilities of advancement for merit to the highest rank, as a permanent and essential feature in our naval system, he will state how many commissioned ranks will be allocated to the naval writers; whether he will state
    1912
    the number of writers lent to ships in lieu of assistant paymasters during the manœuvres of 1912, the amount of extra pay paid to each, and the acting rank, if any, granted to these writers during the period they were so employed; and whether, in view of the shortage of assistant paymasters, he will consider the desirability of providing a sufficient number of warrant writers to be employed in sea-going ships as captains' clerks and thus release a corresponding number of assistant paymasters for pay duties, and provide a nucleus of assistant paymasters sufficient to enable officers of that rank to be given their foreign service leave?
    Mr. LAMBERT: It is not intended to grant commissioned rank to naval writers. As regards the second part of the question, the number was two. No extra pay was granted, nor was acting rank given. The provision to be made in the accountant branch of the Royal Navy to meet the requirements of the Fleet is now under the consideration of the Board.

    ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, OSBORNE.
    Major GASTRELLasked whether anything has been done to eradicate the danger of disease at the Royal Naval College, Osborne; and whether, if nothing can be done to discover the cause of the unhealthiness of the college, he will consider the possibility of its removal to a more healthy site?
    Mr. LAMBERT: It is the constant care of the Admiralty to guard against the occurrence of disease at the Royal Naval College, Osborne, and, as at present advised, they are not prepared to admit the assumption in the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Major GASTRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of cases of illness there at present, and that it has been considered advisable to send many boys home?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The age at which the boys enter Osborne, I am informed, rather induces them to develop these somewhat youthful diseases.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it not a fact that these epidemics are very constant at Osborne, and more constant than in ordinary schools of public instruction in the country, and can he see his way to do something to alter that position?
    Mr. LAMBERT: As I have said, this question is under the constant care of the Admiralty. I understand that boys when they enter Osborne at twelve and a half years of age are peculiarly susceptible to these diseases.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Are not epidemics at Osborne more constant than they are in the ordinary public schools of the country?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Not if you take the age at which they enter into consideration. I shall be very happy to consider any information the Noble Lord can give me.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the swimming-bath which was promised three years ago has now been completed at the Royal Naval College, Osborne; and, if not, whether, owing to the dangerous currents, sea-water bathing has been prohibited and the naval cadets consequently left without opportunity to make themselves proficient in the art of natation?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Money has been taken in the Estimates for the provision of a swimming-bath, but the work has to be considered in connection with other questions concerning the whole of the college buildings.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the second part of my question?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir; sea-water bathing has been prohibited.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked this question three years ago and got the same answer?

    H.M.S. "PERSEUS" (MISSING CUTTER).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can now give the House any further information as to the missing cutter belonging to His Majesty's ship "Perseus" in the Persian Gulf; whether he will state the number of relatives dependent on the men lost; whether any pensions have been awarded; if so, to whom were they awarded; and when they were awarded?
    Mr. LAMBERT: No definite information accounting for the disappearance of the cutter has yet come to light, but inquiries are being prosecuted with a view to the thorough investigation of the rumours re-
    1914
    ferred to by the Noble Lord in his previous question on this subject. Of the eight men lost four are known to have left dependant relatives, to whom gratuities have been awarded. Pensions are only awarded to the widows of men killed or drowned on duty.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: What were the conclusions of the inquiry?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Two mothers were awarded gratuities of £22 16s. 3d. and £33 9s. 2d. respectively; one aunt £30 8s. 4d., and one father £34 19s. 7d.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Were there any children?
    Mr. LAMBERT: No. There were no children.

    ENGINEERING TRADES (PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether there is a dispute between the Admiralty and the men of the engineering trades employed in Portsmouth dockyard; whether the men of these trades have refused to work overtime or on night shifts until their requests for improved rates of pay have been conceded; whether the skilled and unskilled labourers attached to these trades have refused to work with non-society men; and, if so, whether he will now form a Committee of Inquiry to investigate and clear up the whole matter?
    Mr. LAMBERT: A certain number of men of the engineering trades employed in Portsmouth yard have declined to work overtime or day and night shifts, until replies are received to their petitions for increases of pay. The whole question of the rates of pay of dockyard workmen is now under the consideration of the Admiralty, and it is not considered necessary to form a Committee of Inquiry on the matter.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is not the fact that the men have a grievance, that their pay in the dockyards, including privileges, is nothing comparable with what they could get outside for a similar class of work, and the rate for provisions has increased enormously?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I do not think I can add anything to the last part of my answer. The whole question is under the consideration of the Admiralty.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: When will the matter be reported upon?
    Mr. LAMBERT: As soon as possible.

    CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. FALLEasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the average pay before retirement of chief petty officers, coastguard, is £64 without allowances, and that of chief officers £128, or 100 per cent. higher, whilst the average pensions of chief petty officers and chief officers, coastguard, during the last two years, differ only 5 per cent., or less than 10 per cent.; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing this disparity between the pay and pensions of these officers, seeing that it is the cause of discontent not existing in the corresponding ranks of naval services afloat?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The average pay, before retirement, of chief petty officers and of chief officers, is as stated. The average pensions awarded on retirement at the age of fifty-five years to the two classes referred to have been during the past two years £50 10s. and £57, respectively, a difference of about 13 per cent. As regards the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 12th February and the 19th March.

    ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENT (ADULT EMPLYE'S).
    Mr. POINTERasked for the number of adults serving in a civil capacity in his Department; the grades and numbers of persons so employed who receive less than 30s. per week or £78 per annum; and the number whose normal working day exceeds eight hours?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Such a return would involve an enormous amount of labour, which I should hardly feel justified in asking the Department to undertake.

    SHIPWRIGHTS AND ARMOURERS (PAY).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that £268,000 is voted annually to 670 Members of Parliament and that the entire estimated increase of pay granted to the 137,500 officers and men serving in His Majesty's Navy amounts to only £386,743, he would consider the property of reducing those salaries with a view to dealing more
    1916
    generously with the petitions of the naval shipwrights and armourers for increased pay?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer is in the negative.

    British and German Merchant Steamships (Tonnage).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether he can give the tonnage of British and German merchant steamships of 5,000 tons and upwards in 1911 and 1912, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The aggregate tonnage of mercantile steam vessels of 5,000 tons gross and upwards remaining on the Register at the beginning of 1911 and 1912 amounted to 4,584,000 tons gross, and 5,124,000 tons gross, respectively, in the case of the United Kingdom, and to 1,561,000 tons gross and 1,711,000 tons gross, respectively, in the case of Germany.

    Colombia.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Extradition Treaty has been concluded between this country and the Republic of Colombia; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Minister at Bogota has been instructed to approach the Government of the Republic on the subject?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): An Extradition Treaty between this country and the Republic of Colombia was concluded in 1888, and is still in force. See Parliamentary Paper No. 1 Colombia, 1890 (C. 5902).

    British East Africa.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Captain Edwards, Inspector-General of Police and Prisons in British East Africa, before the Native Labour Commission, that there was no way of making known to the native community the numerous enactments which appeared in the Government Gazette, and that breaches of regulations were committed by natives without knowing that they were doing wrong, and whether any steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have seen a statement to this effect in one of the local papers dated the 15th of March. I am asking the Governor for his views on the subject.

    British Guiana.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give to the House regarding a disturbance which occurred on Plantation Rose Hall, in the district of Berbice, in the Colony of British Guiana, during the first fortnight of March last; whether, in addition to minor casualties, no less than fifteen lives were lost, one of those killed being a policeman and the remainder being East Indian immigrants, on the estate; whether the immigrants came to their death because an attack made by them on the policeman, who was in the execution of his duty, compelled the authorities to resort to firearms; and, if so, what was the nature of the duty which this policeman was executing, and what are the conditions of the indenture under which Indian labourers are attached for service on this and other plantations in British Guiana?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Governor of British Guiana has furnished me with an account of this regrettable disturbance, the substance of which is as follows: On the 12th of February certain complaints had been put forward by the immigrants which had been inquired into by the immigration authorities and proved to be without foundation and arrangements were made for the transfer of a few immigrants to another estate. The transfer was objected to. On the 6th of March the indentured immigrants on the plantation refused to go to work, and on the 7th of March they refused to allow the unindentured labourers to work on the estate. On the 12th, warrants for intimidation were sworn against five immigrants, and on the 13th the police proceeded to execute these warrants. They encountered a large mob armed with cutlasses and other weapons. After the Riot Act had been read a policeman, in executing one of the warrants, was cut down and killed, others were injured by missiles, and thereupon the order to fire was given to the police who were in considerable danger. I regret to state that the figure of fifteen lives lost is correct, and in addition about forty persons were seriously wounded, including two policemen.
    1918
    There have been no further disturbances. A commission of inquiry will be held as soon as the inquests are over. Particulars of the system of indenture in the Colony are given in paragraphs 224–226 of the Report of the Committee on Emigration from India to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. (Cd. 5192.)

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CLOTHING.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the answer given by him on the 6th July, 1912, whether the method adopted by the officers of the Royal Engineers for testing clothing has been the practice for over forty years; and which is the Army clothing regulation that confines the duty of officers to dealing with surpluses and deficiencies and variations from pattern?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The duties of boards of survey are laid down in paragraph 263 of the Clothing Regulations, Part I. The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether his new perfect aeroplane has met with an accident, and, if so, what was the cause; and whether the machine is really in its experimental stage; and (2) whether his statement that the new Army aeroplane was the best in the world was made on the authority of his technical advisers, and whether they still adhere to that description?
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman in this question and in Question 25, to which I will reply at the same time, is presumably alluding to a new machine of whose successful speed tests I informed the House on the introduction of Army Estimates. This aeroplane is temporarily out of use owing to a breakage in the engine. The description given of it was based on information supplied to me by my principal technical adviser.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether the machine is not in an experimental stage at the present time?
    Colonel SEELY: It has achieved the feats which I have described to the House. I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would himself take a flight in it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to get rid of me?
    Colonel SEELY: Oh, no.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how much money was spent in the year ending 31st March, 1913, in wages of the actual pilots, the purchase of aeroplanes, and the Royal Aircraft Factory, respectively?
    Colonel SEELY: It is estimated that the sum of £16,000 was expended in the year ended 31st March, 1913, on the emoluments of officers and others qualified as pilots, £100,800 was expended on the purchase of aeroplanes, including engines and spare parts, and £117,000 on the Royal Aircraft Factory.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what proportion of the sum of £190,000 included in this year's Estimate for aviation stores and material is to be allotted for the purchase of aeroplanes?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not at present in a position to give any information on this subject.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will be able to give that information?
    Colonel SEELY: I could not say when I shall be able to given the information, but I will give it in due course.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is anxiety in the country as to the number and efficiency of the aeroplanes belonging to the Royal Army Flying Corps; and whether, having regard to the refusal of the Secretary of State for War to give further details of these machines, he will consent to the appointment of a small Committee, independent of the present officials, to make such investigations as would reassure the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is receiving the continued attention of His Majesty's Government, who are able to avail themselves of the best expert advice on the subject. I see no reason for the appointment of the Committee suggested.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet mounted any high-elevation guns for use against aircraft on the vulnerable portions of our coast-line; and, if not, how he proposes to secure us against foreign aircraft?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not considered desirable to publish any information on this subject.

    GENERAL STAFF.
    Major M'CALMONTasked what officers constitute the General Staff; and what method is adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the opinions of those officers on questions of policy?
    Colonel SEELY: The General Staff in the War Office is composed of those officers holding appointments in the Department of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, as shown on pages 7, 8, and 9 of the Army List. In addition there are officers of the General Staff at headquarters of commands at home and abroad, in educational establishments, and elsewhere. Any advice tendered by this General Staff is therefore furnished by the chief of the Imperial General Staff.
    Major M'CALMONT: May I ask whether junior officers of the General Staff, more especially those on the staff of the Territorial Force, have an opportunity of voicing their views?
    Colonel SEELY: Of course, they all have every opportunity of stating their views. The General Staff, of course, is not a public body whose decisions are decided by the majority.
    Major M'CALMONT: Are the junior officers asked for their views, or do they have to press them on their senior officers?
    Colonel SEELY: I should require to have notice of any question as to the procedure of the General Staff. I have every reason to believe that they work harmoniously.

    KING EDWARD'S HORSE.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that King Edward's Horse, the King's Oversea Dominions Regiment, is a unit liable for active service outside the confines of the United Kingdom, he will state the number of horses now on the strength of the regiment?
    Colonel SEELY: Provision is not made out of Army Funds for the permanent maintenance of horses for this unit in time of peace.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Will they get their horses?
    Colonel SEELY: I have said that provision is made for the permanent maintenance of horses in time of peace, and in time of war every provision is made.

    ARTILLERY CLERKS.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked what progress has been made by the Committee appointed to consider the question of the stagnation of promotion of Artillery clerks?
    Colonel SEELY: The inquiry has made good progress, but it is not yet possible to say when the Committee will be in a position to submit a Report.

    COMPULSORY TRAINING.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government has failed in achievement under the voluntary system in the case of the Territorial Army and of the fact that compulsory military training may be necessary in the near future, he can now say whether he will agree to make this a non-party question if the Leader of the Opposition will do the same?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept any of the hon. Member's assumptions. So far as I am aware this is not a party question, and I trust it may not become one.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the future he will prevent the Patronage Secretary from going about the country saying that compulsion was infamous and a crime against mankind, and that the Liberal party would do everything they could to prevent it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not. I shall do nothing of the kind.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the First Whip did say that the Liberal party would do everything they could to prevent it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I certainly hope they will.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of a Territorial officer that, in his battalion in London, anyone bringing in a recruit between 1st December and 31st March last, pledged to attend camp for a fortnight the first year, could obtain as much as 15s. for so doing; and
    1922
    whether this money was paid by the Territorial Association or by the Government?
    Colonel SEELY: Permission has been given to Territorial Associations to pay recruiting rewards not exceeding 1s. 6d., if they have realised surplus funds, but no direct payment is made from Army funds. Nothing is known at the War Office of the case mentioned.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman allow that this 1s. 6d. is given? Does the Army Council consider that that is a satisfactory way of obtaining recruits?
    Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of cases at variance with the rules I have laid down I will gladly consider them.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of a Territorial officer that under the present state of affairs in the average battalion of the Territorials most of the spare time of the keen officers and non-commissioned officers was occupied in vain efforts to obtain recruits instead of acquiring military knowledge; and what he proposes to do to rectify this state of affairs?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not aware of the statement mentioned.

    HOME GARRISONS.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the total number of men required, in the opinion of the General Staff, for garrisons in Ireland and the United Kingdom after the Expeditionary Force has left the country?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish the information required.

    NATIONAL DEFENCE.
    Major GUESTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial General Staff has assured him that, in the absence of the Expeditionary Force, the available military forces left in this country are considered by them to be sufficient to defeat any hostile invading forces which, in the considered judgment of the Admiralty, may be able to elude the British Fleet?
    Colonel SEELY: The Admiralty state that it would not be possible for an organised invasion far less in numbers than 70,000 to elude the Fleet after the

    1923
    departure of the Expeditionary Force. The General Staff has assured me that the troops remaining in this country would be adequate to defeat any organised invasion which, on the basis of Admiralty calculation, could elude the Fleet under the circumstances named. The number of 70,000 could only be reached by a series of isolated raids at wide intervals of time and space. With our available resources the General Staff hold that the security of the Kingdom can be upheld against this latter form of attack.
    Sir CHARLES ROSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman draw a complete distinction between a raid and an organised invasion in estimating the power of resistance of the Territorial Force?
    Colonel SEELY: I am glad my hon. Friend asks me that question. Such a distinction has always been drawn. It would be manifestly impossible to assert with confidence that the Territorial Force only a few days after mobilisation could overcome a concentrated army composed of 70,000 highly trained European troops, with all their Cavalry, Artillery, and accessories. We contend that such a situation cannot arise so long as we maintain our present naval superiority. I wish to emphasise that it was in that sense I replied to the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) in the course of Friday's Debate. It is important to make the distinction.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are all the statements of probabilities which the Secretary of State has just made now the subject of investigation by the Committee of Imperial Defence? Are they the subjects which were referred to the Special Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    Colonel SEELY: I have explained to the House that there is a special Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to consider the whole question of attack from oversea, and all these questions are now before them. I was asked what is the view of the General Staff, and I have stated the view of the General Staff.
    Mr. SANDYS: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman now wishes to withdraw the statement which he made on Friday, to the effect that after the departure of the Expeditionary Force the
    1924
    troops left in this country would be adequate to deal with a raid of 70,000 men?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir, I do not wish to withdraw in the least. I want to make the distinction clear. A "raid" has always been understood in these controversies to mean a force which can only come without Artillery and Cavalry, and on that basis I adhere absolutely to the statement I made. With regard to an organised invasion the facts are as I have stated, but, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that the question I was asked was with regard to raids.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What ground has the right hon. Gentleman for stating that the word "raid" in this connection has always been used to indicate a force without either Artillery or Cavalry?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the most lucid statement on the subject made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), in which he drew a very careful distinction between a "raid" and an organised "invasion." It is conceivable to think that a "raid" might have some Artillery, but for the purposes of these discussions we describe a properly organised force as an "invasion."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I meant to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether he implied that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London in speaking of a "raid" on that occasion limited it to a force with no Artillery. My right hon. Friend never said anything of the sort.
    Colonel SEELY: Perhaps I may be forgiven for replying again. One could not say such a force could have no Artillery. That might be going too far. A distinction has always been drawn between a "raid," which is a force which may be supposed to elude the Fleet in a swift ship, which obviously could carry but little Artillery, and could not land it, and an "invasion," which is a properly constituted force with full complement of Cavalry, Artillery, transport, and all the necessary appurtenances of an army.

    Cotton Cultivation (India).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary for India the number of bales of cotton grown in India in 1912; and how many of

    1925
    such bales were sent to places other than the United Kingdom?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The yield of the cotton crop of 1911–12 was estimated at 3,288,000 bales. The exports to countries other than the United Kingdom in the calendar year 1912 amounted to 1,931,000 bales.
    Mr. LEACH: Is that an increase on last year's production?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have not looked at last year's figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

    Macedonian Mussulmans (Outrages).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Secretary of State has seen the resolution of the All-India Moslem League drawing the attention of His Majesty's Government to the cumulative evidence bearing on the Macedonian butcheries and demanding that the Foreign Office should take action with regard to the outrages perpetrated by the Balkan invaders against the Mussulman population of Macedonia; and, if so, what action, if any, has been or will be taken by the India Office?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative As has been repeatedly stated in answer to questions in this House, His Majesty's Minister at Sofia has, on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, made several representations to the Bulgarian Government on the subject of the excesses to which the Moslem inhabitants of territory in Bulgarian occupation have been exposed; and similar action has been taken by His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has any answer been received to the representations?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, certain answers have been received.

    Delhi.
    Mr. KINGasked whether it is on instructions from the Secretary of State that the Government of India has declared that the question of the site and architecture of the new capital at Delhi is not to be discussed in the Indian Legislative Council; and whether, in view of the fact that the whole cost of the new Delhi is to be borne by the Indian taxpayer and will amount to over four millions sterling, the Secretary of State will recommend the
    1926
    Viceroy to lay the plans and proposals before the Legislative Council?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No such declaration has been made. In stating that they did not propose to put forward for discussion the questions to which my hon. Friend refers, the Government of India have not interfered in any way with the liberty of members of the Legislative Council to raise and debate topics of public interest. The Secretary of State does not propose to instruct the Government of India in the manner suggested.
    Mr. KING: Are we to conclude that there will be ample public discussion in the Legislative Council of India on these proposals?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If any member of the Legislative Council desires to discuss this matter he can put down a Motion within the rules. There is no intention of avoiding discussion.
    Mr. KING: Are the rules of the Legislative Council as difficult for hon. Members in a private capacity as they are here?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should not like to make a comparison, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the rules.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has considered the last Report of Mr. J. Begg, consulting architect to the Government of India, and the warning therein contained against the dangers incident to the increasing employment of Chinese workmen in Indian building operations; and whether he can give an undertaking that Chinese labour will not be employed on the buildings of the new Delhi?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has seen the passage in the Report to which my hon. friend refers regarding the increasing number of Chinese workmen in certain building trades of Bengal. He sympathises with my hon. Friend's apprehensions, and will bring the matter to the notice of the Government of India.
    Mr. KINGasked whether one of the selected architects for the new Delhi carries on his profession with offices in Johannesburg and the other with offices in London; whether any conditions have been imposed on either or both of these gentlemen that they should give up their private practice or spend a definite portion of each year in India; and, if not,

    1927
    what security will be given that the work in India will receive the necessary personal supervision?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the agreement to be made with the two architects will guard against the apprehensions upon which his question is based.
    Mr. KING: Will these agreements be published or laid in the Library for our inspection?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that is necessary, but I shall be pleased to answer any questions about them.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL PANELS.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when it is proposed to introduce the Bill to legalise the additional expenditure involved in the increased payments to doctors under the National Insurance Act; and whether such measure will make statutory provision for insured persons to have a free choice of doctors?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Colchester and Salisbury on the 14th instant. With regard to the second part, as the Act already secures to insured persons the right of free choice of doctors on the panel, no amendment in this respect is required.
    Mr. F. HALL: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made the statement, inform insured persons that it would be necessary, in order that they might have their own doctors, that it must be a doctor on the panel?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is from doctors on the panel that the free choice has to be made.

    HOSPITAL EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. BOYTONasked whether, under the National Insurance Act, hospital employés being insured persons receiving attention in sickness in the wards of their hospital are entitled to sickness benefit?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am advised that the answer to the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners to exercise their power to remove difficulties and so prevent a porter being deprived of his benefit because he continues to live in the hospital when he is well?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give particulars they will be carefully gone into.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the supplementary question in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find it contains all the particulars which are required.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it not a fact, even if a person does live in the hospital and has dependants, that the approved society is bound to pay his benefits?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would ask for notice of that question.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the manager of Messrs. Cook, Welton, and Gemmell, of the shipyard at Beverley, has been preventing men from claiming unemployment benefit; that the firm stopped on Wednesday, 18th March, and when the men made an application for their cards the manager refused to hared them over and informed the men that work would be commenced on Wednesday, 26th March; that when the men presented themselves for work on that date it was found that the driving engine was under repairs and that the furnaces were not in such a condition to allow the men to start work; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have made inquiries into this case. I am informed that the firm closed down on 19th March for the Easter holidays, intending to resume on 26th March. The firm state that by agreement with the men they kept the unemployment books, as the stoppage was considered simply a suspension for the holidays. Owing to a breakdown in the machinery the firm were unable to resume work on 26th March, and I am informed that when the firm ascertained on that date that work could not proceed the books were handed out to the men applying. Some claims to benefit were made by employés of this firm on the 26th, and over 100 claims were received on 9th April. No complaints have been received by the

    1929
    Board of Trade in the matter, and in these circumstances no action appears to be necessary. I take this opportunity, however, of stating that in all cases of suspension of work the workmen are entitled to claim the return of their unemployment books if they so desire.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will advise the present Scottish provisional insurance committees to avoid, as far as possible, entering into contracts for provision of medical benefit which are binding for a long period beyond 14th July, 1913, especially when the proposed arrangements are contrary to the expressed wishes and representations of the approved societies and insured persons chiefly concerned, seeing that they will not be fully represented in accordance with Section 59 of the National Insurance Act until the new committees are constituted under Regulation No. 22 of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I see no reason to adopt the course proposed. The Scottish insurance Commissioners have received no objections to the present insurance committees making contracts for medical attendance extending beyond the date named.
    Major HOPE: May I give an instance where insured persons are relieved by the action of the insurance committee in making a contract up to the end of January?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be so good.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether representations have been made to him by parish councils in Scotland, pointing out that the National Health Insurance Fund benefits considerably at the expense of the rates in those cases coining under Section 12 (1) of the Act, whereby those entitled to sickness, disablement, or maternity benefits, are deprived of this benefit when they enter poorhouse hospital wards and are kept at the expense of the ratepayers; and whether he will favourably consider any amendment in the law by which the benefit could be paid over to such institutions on condition that a definite proportion so received be handed to inmates on their discharge?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed that the Scottish Insurance Commissioners have received a few inquiries from parish councils as to the effect of Section 12 of the Act and have informed them of its provisions. As my hon. Friend is aware, this Section provides that when insured persons are in public institutions such as those referred to the sums which would otherwise have been payable to them in respect of sickness, disablement or maternity benefits, shall be applied, in whole or in part, to the relief or maintenance of their dependants, and, in the absence of dependants, may be applied in whole or in part to provide any surgical appliances they may require or otherwise for their benefit. I am unable to promise support for any proposed Amendment of the law to the effect suggested.

    Income Tax.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue circular to bankers and others of 2nd April, 1913, was issued by direction or sanction of the Treasury, and, in view of the statement therein that in cases where interest or dividends have been paid since 5th April last without deduction of Income Tax not yet imposed upon to furnish the names and addresses by law, bankers and others will be called of persons to whom such interest or dividends have been paid in full, in order that Income Tax may be recovered under Section 14 (2) of the Revenue Act, 1911, from the next payment made or as a debt, will he state how the tax will be recovered from foreigners resident or domiciled abroad; whether such foreigners can be required to make a return under Schedule D; and whether, in case no future payment is due to such foreigners, there is any power to recover from them the duty as a debt?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remainder, where payment has been made on account of any dividend, interest, or other annual profits or gains previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for the year and where Income Tax has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom, assessments may be made under Section 14 (1) of the Revenue Act, 1911, on the recipients. I am, however, unable to say that the machinery under this Section would be

    1931
    effectual in every case of a person resident abroad. As regards rent, interest, or annuity, or other annual payment, the person liable to make such payments is authorised (Section 14 (2) to make any deduction on account of Income Tax which he has failed to make previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year on the occasion of the next payment, and is also entitled, should there be no future payment from which the deduction may be made, to recover the sum which might have been deducted as if it were a debt.
    Mr. CASSEL: How are they to make these lists in the case of coupons to bearers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Did the Law Officers express any opinion on this circular before it was issued?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that also.
    Mr. MILLSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, when Income Tax has, in consequence of its not having been imposed by Act of Parliament, not been deducted at the source in the present year, he proposes by the procedure under Section 14 of the Revenue Act, 1911, to require a return under Schedule D during the year 1914 and to obtain payment of the tax on 1st January, 1915; and has he considered that under this procedure the payment of the tax may be delayed for nearly two years?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend is advised that when the Income Tax has been imposed for the year 1913–14 there will be power under Section 14 of the Revenue Act, 1911, to make an assessment for that year on dividends, interest, or other annual profits and gains from which tax has not been deducted in the circumstances mentioned. The duty on that assessment would be payable on on before 1st January, 1914.
    Mr. CASSEL: How does that apply to deductions which have been made before the Resolution imposing the Income Tax is passed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

    Direct and Indirect Taxation.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the percentages, respectively, of direct and indirect taxation collected for the year 1912–13?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Direct taxes, 57.61 per cent.; indirect taxes, 42.39 per cent.

    Whitsuntide Recess.
    Sir J. D. REESasked when, and for how long, the House will rise for the Whitsuntide holidays?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make a statement to-morrow.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in the event of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill not being introduced as substantially an agreed on measure, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the same beyond the Second Reading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's question is based on an hypothesis, and I am not in a position to reply to it.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Government are now in possession of the Report of the secret Committee on abuses in the use and tenure of agricultural land; and whether the same will be published in time to render it available for study and discussion during the Whitsuntide Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am unable to say when a Report will be published by the Committee.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he himself promised that this Report would be available by the end of April?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I never promised anything of the kind.

    Select Committees (Rules).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the variation in the practice adopted by Select Committees in dealing with witnesses called before them who refuse to answer questions; and if, with a view to giving to the Reports of such Committees an impartial and non-partisan

    1933
    character, he will consider the practicability of laying down rules for their guidance in dealing with such cases irrespective of the hearing of the evidence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not the least idea to what the hon. Member refers, but in any case I do not see my way to take any steps in the matter.
    Mr. F. HALL: If I bring the points to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he pay any regard to them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. But at present I am absolutely in the dark. I do not know what the hon. Member is referring to.
    Mr. F. HALL: I shall be pleased to inform the right hon. Gentleman.

    Elementary Schools (Wales).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the position of education authorities in South Wales consequent upon the refusal of the Treasury to provide the money for the special Grant equal to three-fourths of the excess of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ for elementary education; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The limitation of the necessitous Grants to a fixed sum and the consequent proportionate reduction of the Grants when the demands upon the Grant are greater than the fixed total are, in the view of my right hon. Friend, a necessary condition of the existing method of distribution of the Grants. The limitation has been applied in every year since the Grant was instituted, with the exception of the two first years, when the limit was not reached, and the year 1910–11, when it was found possible to increase the fixed total from £200,000 to £350,000.
    Mr. E. JONES: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make an alteration in the system of paying out the Grants?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot give any answer as to that.
    Mr. E. JONESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether in proportion to the number of scholars in elementary schools Wales should receive an additional £70,000 per annum; and whether he can remove the injustice by giving a special contribution towards elementary education from the high produce of the South Wales Royalty Duties?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no information with regard to the statement in the first part of the question. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to ear-mark a part of the produce of the Mineral Rights Duties to educational purposes.
    Mr. E. JONESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the reduction in the necessitous Aid Grant will mean the addition of at least 2d. in the £ to the existing high rate of 2s. in the £ for elementary education alone in the urban districts of Aberdare and Mountain Ash; and whether, if there is no other source available, he will raise the rate of duty upon coal royalties?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no information as to the first part of the question, but I am aware that the proportionate reduction of the necessitous Grants when the total claims exceed the fixed sum provided by Parliament may necessitate an increased rate. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of many of the local authorities coming under what is known as necessitous areas, that West Ham has lost something like £10,000?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware that in a number of cases a loss is involved.

    Coal Royalties Duty (South Wales and Monmouthshire).
    Mr. E. JONESasked the amount of duty upon coal royalties received from South Wales and Monmouthshire in the year ending 31st March, 1912?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The amount of Mineral Rights Duty assessed in respect of coal royalties (including wayleaves) in the area in question for the financial year ended 31st March, 1912, is, approximately, £68,000.

    Education Grants.
    Mr. E. JONESasked why the Treasury has passed an increased Estimate for the other great spending Departments, while compelling the Board of Education to bring in a decreased Estimate involving a reduction of Grants to education authorities that will paralyse educational progress?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Estimates for the various Departments of State are fixed

    1935
    in communication with the Departments concerned after careful consideration of the requirements of the public service.
    Mr. E. JONES: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that education is more important than the extra sum which is being spent on aeroplanes this year?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That question should not be put to me.

    Motor Spirit Tax (Motor Ambulances).
    Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will avail himself of the opportunity offered by the forthcoming Finance Bill to amend the law, to which he referred in his reply to a question of 16th October, 1912, as regards the tax on motor spirit used for motor ambulances to convey patients to hospitals and infirmaries?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has not overlooked the undertaking referred to, and he hopes to be able to give statutory effect to it.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Sir J. RANDLESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken further opportunities to secure information as to the effect of the Lumsden case and its probable effect, not only as regards the depreciation of values, but its effect in retarding the provision of cottage homes by the building trade; is he aware that there is in many places a need of further cottages; and will he give some assurance, such as will remove the difficulty so far as the Finance Act bears on the question, in reference to the effect of the decision in the Lumsden case?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The matter is under consideration, but my right hon. Friend is at present unable to add anything to the replies which he has recently given to other questions on this subject.

    Rural Cottages Bill.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the fact that, in the Rural Cottages Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hampstead, it is proposed that cottages built under its provisions shall be free of rates and taxes; and if he will apply this principle to existing buildings when promoting any measure of rating reform?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the provisions of the Rural Cottages Bill referred to. He is not prepared to make any statement at the present time as to the principles which will be adopted in any measure of rating reform promoted by the Government.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is a chance of this House having an opportunity of debating this question of the Rural Cottages Bill?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is with his sanction that Members of Parliament and others are being threatened with legal proceedings for non-payment of Undeveloped Land Duty levied upon land in respect of which objection has been taken in due form to the provisional valuation and an appeal is pending?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The provisions or Section 27 (6) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to which I may refer the hon. Member, apply to owners of undeveloped land who are Members of Parliament no less than to other owners.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Supposing the amount claimed for Undeveloped Land Duty is incorrect, will subsequent adjustment be made when the final valuation is made?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to give notice of that question.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Shall we get our money back? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait until the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes.

    Hop Substitutes.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is his intention to promote legislation to prohibit the employment of hop substitutes, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Hop Industry, 1908?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The subject to which my hon. Friend refers is engaging my attention, but I am not

    1937
    prepared to make any definite statement at present.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Was not a much greater quantity of hop substitutes used in 1912?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have heard the assertion made, but I have no means of verifying it.

    Small Holdings Act.
    Mr. LEACHasked how many approved applicants for land under the Small Holdings Act are still waiting for allotments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: At the end of 1912 there were 8,508 unsatisfied approved applicants for small holdings.
    Mr. LEACHasked the average rent per acre charged to successful applicants under the Small Holdings Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am unable to supply my hon. Friend with the information for which he asks. It could only be obtained by a great expenditure of time and labour, and having regard to the variety of considerations upon which the rent of a small holding depends, the quality of the land, the nature of the equipment and housing, and the like, I do not think that the result would have much value.
    Mr. LEACHasked the number of acres of land provided for approved applicants under the Small Holdings Act to the end of 1912?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: One hundred and fifty-seven thousand and sixty-two acres.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the number of applicants for small holdings in Oxfordshire; how many have been approved; how many have been supplied with land; and the total area acquired for this purpose?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been 826 applications for small holdings in Oxfordshire; 514 applicants have been approved, of whom 178 have withdrawn their applications; 206 have been supplied with land by the county council and ninety by the landowners direct; 2,962 acres have been acquired by the council for the purpose of small holdings.

    Sheep Disease.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the recent successful cultivation of the
    1938
    bacillus of scrapie in sheep by Mr. F. W. Twort, superintendent of the Brown Institution, is, in the opinion of his veterinary experts, likely to result in the discovery of a cure for this new disease or in the preventive inoculation of sound animals against it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that Mr. Twort has succeeded in growing the bacillus of scrapie. On inquiry, however, I am informed that the statement is incorrect; apparently it was due to the common confusion of scrapie with Johne's disease, which is really quite distinct.

    Live Stock (Carriage).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the right hon. Gentleman what is the purport and intention of the Order of his Department, dated 22nd April, 1912, under which it has recently become impossible for British railway companies to carry two cows and two calves in the same truck or waggon, and thus afforded a pretext to such companies to make substantial increases recently in their charges for the consignment of live stock?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Article 13 of the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1912, to which I assume the hon. Member refers, is as follows:—
    "Calves, sheep, goats, and swine, if carried in the same railway truck or other railway vehicle with any head of cattle (other than a calf), or a horse, ass or mule, shall be separated therefrom by a suitable partition, but this provision shall not apply to the conveyance of a cow with its unweaned calf, if they are separated from other animals."
    In the opinion of the Board the largo number of cases brought to their notice in which smaller animals were injured through being conveyed with cattle in trucks without any partition rendered this regulation necessary. The Board are in communication with the railway companies respecting the increases made in their charges for the consignment of live stock.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any danger in putting a calf with a cow so long as they are both tied up, which has been the general practice?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information which came to the Board was that there was a very large number of cases of injury to smaller animals through being in the same truck with larger animals. We must protect the smaller against the larger.

  SUFFRAGIST OUTRAGES.

    HOLYROOD PALACE.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether Holyrood Palace is entirely closed to visitors at the present time; what is the reason, and how long it is intended the restrictions will obtain; and whether he will consider the possibility of devising some means whereby bonâ fide visitors might be admitted to visit the Palace?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Palace has been closed by orders of the Lord Chamberlain's Department as a consequence of the damage done to State property by militant supporters of the suffragist movement. The First Commissioner regrets that he is not yet in a position to state when the Palace will be reopened. Admission is only granted in exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is there any method by which visitors coming from a distance, say Americans, who are very anxious to see these historical monuments, can get access to them during this period?
    Mr. W. BENN: Yes. They will be treated as exceptional visitors, and access will be granted to them.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Is Hampton Court Palace under the same regulations?
    Mr. W. BENN: I cannot answer my right hon. Friend's question without notice.

    PROSECUTION OF MR. G. LANSBURY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. George Lansbury, lately a Member of this House, said at a meeting at the Albert Hall, on the 10th instant, that suffragettes should burn and destroy property and teach the Government that this was a war in which they would still do their best to preserve human life, but a war in which they would have no regard for property of any kind; and, if so, whether the Home Office is taking any action or whether this incitement to crime is to go unpunished?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Proceedings have already been commenced in respect of the speech referred to.

    OPEN AIR MEETINGS.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have only had time to give very brief notice, namely, whether he can explain the reason for the police notice published this morning prohibiting the holding of certain meetings in Hyde Park and elsewhere?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will be so good as to read the notice itself he will see the reasons very fully stated.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether there is not a right of public meeting in Hyde Park, and whether the duty of the Home Office is not to afford sufficient police protection for speakers against: assaults mainly committed by irresponsible youths?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have a general responsibility for the maintenance of peace and good order. As explained in the terms of the Chief Commissioner's letter it was found impossible in the particular circumstances of this case to guarantee the maintenance of peace and good order.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Would it not be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to go to the heart of the matter and remove the cause?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment this evening.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. LEACHasked what is the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions in the United Kingdom at the end of 1912; and how many of these persons were men?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: On the last Friday in 1912 the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions was 966,008, and of that number 362,628 were men.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of persons who were refused old age pensions in county Longford for the twelve months ending 31st March, 1913, distinguishing between those refused on the ground of age and those refused on the ground of means?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I fear this information is not available.

    Public Trustee.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department exercises any control over the office of Public Trustee; whether any reports of funds invested or uninvested by that official is made to the Treasury; and, if not, whether he can indicate by what method this House is to exercise control over this office of State?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Under the provision of the Public Trustee Act, 1906, the Treasury have the usual powers of settling the remuneration of the Public Trustee and his officers, and of fixing the scale of fees to be charged and the method in which they shall be accounted for. The Treasury does not, however, exercise any control over the general administration of the Public Trustee, nor are reports as to the various trusts made to it. The usual opportunities of control, in Committee of Supply or on a Consolidated Fund Bill, are open to the hon. Member.

    Civil Servants (Examination Fees).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the promotion of an assistant clerk to the second division is the reward of special merit, he will recommend the abolition of the qualifying examination fee of 30s., which imposes a considerable hardship on a poorly paid body of Civil servants?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The fee in question represents the difference between the fee for the assistant clerks examination and the fee which is paid by candidates at the open competition for the second division. The Treasury are not prepared to abolish this fee, particularly pending the Report of the Royal Commission on the whole question of the recruitment of the Civil Service.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Report is likely to be issued?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will make inquiry.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked what is the number of assistant clerks promoted to the second division in each of the last five years; in how many cases certificates of qualification have been issued without further examination; and on what grounds exemptions were made?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will circulate a statement with regard to the first two parts of the question. The usual grounds for exemption were the age of the candidate or the fact that he had already passed in the required subjects at examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners which he had attended on previous occasions.

    Number of Promotions.

    Number not required to undergo Examination.

    1908

    …

    …

    33

    …

    …

    …

    12

    1909

    …

    …

    44

    …

    …

    …

    8

    1910

    …

    …

    28

    …

    …

    …

    10

    1911

    …

    …

    67

    …

    …

    …

    26

    1911

    …

    …

    72

    …

    …

    …

    37

    —[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked whether any established officers of the Civil Service, other than assistant clerks, are required to pass an examination in purely scholastic subjects in order to obtain the promotions for which they have been recommended on the grounds of special merit and ability?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Established Civil servants, other than assistant clerks, if nominated for promotion on the ground of special merit and ability, under the provisions of Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, are treated in the matter of examination on the same lines as assistant clerks. The Civil Service Commissioners, in deciding whether such candidates should be required to undergo any, and, if so, what examination, take into consideration all the circumstances of each case, including the age of the candidate and his performances at previous examinations.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked what is the number of assistant clerks who have failed to pass the qualifying examinations for second division clerkships after having been recommended for those positions by the heads of their Departments and with the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: During the last five years twenty-eight assistant clerks nominated for promotion in the second division failed to pass the qualifying examination. Most of them were renominated, and all but seven have since passed the examination and been promoted.

    Customs Watchers.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware

    1943
    that the opportunities for Customs watchers to earn overtime pay have been reduced since the overtime rates payable after 6 p.m. and before 7 a.m. to the London transport workers were increased in 1911, also that further reductions have recently taken place in the attendance required to be given by watchers at bonded warehouses and bonded factories, owing to the introduction of new regulations governing the locking and unlocking of bonds with a consequent reduction in the overtime earned; and will he state the average amount per man of overtime pay earned by all the watchers in London during each of the first four weeks in 1911 and during each of the first four weeks of the current year, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that there has been some diminution in the amount of extra attendance of watchers in London on certain kinds of work. The incidence of attendance varies considerably throughout the port, and I regret that the figures requested in the last part of the question are not available.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Could not the hon. Gentleman find out how much these men in this particular trade have lost owing to the changes in the payment for overtime? I am told it is as much as 3s. a week.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It would be very difficult indeed to obtain the figures.

    Poor Relief.
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the amount per person expended in the United Kingdom on out-door relief in the year 1906 and 1912, respectively, and the amount expended on in-door relief in the same years, not to include cost of administration in either case?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a Paper, which I have recently issued, and which gives the particulars he requires as regards England and Wales. For figures for Scotland and Ireland I must refer him to my right hon. Friends the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary.

    Preserved Cream (Boracic Acid).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Westminster City Council
    1944
    in threatening proceedings under Section 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, against retail dealers and stores, in respect of the sale of preserved cream containing less than 22 grains of boracic acid to the pint, on the ground of injury to health; and, whether, seeing that Dr. Hamill, the medical inspector of the Board, recommended in a recent Report to the Board, after elaborate inquiry, that a quantity up to 28 grains might be permitted in the summer months without injury to health, the Board will issue a Circular advising local authorities that no proceedings ought to be taken, provided sales are made in compliance with the recently published regulations and where the quantity of preservative does not exceed Dr. Hamill's recommendation?
    Mr. BURNS: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I do not consider it is necessary, at any rate at the present stage, to issue such a Circular as the hon. Member indicates.

    Rural Housing.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the report of Dr. Webb to the Kingsbridge (Devon) Rural District Council, where he stated that one-eighth of the cottages in the district were unfit for human habitation, but that there was nowhere for the people to go if these were condemned; that a discussion took place, but no action was taken by the council; and what action he intends to take in the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I have not yet received the Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Kingsbridge Rural District for the year 1912, and the latest Report in my possession did not indicate the existence of any such unsatisfactory conditions as to render necessary action on my part. I will look into the matter.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Sedgefield Rural District Council in respect to houses at Trimdon. Grange and Trimdon Colliery, where he states that after inspection of sixty-three houses he found all but six unfit for human habitation on account of bad sanitation and ventilation, and recommended to the council that closing orders should be

    1945
    issued and that the council should erect new dwellings for the people displaced, and that the rural district council resolved to apply for closing orders but referred the question of the erection of new cottages to the Trimdon Sanitary Committee; and whether he will state what steps have been taken to accommodate the tenants thus displaced?
    Mr. BURNS: The council decided in January last to build twenty-five houses, and applied to the Local Government Board for sanction to a loan for the purpose, but they have not yet furnished the particulars necessary before the application can be further dealt with. I am sending a further letter to them on the subject.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a special report of the housing committee appointed by the Ramsbury (Wilts) Rural District Council, which states that, out of fifty-two cottages in the village of Axford, ten have one bedroom only, whilst only seven have three bedrooms; that five cottages are overcrowded, three unfit for habitation, seven are dilapidated, and twenty-six need general repairs; and that, while the Ramsbury Rural District Council admit the need for more cottages, they have decided to defer action in regard to building; and whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I have been in communication with the Ransbury Rural District Council in regard to the need for the erection of cottages in Axford for some time, and on the 31st ultimo the chairman had an interview at the Local Government Board in regard to it. The matter will not be lost sight of.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the report of the medical officer of health for Cornwall, in which he states that the problem of consumption is largely the problem of housing, yet bad housing is suffered to continue; that housing in Cornwall constitutes one of the greatest barriers to sanitary progress; that many cottages have no back yards and no sanitary conveniences; that many local authorities have not yet adopted housing schemes where it has clearly been their duty to do so; that Dr. Burnet further reports a dearth of houses in eight of the sixteen rural districts of the county,
    1946
    namely, Boscastle, Camelford, Liskeard, St. Colomb, St. Austell, Truro, East Kerrier, and West Penwith, whilst it is stated in regard to the Bodmin rural district area that many houses should be condemned absolutely, as they render their occupants much disposed to phthisis; and whether he will state what action, if any, has been taken with regard to these areas?
    Mr. BURNS: I have seen the report for 1911 refered to, and note that the county medical officer of health is fully alive to the powers of the county council under Sections 10, etc., of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1909. I am keeping an eye on these districts in connection with the reports of the local medical officers of health for 1912, which I am now receiving, and I am with the county medical officer of health in hoping that it may not be necessary for the county council to use their powers under the Sections.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon these local authorities?
    Mr. BURNS: We are consistently doing that.

    Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of adults serving in a civil capacity in his Department; the grades and numbers of persons so employed who receive less than 30s. per week or £78 per annum; and the number whose normal working day exceeds eight hours?
    Mr. BURNS: I will circulate with the Votes a statement giving the details desired. The total number of adults is 870, and the number at present in receipt of salary or wages of less than £78 a year is 179. The number of those whose normal working hours exceed eight is not more than seven.
    Mr POINTERasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of adults serving in a civil capacity in his Department; the grades and numbers of persons so employed who receive less than 30s. per week or £78 per annum; and the number whose normal working day exceeds eight hours?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can only give a provisional answer to the question. The number of adults serving in a civil

    1947
    capacity in my Department (including the inspecting staff and the prison service) is 3,564. Of this number 141 receive less than 30s. a week, but these include officers on scales of pay rising to a higher rate, and charwomen who are employed during portions only of the day. The number whose normal working day exceeds eight hours is 2,342; these are all in the prison service. If my hon. Friend will put down an unstarred question I will have these figures revised and give him the further details he desires.

    Loss of Steamship "St. Patrick."
    Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the finding of the Board of Trade Inquiry at Glasgow into the loss of the steamer "St. Patrick," which on the 3rd March last delivered judgment and entirely exonerated the chief officer, Mr. Duncan M'Vicar; whether he is aware that the president of the Court, Mr. Sheriff Scott Moncrieff, expressed the opinion, with the concurrence of the nautical assessors sitting with him, that the Board of Trade should in fairness grant an allowance in respect to the costs undertaken by Mr. M'Vicar in the way of legal expenses incurred by him in connection with the inquiry; and, seeing that the Board of Trade have declined to make such allowance, whether he will now take steps whereby the legal costs incurred by shipmasters and officers in defending their interests at these inquiries shall be defrayed by the Board of Trade in those cases where they are exonerated from blame?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware of the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the "St. Patrick," and that the sheriff suggested that the Board of Trade should consider the question of granting some allowance to the chief officer in respect of his costs. As regards the latter question, I fear I cannot, at present, add anything to the replies bearing on the subject which my right hon. Friend gave on the 10th April, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these officers are kept sometimes two, three, and four weeks for a Board of Trade Inquiry, and under these circumstances will not the Department give special attention to the question of refunding them and exonerating them from all liability?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is the practice sometimes to pay subsistence allowance to witnesses. The whole matter is under consideration.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not only in a very small minority of cases that the Board of Trade pay subsistence allowance?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe that is so.

    Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of adults serving in a civil capacity in his Department; the grades and numbers of persons so employed who receive less than 30s. per week or £78 per annum; and the number whose normal working day exceeds eight hours?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am having the information prepared, and it will be furnished to the hon. Member as soon as compiled.

    North British Railway Company.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether the North British Railway Company is entitled to reduce the wages of collectors who refuse transfers from the newly graded stations until such time as the result of the appeal by the men to the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the reduction in wages took effect before any application was made to the Board for an interpretation of the scheme. I hope that a decision on the point which has arisen with regard to the interpretation of the conciliation scheme can be given shortly.

    Tailors' Pay (Edinburgh).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade the rate of pay of tailors in Edinburgh; and whether he is aware of the existing dispute in the trade in Edinburgh, and is prepared to intervene with his good offices to avert any possible strike?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the present log rate for tailors at Edinburgh is 6d. per hour. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, this is not a true time rate, but merely a basis for the construction of a piece-work log. I am aware that certain matters of difference are pending, but I understand that negotiations between the parties are now in progress. The

    1949
    development of the matter will be carefully watched by the Chief Industrial Commissioner and the good offices of his Department will be placed at the disposal of the parties, should they desire to avail themselves of them.

    Coal Exports to Belgium.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to a decision of the Miners' Federation having decided to allow no shipment of coals to Belgium during the continuance of the national strike in the country; if he will state the total value of the coal exported to Belgium in 1912; and whether the whole of such coal was shipped direct to Belgian ports?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have seen in the Press references to a resolution reported to have been adopted by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, but I have no official information on the subject. The quantity of coal consigned to Belgium in 1912 was 1,547,000 tons, valued at £768,000. Practically the whole was shipped direct to Belgian ports.

    Van Boys.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Home Secretary whether he will state when the Departmental Committee on van boys is expected to issue its Report?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Chairman of the Committee that he hopes the Report will be ready for submission in the course of next month.

    Employment of Children Bill.
    Mr. HOAREasked when it is proposed to take the Employment of Children Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say definitely, but the Second Reading will be taken as soon as time can be found for it.
    Mr. HOARE: May I ask whether this Bill is going to be taken before the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill, and whether either of these Bills is going to be taken before Whitsuntide?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope both will be taken before Whitsuntide. I cannot say which will be taken first.

    Townhead Mine, Egremont (Reports).
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked if the special report called for by the chief
    1950
    inspector of mines, respecting the recent flooding of the Townhead iron ore mine, Egremont, has yet been presented; and, if so, will copies thereof be available for Members and persons interested?
    Mr. McKENNA: No special report has been called for, as the circumstances of the accident did not appear to make such a course necessary. The inspector under the Metalliferous Mines Act in Cumberland has made full inquiry into the accident, and has made reports which are now under my consideration and will be referred to the Royal Commission on Metalliferous Mines.

    Motor Omnibuses (Life-guards).
    Mr. FELLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the suggestion by the chairman of the District Messenger Company that the Government should offer a reward for the best device of a screen or catcher to be affixed in front of motor omnibuses and other vehicles licensed in London for the purpose of saving the life of persons who may be knocked down; and if any steps are under consideration to carry this out?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police informs me that numerous types of life-guards are being tried on motor omnibuses, and one complete service is being fitted up with side-guards. When a suitable device is discovered, it will be imposed as a requirement of equipment on all motor omnibuses. I do not consider it necessary to offer a reward front public funds.

    Education, Scotland (Day Schools Code).
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland why the Code of Regulations for Day Schools (Scotland), 1913, was not obtainable by hon. Members at the Vote Office on 14th April, seeing that it was presented to the House of Commons on 9th April and a summary of the Code appeared in the Press on 11th April?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The usual practice was followed. The Code was laid in proof, and the printers do not print the copies required till official notice of the fact that the Code has been laid appears in the Votes. Members can see the proof at the Table as soon as it is laid. I am informed that copies will be available to-day or to-morrow.
    Major HOPE: May I ask why, in a previous year, it appeared in the Press before it was available for Members?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The difficulty arose some years ago, because some papers obtained the information and others did not. It was thought that the simplest way was to let the various papers interested have proofs so that there would be no suspicion of partiality.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the general practice of all the Departments to give the Press the advantage of seeing reports first?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They do not get the advantage of seeing reports first. Members can see the report in proof, but the required copies cannot be printed until it is laid on the Table.
    Mr. HOGGE: When was it laid?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was laid on the 9th of this month. A proof can be seen by inquiry at the Table.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Twyford, Limited, of the Cliffe Vale Potteries, Hanley, entered into a contract with the Post Office for the fixing of a telephone on 26th February, and have been informed by the district manager on 9th April that it will be two or three months before the work can be done; and will he take steps to obviate such delay?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The delay in providing Messrs. Twyford, Limited, with a telephone service is due to extreme pressure of work in the Potteries District. I am, however, having inquiries made as to what steps can be taken to expedite the fulfilment of this and other outstanding orders.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet decided to grant an extension of the telephone service from Limerick to Rathkeale and Newcastle West; and, having regard to the fact that many small towns in the county of Limerick have got the telephone service where the need for it is not so great, will he explain why there should be any difficulty in extending it to the large towns?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the hon. Member was informed on the 2nd instant, the question of an extension to Rathkeale and Newcastle West is under inquiry. I will not fail to communicate with him as soon as I am able to furnish any definite information. In answer to the second part of the question, the matter is governed by the expenditure involved and the amount of support obtainable in each case.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make inquiry as to a further extension to Listowel?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, I will.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: If sufficient support can be guaranteed, will the right hon. Gentleman grant an extension from Limerick to Rathkeale and Newcastle West?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly, if sufficient support is forthcoming, and if there is no special reason to the contrary.

    INCOME TAX (PROVISIONAL COLLECTION).
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that the Bank of England have decided to deduct Income Tax on stocks for the year 1913–14, although such tax has not yet been imposed; whether this decision is the result of communications from the Board of Inland Revenue or from the Treasury, and, whether, since this decision is illegal, he will use his influence with the Bank of England to induce it to conform to the law?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Each dividend warrant now bears a printed intimation that the Bank of England "have decided to continue to deduct 1s. 2d. in the £ for Income Tax from those dividends which are assessable to tax, this being the course which they think will cause the least inconvenience to all concerned. The amount deducted by the Bank is not being paid over to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but is being retained on behalf of the stockholders pending the passage of the necessary measures by Parliament with regard to Income Tax for the year

    1953
    1913–14." The warrant goes on to intimate that in any case in which a stockholder demands the refund of the amount deducted the Bank will comply with his request. This course was adopted by the Bank, with my right hon. Friend's approval, to save trouble to trustees and others, and he sees no reason for departing from it.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask the Home Secretary whether the course taken by the Bank is not illegal, and whether in pursuance of the powers to which he has just referred he will take some steps in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not illegal.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Was the Home Secretary present yesterday when the Attorney-General explained at great length that it was illegal?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    EIGHT HOUR WORKING DAY BILL.
    "To limit the hours of employment to eight per day." Presented by Mr. WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 30th May, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
    RAILWAYS (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    "To provide for the establishment of a working day of eight hours for certain grades and a forty-eight hour week for other grades employed on Railways." Presented by Mr. HUDSON; supported by Mr. Wardle, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Pointer, Mr. James Parker, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Goldstone, and Mr. Frederick Hall; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
    CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of fatal accidents on Railways." Presented by Mr. HUDSON; supported by Mr. Wardle, Mr. James Thomas, Mr. Pointer, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Jowett, and Mr. Gill; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to Move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of compulsory continuation schools in England and Wales, and to amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, in respect of the age of compulsory school attendance."
  The provisions contained in the Bill are, I believe, fraught with very great importance indeed to the welfare of this country. A Departmental Committee which was appointed six years ago elicited important information with regard to attendance at school of boys and girls in England and Wales after the age of thirteen years. The result of these figures is of a startling character. These figures, it should be remembered, refer not to one class of
  1968
  children but to all children in the country of all classes. Over thirteen years of age there were 22 per cent. of the children of the country not at school. Over fourteen years of age the percentage rose to 64 per cent.; but if we could analyse these figures and give those relating to the children of the working classes, we should certainly find that nearly all the children leave school before they are fourteen years of age. Any hon. Member can test the fact for himself by going, as I have often done in various parts of the country, into a school, going into the top form, and asking leave to request those children over fourteen years of age to rise to their feet. I invariably find the same thing. Scarcely any children aged fourteen are to be found in our elementary schools. The Bill which I ask leave to introduce abolishes half time, and children over fourteen and not exceeding eighteen years of age are termed by the Bill continuation scholars, and to these children the principle of compulsion is to be applied to compel them to attend continuation schools in the day-time. I direct particular attention to that. This is not a proposal to establish evening continuation schools, but day-time continuation schools. An endeavour is made to obtain the assistance and co-operation of employers by allowing the local authorities to co-opt employers in order that suitable times may be arranged, so that children may be released from their work to come to the continuation schools, and at the continuation schools the children are not only to continue their general education but they are to receive expert training in their particular callings. Further, the charges are made national charges; they are not thrown upon the local authorities.
  These proposals may seem very drastic. To those who may think that they are too drastic I venture earnestly to commend the fact that they are merely a copy, with variations in some details, of what is being done in many parts of Germany at the present time. We have had some very eloquent speeches lately from Lord Haldane and from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education with regard to the intentions of the Government relating to education. Lord Haldane the other night raised very great hopes at least in me by referring to the Munich continuation schools and to the extraordinarily able and valuable work which has been done by George Kirschenstein, whose acquaintance I have had the pleasure of

  1969
  making. It is owing to the fact that I have seen these schools at work that I introduced this Bill into the House of Commons some four or five years ago, and that I have done so every year since. If this measure is deemed too drastic for adoption in this country, then I believe that it will go hard with the people of this country in competition with Germany in twenty years time. I think that it may be said that in the great manufacturing town of Munich they can this year account for all but a few hundreds of the boys and girls there. The children come to these schools willingly, and parents are willing that they should come, and, what is very important, the employers are willing that they should come. If you contrast Munich with Manchester there is an extraordinary contrast between the one town which is training all its youths and the other town of almost the same size which is leaving nearly all its youths untrained. We often hear of Germany from the lips of men in these days. We hear them speak of it in relation to the Navy, the Army, and aerial navigation. I am not pleading in this Bill for two schools to one; I am not pleading even for a 60 per cent. superiority; I am only pleading for school for school, and I do earnestly beg of the Government, in any proposals which they are now considering, to have regard to this very important part of any scheme which they may be formulating. In conclusion, I may contrast the education which is being given to the youth of Germany with the way in which we are turning out many youths in this country. I have a report of the Canadian Commissioner of Emigration. He went to a town in this country and interviewed the boys who were thinking of leaving this country and going to Canada. Here is an extract from a Canadian Blue Book; he said to a boy:
  "Have you ever heard of the Saskatchewan?—Very little, Sir.
  Where is it?—In India, Sir.
  Do you know the difference between British Columbia and New Brunswick?—Yes.
  Where is New Brunswick?—Near London."
  Here we have an extraordinary illumination of the character of the training which we are giving to the youths, whom we are sending out to earn their living.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Alden, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Whitehouse. Presented accordingly, and read the first time;
  1970
  to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS).
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906."
  This is the third year in succession in which this Bill has been introduced and I trust earnestly that on this, the third time, it will find its way to the Statute Book. It is a very simple Bill consisting of but one operative Clause. Its purpose is to make good an omission in the Provision of Meals Act, 1906. The omission to which I refer is the failure to allow education authorities to provide meals on days on which the schools are not open, during holidays and on Sundays. The need for remedying this omission has been proved beyond any possibility of doubt. I hold in my hand a small chart, which I have before exhibited, and which shows clearly the result of stopping school meals during holidays on a certain number of children who were specially watched and weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the consequences of their having been deprived of those meals. The result, as shown in this chart, I will explain by giving just one instance. I have not the exact number, but I think there were fifty-six controlled children who, during the four weeks before Whitsuntide, when the tests were made, gained on an average, while school meals were being provided for them, 1 lb. 12 oz. each. When the Whitsuntide holidays came round, the school feeding was stopped for eleven days, and during those eleven days the average loss of weight was 1 lb. 1½ oz. each. I think that demonstrates clearly what happens during the school holidays, when children ought to be happier, and when there is certainly no less reason for their being properly fed than at any other time. The enormous difference that this must make throughout the country will be realised when I mention that in London alone the average weekly number of children fed in the year 1909 was 41,672. The whole number of 42,000 children will suffer during the coming Whitsuntide holidays through lack of the school meals which they have been in the habit of getting if this Bill is not passed, and during the summer holidays they will suffer for a more extended period.

  1971
  This is an entirely non-party measure. The names on the back of the Bill are drawn from all sections of the House of Commons. The Government are favourable to it—the Prime Minister has stated that over and over again—and there is an overwhelming feeling in the House in favour of it. There are only two or three Members, so far as I can judge, who block this Bill. I think I am not doing any injustice to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in saying that he is one of them. I hope and trust that he and others will now at last let the Bill go through. We all know that the hon. Baronet has a tender place in his heart, because he is so great a friend of dumb animals, especially dogs, and I trust that he will extend his kindness and tender feeling to children—those children who will go unfed if the Bill is not passed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jowett, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Percy Alden, Mr. Waldorf Astor, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Mark Sykes, and Sir James Yoxall. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

  SUSPENSION OF MEMBER.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That the period of suspension from the service of the House of Mr. Moore do terminate this day."
  Mr. FENWICK: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the hon. and learned Gentleman named in this Motion in reference to his conduct, and whether he has withdrawn his resistance to the Chair, or offered any apology for his conduct? I would like to know whether any communication has been received by the Government on that point?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I have had no communication of any sort or kind from the hon. and learned Member. I make the Motion partly because I think that on its merits it ought to be made, and still more because of a communication I received from the Chairman of Ways and Means, who strongly urged me
  1972
  to take this course. The Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that the suspension of the hon. and learned Gentleman for his offence—committed, I think, three weeks ago—is quite ample to meet the admitted gravity of the case. I myself concur in that view. I think it is a very serious thing to deprive a constituency of its representation in this House for a longer time than is absolutely necessary in order to vindicate our traditions and our Rules of Order. The Rule itself was passed under circumstances into which it is not necessary to go now, and it has been left in a form in which it does not prescribe any specific term of suspension. I believe I am speaking accurately when I say that, having regard to the precedents, three weeks is at least as long a term as has ever been considered necessary by the House for a purpose of this sort. The House is most anxious to vindicate the authority of the Chair, and to visit with censure any inpugnment of that authority; but it never displays in these matters a vindictive spirit. Personally, I would suggest that the time during which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been suspended, particularly in view of the feeling of the Chairman of Ways and Means, is quite ample. I hope the House will unanimously adopt that view.
  Mr. DILLON: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Motion, but I think I am entitled to recall to the memory el the House—there are many Members here who were not then in the House—the fact that this Rule was left in an imperfect condition. As a matter of fact this Rule, or set of Rules, was devised by the then Leader of the House (Mr. Balfour), for the purpose of dealing with the Irish Members; and the whole of the Conservative party—I think I am entitled to recall that to their memory—when it was a question of dealing with the Nationalist Members, clamourously supported the right hon. Gentleman in the original proposal, namely, that a Member suspended under this Rule should not be admitted to the House until he had made an apology. We of the Irish party resisted that proposal, and we are perfectly consistent to-day, because we propose to support the Prime Ministers Motion. On the occasion to which I refer the question was discussed at great length. I think for more than one night, and we protested against he proposal made on grounds into which it is quite unnecessary for me to go now, but the result of that discussion was most remarkable and extra-

  1973
  ordinary. Business was pressing, several nights of debate took place, and finally a Certain amount of division of opinion, as well as my memory serves me, began to show itself, under the pressure of our arguments, amongst the ranks of the Conservative party, in power at that time. The then Leader of the House suddenly dropped the Resolution, and it has never been recurred to, and as a matter of fact the Rule to-day, as you will find it in the Order Book, has a dash at the end of it. It is an imperfect Rule, so that a Member suspended under this Rule was automatically suspended for the whole of the rest of the Session—I am not sure that he was not suspended for the whole of the rest of Parliament. That was not the intention of the then Leader of the House. The original form of this Rule was that a Member was suspended the first time for a week, the second time for a month, and for the rest of the Session if he repeated the offence a third time.
  Therefore, I think the Prime Minister is perfectly justified in the course he has taken, because it was the intention of the House, and of the then Leader of the House, originally, that the first suspension should only be, I think, for a week—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ten days."]—or ten days, I am not quite sure, it is many years ago. At all events, it was a strictly limited period, and the Member was to be readmitted if he made an apology. It was on the question of apology that the struggle took place, and, as is often the result, it happened that, although we were then a small minority in the House, we succeeded. I think I am entitled to point out to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, that if their colleague re-enters the House now without apology, he is enabled to do so, thanks to the struggle which we made in the past. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not rise at all to oppose this Motion. I feel strongly that, while of course it is absolutely essential—and we Irish Members have never denied it—that, with a view to maintaining order and respect for the Chair in this House, a Member should be punished if he defies the authority of this Chair. Yet there must be regard for the rights of constituencies, which are very sacred. There should also be some allowance made for temper. If a man sins through temper and genuine feeling, he ought not to be punished as if he had committed some disgraceful crime. I speak with some little authority on this
  1974
  subject, because I was the first person in this House on whom the axe fell; I was the first suspended under the Rule. I acknowledge now that it is only just that the right hon. Gentleman should take this action, because when I was suspended under this Rule, although I declined to make any apology, the then Leader of the House (Mr. Balfour) moved that I should be readmitted to the House after a period of two or three weeks. [An HON. MEMBER: "One week."] That is better still. Therefore, the Prime Minister by moving this Resolution is acting upon precedent, and I think he is only acting fairly. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Member who presides so admirably over our discussions in Committee, as everybody who knows him would expect, has asked the Prime Minister to take this course.
  Mr. FENWICK: May I be allowed to put a further question to the Prime Minister on this subject? I wish to ask him whether he is aware that the hon. and learned Member, since his suspension, is reported to have publicly stated in Ireland that he deliberately resisted the authority of the Chair and that he would neither withdraw nor apologise to the House, whatever might be the consequences? If that is so, and if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it, I should feel it my duty to divide the House against this Motion.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether the hon. Member has used the expressions attributed to him or not; I have not seen the newspaper. I have proceeded on the footing, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon) quite truly said, that the hon. Member has not apologised and is not going to apologise, and I think three weeks' suspension is adequate punishment.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I do not intend to say more than one word which would he in the nature of an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) not to divide the House. The position is as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon). That is the whole case, and so far as myself and my colleagues on these benches are concerned, we would regret extremely that the action of the House should not be unanimous on this subject. No trace of party bitterness enters into this matter so far as we are concerned. For my part, I am glad of the opportunity

  1975
  of saying that I make this appeal on behalf of an hon. Member from Ireland, even though we differ politically and strong feeling may arise from time to time. I do, under those circumstances, ask the hon. Member to allow the House to come to a unanimous decision. It never was at any time the intention, whether a man apologised or not, that he should be permanently excluded in consequence of a momentary ebullition of temper or want of judgment. Under those circumstances it would appear vindictive if the House did not come to a unanimous decision in the matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I have no objection whatever to the Motion that is proposed by the Prime Minister, but I think since I have been a Member of this House I have seen cases where this procedure has not been previously followed. I think I remember the suspension of a gentleman who was then Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Victor Grayson). I believe he was suspended for the whole of the Session. I was wondering whether it is because one has powerful Friends in the House or amongst one of the parties that he was forgotten, and that on this occasion an entirely different method of procedure is adopted. I think at least we ought to make the procedure of the House such that it applies unerringly to all Members, and that it does not depend entirely upon the kind of Friends that the suspended Member has in the House whether he is to be dealt with in this way or not. Otherwise I quite agree with the Motion of the Prime Minister. I should not like it to be understood that it all depends on the amount of assistance or interest the Member suspended has as to whether he is to be readmitted after a fair time to the deliberations of the House. I think there ought to be something certain determined.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have really nothing to say after what has been said by the Prime Minister. I may say I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Ward) has just stated. Of course, the position in whch the House stands is due to the fact that the Rule never was completed. Obviously it would be much better if the Rule was completed, and if it was understood that a definite time was prescribed. I may say, speaking for myself, and I am sure for all my Friends, what has been done has not been done on any request of mine or of theirs, but in my opinion it is the course which
  1976
  ought to be taken, whoever the Member was who committed the offence, and the precedent set to-day will, I am sure, in future be applied.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I agree with what my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Ward) has said as to the Rule, but I do not know why I should be suspected of yielding to any pressure of any sort or kind, although, of course, I would respectfully receive representations from any quarter of the House. I do not know that there is any reason to think that I gave special consideration to representations from any quarter. At any rate, no such thing has happened. While I quite concur with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regretting that we have not got a fixed code which would avoid the necessity of arbitrary exercise of authority, yet I ask the House to decide this case on its merits and say that the period of suspension is long enough.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): Before the Question is put, perhaps the House will permit me to make an appeal to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) not to divide the House on a question of this kind. I think it is much better that the House should be unanimous in matters of this kind. I need only say I am in full accord with everything the Prime Minister has said in moving this Motion. It is, of course, no personal matter whatever, but purely a matter affecting the House and its authority, and I am sure whoever happened to be in the Chair for the time being would take the same view.
  Mr. FENWICK: It seems to me there is a general consensus of opinion that this Motion should be allowed to pass unanimously. I do not want, personally, to stand in the way of a unanimous decision on this subject, but I must take the liberty of saying that I protest very strongly against the deliberate way in which the hon. and learned Member has thrown himself in the face of the entire House, and of the authority of the Chair. I have heard it said again and again that his conduct was such as you might expect from Members of the Labour party. I thank goodness that in my experience not a single member of the Labour party has ever been guilty of such open defiance to the authority of the Chair. As it appears to be the general consensus of opinion in all quarters that the Motion should be allowed to pass unanimously, I hope that

  1977
  hon. Members will bear in mind that this insult to the authority of the Chair has come from the gentlemanly party and not from the Labour Benches.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the period of suspension from the service of the House of Mr. Moore do terminate this day.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 8th April.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Prices in Respect of Billeting.)
    There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act the prices specified in the First Schedule to this Act.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause. I do so in order to draw attention to a subject which at the present moment does not get very much attention, but which is one which occupied very much more attention years ago, and was one of the grievances embodied in the then Petition of Rights. I refer to the question of billeting and quartering. In those days there was only barrack accommodation for something like 5,000 soldiers and the Government used their powers of billeting and quartering the extra forces very freely. At the present moment the Regular Forces require very little billeting, since there is good barrack accommodation and troops are moved by rail. There is a note to Clause 4 of this Bill which drew my attention to the question of billeting with respect to the Territorial Force. That note says:—
    "It is thought desirable, as the powers of billeting will be principally exercised in respect of the Territorial Force, that the powers to issue billeting requisitions should be exercisable by divisional, brigade, and battalion commanders of the Territorial Force."
    In other words, this new citizen Army which has been lately introduced, and which will, I hope, be extended in numbers and made more really fit as an Army, may billet its members. Under those circumstances, I think it desirable to draw attention to the billeting Clauses and billeting prices. Except in cases of emergency,
    1978
    powers of billeting can only be exercised on licensed victuallers and innkeepers, and the prices to be charged by those are carefully laid down. During the last few years the Schedule has been, I think, on more than one occasion revised. It was revised in 1907, the year of the creation of the Territorial Force, but having regard to the great rise in prices of the necessaries of life, the Schedule is wholly inadequate, and the prices which the licensed victuallers are allowed to charge could not possibly admit of a profit. I quite admit there was a rise in 1906. The total charge for three meals then for a soldier billeted on an innkeeper or licensed victualler was 1s. 6d. for breakfast, dinner and supper. At present it is 1s. 9d., but surely that increase is not enough, having regard to the increase in prices. Let me point out what the innkeeper can charge a soldier for tea. He has got to give him with the tea a certain amount of bread, sugar and milk, and not a cup, but a pint of tea. For all that the innkeeper is allowed to charge threepence; it used to be twopence halfpenny. I ask hon. Members would it be possible for any innkeeper to make much out of that with a pint of tea and bread, sugar and milk? The thing is impossible. There is then a substantial breakfast with bacon for which fivepence is allowed, and dinner which is to consist of half a pound of meat, vegetables, beer, mineral waters, 1s. 1d. The thing is absolutely impossible. There has been a rise from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 9d., or something over 10 per cent., but that is not commensurate with the total increase in the cost of living. There is then the question of lodging. If a soldier does not take the meals provided by the innkeeper, then he has to be given the use of a kitchen and fire and vinegar and candles, and he has also to get attendance and a separate bed, and for all that the innkeeper is allowed to charge sixpence. I do not know what the charge in a "doss" house is, but I imagine it is something like threepence per night, but the man certainly does not get clean sheets and attendance and vinegar and candles, while the innkeeper is supposed to make something out of the sixpence. Again I say the thing is impossible. Take the question of a separate bed. It is only within the last few years that a separate bed has been required for each soldier. After the soldier has slept in the bed, naturally the innkeeper has to have the sheets washed. That means twopence,

    1979
    leaving only a balance of fourpence, out of which the innkeeper has to provide candles and vinegar.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really attacking the Schedule rather than Clause 3. It must be understood that if he makes his points now, he will not be able to raise them again on the Schedule.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I would rather take my chance now. With regard to forage, the price has not been raised at all, and if the amount allowed is reckoned out, it will be found that an innkeeper might be liable to have an officer's horse quartered upon him for something under 12s. a week. That is not a living price. It is certainly not the price that we should have to pay if we attempted to quarter our horses upon any innkeeper in the country. The old idea was that when in cases of emergency it was necessary to billet or quarter soldiers on innkeepers, the burden did not fall upon ordinary citizens. The innkeeper had a house which, without a licence, would be worth perhaps £30 in the way of rent, but the possession of a licence made it an exceedingly valuable property. Therefore he could justly be asked to bear some extra burden when the State required him to feed and lodge soldiers for a short time. But that is all changed now. The licensed victualler is a heavily-taxed individual. In ninety-nine cases out of 100 he does not own the house in which he lives; he is merely the tenant. At the present moment the licensed victualler interest is the most heavily taxed in the country. Therefore it is unfair now to ask this class to bear an extra burden. All their expenses have risen. Rates are higher. During the last few years in any hotel you like prices have been raised against the customer. Even in this House the Kitchen Committee have had to raise the price of dinner during the present Session. Therefore we ought to consider whether we are paying a fair price in this matter. We have also to face the fact that Territorials may be quartered or billeted in the future. To a large extent the Territorials are drawn from a rather superior class to that from which members of the Regular Forces come, and what might be suitable accommodation for the latter would not be suitable for, say, a young clerk serving in the Territorials. You want to make the life as comfortable as possible for these people. If you could have a system of billeting Territorials in various parts of
    1980
    the country, it would be an excellent thing both for the force and for the people at large. It would make the force more, popular, and it would make the people in one part of the United Kingdom conversant with the habits and thoughts of the people of another part. For instance, the Territorial battalion in my own Division has to go to Runnymede for firing practice. Runnymede is a long way from Enfield, and I suggest that if small parties of men could be billeted while doing their practice, it would be much better than their rushing down in the morning and back again at night. I imagine that we should all wish people to have a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. The innkeeper simply asks for a fair price for a good meal and a good bed. I suggest that the present prices are bad, and in an Amendment to the Schedule I have put down what I imagine would be, not adequate prices, but at any rate something better than those paid at present.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at present receiving a deputation, but I hope he will be here shortly. Meanwhile, as this matter concerns my Department I hope the hon. Member will not mind my replying to him. The hon. Member for Enfield, by his Amendment, has really raised the whole question of the prices set out in the Schedule. As he has very frankly admitted, the subject was discussed so recently as 1911, and in consequence of that discussion a considerable increase was made in the prices allotted. The effect of the hon. Member's proposals would be to raise the price by a further 6d., but the hon. Member did not give any good reason for supposing that the increase in the cost of living had gone up to any corresponding extent. As a result of the discussion in 1911 the amount payable was raised by 3d., and if the hon. Member had endeavoured to show that the rise in prices justified the further increase now proposed, he would have found himself in great difficulty. We have received no complaints since that increase from innkeepers or any other persons concerned that the prices are in any way inadequate. The hon. Member stated that these prices were doss-house prices…
    Mr. NEWMAN: For the bed.
    Mr. BAKER: And that there would be great advantages in enabling the Territorial Force to pay good prices when they

    1981
    had to be billeted. I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that these prices are paid in respect, not of individuals, but of numbers. They are calculated according to the individual, but the innkeeper will receive them in respect of a considerable number of soldiers at the same time. Therefore, in calculating the profit to the innkeeper it must be remembered that it is the profit not on a single person, but on a number of soldiers. The hon. Member also raised the question of forage. I am not at all sure that there may not be some ground for looking into that matter. It is true that the cost of forage has risen, and it is some time since the rates in the Schedule were revised. I do not promise that the prices shall be raised, but I do promise that they shall be investigated, and if we can find good reasons for increasing them I have no doubt that we shall do so. On the general question I suggest that it is rather early to ask for a revision of the prices, seeing that it is only twelve months since they were last revised. While I quite agree that the moment you can show definitely that there has been a permanent increase in the cost of living, it is our duty to increase the prices in the Schedule; I do not think we ought to take notice of every temporary variation that may occur. The cost of food is showing an upward tendency, but taking last year alone, from the time the prices were raised, I am not sure that a case can be made out—certainly the hon. Member has net made it out this afternoon—for a further increase. The hon. Member must remember that although it is possible for the War Office to raise the prices in the schedule, it is hardly practicable, in the event of a fall in the price of food, to reduce them. For that reason I think that we are entitled to take into account only permanent changes.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I think that on this matter I must support the view suggested by the Financial Secretary. I do not know whether it is generally assumed by the hon. Member for Enfield that under no circumstances whatever should citizens who are specially favoured and who have had conferred upon them a monopoly of a certain kind bear any part of the expense relating to the billeting of soldiers. I know from my own experience that complaints have sometimes been made by publicans that they have not had their proper share of billeting. There is not the slightest doubt that in certain cases,
    1982
    in small country towns, for instance, it is very often a considerable source of revenue for the innkeepers when soldiers have to be billeted upon them. It is not merely a question of the actual sum paid, though that is the only item we ought to take into account here. I am glad that this discussion has arisen, because it shows how anxious militarists are to avoid the personal inconveniences attached to the establishment of a great military force. It is a fact that in other countries those who are put to the inconvenience of having soldiers billeted upon them are not paid on nearly so good a scale as that objected to by the hon. Member. I believe that in the case of the Swiss Army it is a part of the military law that only 60 per cent. of the admitted cost shall be paid. That, of course, is a militarist country, and the people are prepared to shoulder a part of the burden. I am delighted to see, however, from the observations of the hon. Member for Enfield that, although we are all in favour of an Army, yet even those who are very well circumstanced do not want to be put to any personal expense or trouble over the matter. That is a very good sign, because it shows to the country how the militarists stand in this respect. I therefore suggest that one would have to show that other countries in relation to this matter of treating those citizens upon whom the Army is billeted for the time being do worse than we do here.
    I remember a great discussion that took place here some time ago. The Labour men, with the assistance of the late right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, kept the House up all one night on this very subject of the prices relating to billeting, and such like. The late Sir. Charles Dilke, with his extensive knowledge of military affairs, helped us. We did not get much assistance then from hon. Members, who are putting this matter forward at the present time. I do not see that there is any complaint at all to make. There are other matters which it strikes me it would be much more interesting to look into. If the Army Council, or the Secretary of State, has any surplus money that they wish to dispose of, there are hundreds of ways in which to dispose of it. I am sure that the military Gentleman opposite, and some on this side of the House, could point out to the authorities where funds could be expended infinitely better for the purpose of perfecting the organisation of

    1983
    the Army, both the Territorial and the Regular Forces, than in increasing the expenditure in the direction suggested. If the hon. Member goes to a Division, it is because I would prefer to keep my mind directed to the more essential things of Army organisation and the equipment of our voluntary forces that I should certainly oppose him. There are other subjects which will be introduced during this Debate where money will be required infinitely more than in this connection. This, as a matter of fact, is about the last thing that military men who want to see the Army well equipped and efficient, would begin with. I suggest therefore that there is no reason or justification, seeing how recently we have revised these rates, for the matter to be reopened at the present time.
    Colonel YATE: I think the Under-Secretary stated that there had been a considerable increase last year in the price for billeting. I cannot remember the exact amount.
    Mr. J. WARD: Threepence.
    Colonel YATE: Threepence for the whole day?
    Mr. H. BAKER: Threepence per day per man.
    Colonel YATE: It was stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think, that the cost of living showed an upward tendency that was perhaps more or less temporary. The cost of living, I think, is acknowledged by all to have gone up, and it probably will remain up. You cannot expect it to come down. The point I would like to ask about is, Does this Clause simply refer to licensed victuallers—that is, to proprietors of publichouses—or, in the case of manœuvres, such as are coming on, does it refer to anyone in any part of the country in which men may be billeted? If it is only in respect of public-houses and innkeepers, then I can quite understand an innkeeper liking to have the men in his house, for he possibly makes other money by virtue of their being present which compensates him. But, if men are liable to be billeted on private citizens, I think these private citizens may justly claim to be repaid the money expended by them. Will this scale of billeting apply to the ordinary householders in the villages or to the innkeepers only?
    Mr. H. BAKER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will remember that recently fresh powers were taken in respect of billeting, power being taken to billet the soldiers not merely in licensed houses, but in private houses as well. These powers are confined to certain occasions. In ordinary times the power of billeting is the same as it was. The scale applies only to billeting of that kind. Soldiers will not be billeted in private houses except in case of emergency. The practice at manœuvres will continue as at present.
    Captain JESSEL: When was the change made?
    Mr. H. BAKER: In 1912.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask if the Under-Secretary considers that this scale is equal to the expense incurred by those concerned?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear. In the coming manœuvres the billeting will be as under peace conditions, and only be on innkeepers and people of that description.
    Major STANLEY: There was one point brought to our notice by the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke. He said he was glad to see this discussion for various reasons. The publicans, he said, would be content. But the hon. Member seems to miss one point—that if you skimp and restrict those who billet the soldiers in any way in their remuneration they will skimp the soldier in the amount of food they give to him. I have known it from experience—not personally. Men of mine when we have been on the march at different times have reported that the publican or innkeeper had given a cup of tea, which he was supposed to give for the men's breakfast, but he would neither give milk nor sugar to put in it. I venture to suggest that if you skimp the money paid for billeting you will run a very great risk of the man keeping the house skimping the soldier.
    Mr. J. WARD: That might occur whatever figure you pay him!
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 108a of the, Army Act.)
    The officers who may be authorised to issue a billeting requisition under Section one hundred and eight A of the Army Act shall include general

    1985
    or field officers commanding any part of His Majesty's Forces in any military district or place in the United Kingdom, and accordingly in Sub-section (1) of that Section, for the words "any general or field officer commanding His Majesty's Regular Forces," there shall be substituted the words "any general or field officer commanding any part of His Majesty's Forces."
    Mr. ASHLEY: May I say to the Under-Secretary how much I welcome the change which he proposes to make in this Clause. It is time that we recognised that the officers of the Territorial Force, now so closely approximate in many ways to their brethren of the Regular Forces, that this power of billeting should be given to them, and not confined entirely to the officers of the Regular Forces. In the early days of the Volunteer movement the officers were not, perhaps, so highly trained as at present. You had a marked distinction existing between them and their brother officers of the Regular Forces. But now officers of the Territorial Forces go to much trouble to make themselves efficient in every way. They would not have thought of doing this ten or twenty years ago. This change will be welcomed by the Committee in general, namely, that officers of the Territorial Forces should be given the same power of billeting as is given to their brethren of the Regular Forces. One more step has been taken to recognising the self-sacrificing efforts of many Englishmen to try and make the Territorial Force a real and effective part of our national defence.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Extension of Section 115 of Army Act to Aircraft.)
    The power of requisitioning carriages, horses, and vessels in case of emergency conferred by the Army Act shall extend so as to include a power of requisitioning aircraft of all descriptions, and accordingly at the end of Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act there shall be inserted the words "and also of aircraft of every description"; and the consequential Amendments specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act shall be made in the enactments mentioned in the first column of that Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Enfield Division, after the word "shall" ["Army Act shall extend so as to include"], to insert the word "not"; and at the end of the Clause to add the words, "but where the power of requisitioning a mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a locomotive, or of any aircraft is exercised, the rate per mile shall not be less than that enacted in the Third Schedule of the Army (Annual) Act, 1913," are not in order here. The first Amendment is a negative of the Clause, and the second one refers to the Third Schedule of the Army (Annual) Act, 1913. There is no Third Schedule to the Bill that we are discussing. There are only two Schedules.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I will raise the matter on the Question that the Clause stand part.
    Captain CRAIG: I only desire a very few words to repeat a question which I put a few days ago in the House to the Secretary of State for War. He promised he would give the matter full consideration. I trust his substitute on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary, will be able to satisfy the Committee on the point which I put forward, and which I think is vital in respect of this particular part of the Army (Annual) Act of this year. Clause 5 is entirely fresh in the Army (Annual) Bill. Hitherto there have been no powers taken by the House, I think, to make use of aeroplanes or aircraft of any description. This year it has been found necessary—and I think Members of the House will agree quite rightly—that the same rules and regulations that apply to the power of requisitioning carriages, horses, and vessels, in case of emergency, should be also applied to any aircraft in the country. The point I particularly wished to impress upon the Secretary of State a few days ago was that the thing was rather different in the case of the complicated machinery of aircraft. There are various patterns, and if we are altering the Act and simply adding the words "carriages, horses, and vessels," and comparing with them aircraft, we are really comparing one class of article with another which is different. I want to impress upon the War Office that it is important to take into consideration the absolutely vital importance of the appurtenances of the aircraft. Everybody is aware that many patterns of aircraft are

    1987
    quite useless. Unless you are able to have some kind of power to acquire the necessary spare parts which may fit a particular class of machine, and make use of aerodromes, it will be a mistake. There are patents, too, which in many instances are in the hands of a very few persons, and it would be desirable to be able to use all that are necessary to make your aircraft of real service to the country. Clause 5 refers to Section 115 of the Army Act. It also refers to the Schedule of the new Bill, and if you look at the second paragraph of the Second Schedule you will see that for the words "and vessels" wherever they occur shall be substituted the words "vessels and aircraft." My reason for calling attention to this is, if you refer to the Act itself, you will see that the horses, carriages, and vessels, which it is necessary to requisition are all at the end classed together in the rates of remuneration, or so much per mile. And if he looks at Section 4 of Clause 115 of the Act he will see that the Army Council gives due payment for carriages, animals, and so forth, and now he proposes by this new Clause to pay for aircraft commandeered. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House whether in commandeering aircraft he is not only commandeering the actual craft from persons, but also the spare parts of machinery for putting that aircraft in such proper order in case anything should happen to it while in use. I presume he is not putting this new Clause into the Bill without making some inquiry in the country to know of what value it would be in the case of an emergency arising. I think that is most important after the statement made by the Secretary of State that the War Office is only prepared to put 121 aeroplanes at the disposal of the Army. So far as experts who have criticised that statement of the right hon. Gentleman are concerned, I think the whole balance of opinion of those in close touch with aircraft and the general estimate of the various airmen, both in the Army and the Navy, have led to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman exaggerated to an absurd extent the available number of this aircraft. Very grave criticism was made with regard to the exaggerated statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the number of aircraft at the present moment. Naturally he always takes a smiling and very comfortable view of these matters. I
    1988
    assure him that those less qualified to know, as experts who take part in flying, deny absolutely the accuracy of his figures and they tell me that there is gross exaggeration somewhere.
    5.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman is such an optimist that he can gloss over everything of this kind in a masterly style, but outside the House those who know what is going on are very gravely troubled by the state of affairs in that branch of the Service. The Debate to-day may give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of correcting the misconception and misunderstanding aroused by the words he used a few days ago. I would ask him, Has he made any inquiry in the country in order to find out how many of these aircraft will come under Clause 5 at the present moment, and whether he can give us any reliable statistics as to the makes of the machines required, and whether there is any standardisation amongst them or whether the bulk are of very varied type, or whether they belong to one type which would enable men engaged to attend to the whole as one fleet of aircraft, or whether he would have to rely entirely on private owners supplying the airmen to work the craft themselves. I think this is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to clear up what is the very great feeling in the country, first of all, as to what the Army's position is, and, secondly, what he hopes to gain by commandeering privately owned machines throughout the country, and the third point is whether the new type used very largely by the Navy would come under the head of aeroplanes. I understand that some private owners have craft which it is quite true are able to fly, but are used more on water than for long distance journeys in the air. I should like to know whether these will come under the head of aeroplanes or vessels. They seem to be a combination of the two. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a very large amount of interest taken in these vessels, and people have been studying very closely their development for the purpose of skimming over the top of the water and making short flights when necessary. Are the private owners of this class of machine covered by this Clause. And is it intended to make any amendment in the Clause so as to satisfy the country, so that they will not only be able to get the bare machine, but the necessary parts to keep them at work as well?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to give me notice upon the Second Reading of this Bill that he would raise the specific points he touched upon in his speech, and I am glad to be able to give him the information he wants. With regard to the first point he raised, I do not think the Committee would wish me to dwell upon the question of how many aeroplanes the Army is in possession of. It is not possible for a Secretary of State for War to go round counting the horses and the guns in the Army; he naturally has to rely upon the statements made to him by distinguished officers who supervise these arrangements. I have done so in this case, though it so happened I have a good deal of special knowledge upon the matter. I have no reason whatever to doubt the statements made to me by distinguished officers, and I do not think in any responsible quarter any doubt will be entertained either. I shall always be ready to give what information is possible, consistent with the public interest, with regard to the actual number of aircraft in our possession. I make that reservation "consistent with the public interest" because, as the Committee will recognise, a great deal of the aeronautical service must be regarded as confidential. One may say almost all of it is so regarded in other countries, but here it is not so, and I will give the information except in so far as it is undesirable to give the type of machine in reference to which we think it is not in the public interests that figures should be given. Then I come to the last point as to how far aeroplane would include hydroplane. The word used in this Clause, "aircraft," we are advised by the legal advisers of the Government, would include all sorts of aircraft, including hydroplanes, and I am also advised, so far as it is necessary to obtain appurtenances, we shall also have that power under this Section.
    A more important question arises as to how far we shall secure the co-operation of civilian aerodromes in the country. We take powers in this Bill, which I hope the Committee will grant us in case we wish to do it, to take the high-handed action of taking away from people what they do not want to let us have. It is the universal rule with regard to all other things that in time of extreme danger the State should have that power, and Parliament has given that power, and it would naturally wish to do the same in the case of
    1990
    aircraft. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked upon the Second Reading and again to-day how far we had been able to co-operate with civilian aerodromes. I am glad to say we have gone some way in that direction, and are now on the way to go much further. The Royal Aero Club, of which the hon. Member for Cambridge-shire is chairman, has given us the greatest assistance in this as in other matters and they have now appointed a committee upon which the War Department is represented with the view to securing complete co-operation between the War Department and the different aerodromes in the country which would enable us to have the advantage of those aerodromes and the sheds on suitable payment and every other ad vantage which comes from proper assistance and co-operation between the War Department and proprietors of aerodromes. I shall be glad to make a statement to the House when this committee has finally reported, but so far they have only brought in an interim report, and they are at this moment further considering the matter. I do not think I need add any more, but we are most carefully bearing in mind the importance of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am glad to have had this opportunity of making the statement I have made as to our desire to work in such a way as to secure the co-operation of the Royal Aero Club and of private aerodrome owners in this country.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Under this Clause the Government ask power to requisition airships the same as other vehicles, but they are apparently silent as to the cost. The last scale of such payments is to be found in the Third Schedule of the Army Act of 1912. That particular Schedule is absolutely archaic. I do not understand whether this particular Schedule is to be used for the payment of aircraft, but it certainly wants bringing up to date. It might be very useful and fair in the time of Wellington, but at the present moment it is absolutely wanting and archaic. For instance, I find that, taking the first item, if an officer requisitioned a wagon with six oxen, or four oxen and two horses, the rate shall be 1s. per mile. Is it likely that any officer would requisition a wagon with six oxen, or four oxen and two horses, to-day? I put this to the Government: Would any officer like to have his ammunition brought up by such a conveyance? The thing is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that the vehicle to-day would not

    1991
    be a wagon and six oxen, but would be a motor lorry, yet we have no Schedule as to the rates which should be paid for such a motor lorry. I venture to say that the price should be 1s. a mile, which is a very small price indeed. Only yesterday we had a long discussion in the Committee upstairs as to what was the cost of running a motor omnibus per mile. I said 1s., but I was told it could not be done for less than 1s. 6d. I have put down 1s. in this case, because the cost of a motor lorry would be less, I think, than a motor omnibus. You ought to put down the rates exactly which should he paid to the owner per mile if you requisition a motor lorry.
    I do not know what is going to happen in the case of aircraft, or what will be the price per mile which the War Office will pay. I think the Third Schedule is so archaic and ridiculous that one cannot go through it without smiling. What happens in Ireland? If an officer requisitions an outside car all the jarvey is going to get is threepence per mile. That means that in case he has to carry four sergeant-majors he may get more than threepence a mile, and he will not smile when he gets his correct fare at the end of twenty miles. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite was to requisition an outside car…
    The CHAIRMAN: Are the gentlemen referred to by the hon. Member going to pass through the air?
    Mr. NEWMAN: No, I was dealing with the Third Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with aircraft only.
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) is still under some misapprehension about this Schedule. May I point out to him that the Third Schedule, which he has analysed, does not apply to hiring under Section 115 of the Army Act. The Third Schedule has nothing to do with Section 115, and probably I might have usefully interrupted the hon. Member's speech earlier. It has no connection whatever with that Section and no connection with the Amendment proposed in Clause 5. I might add that I think the hon. Member raised a number of very interesting points of terminology, although I am not so sure that the antique phraseology of some of the notices to be seen about the country is so ambiguous as to prevent free passage from one place to
    1992
    another. I may say that some of the points which the hon. Member has raised will be considered before next year.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Can the hon. Member give some answer to the main question raised by my hon. Friend as to what arrangement has been made, or will be made, in regard to payment for the use of aircraft which may be requisitioned?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Surely that is already provided for in Section 115 of the Army Act, which says, "The Army Council shall cause due payment to be made." Then it goes on to say, "Any difference respecting the amount shall be determined by a County Court." Apparently the amount is unlimited in this case, because no Schedule is made out, and the sum to be paid has to be decided by the County Court. That seems to me to be a much better provision, from the point of view of the hon. Member, than making out a Schedule which very often does not meet the case at all.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL: It seems to me that, under Section 4, if there is any case of difference it has to be settled by the County Court. I think in the ordinary course of events it is recognised that it is better to have some minimum charge fixed. I can understand that under certain circumstances the minimum would not be adequate payment for the services rendered, but in many cases if a minimum price could be fixed I think it would do away with a large amount of litigation. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield has done very great service in raising this question, and I hope something will be done to mitigate what I think will and must be a source of very great inconvenience and trouble if there is no minimum price fixed for the services that may be rendered.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of Section 145 of the Army Act.)
    In Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) after the words "order a portion" there shall be inserted the words "not exceeding in respect of a wife and children one shilling and sixpence, and in respect of a bastard child one shilling, of the daily pay of a warrant officer not holding an honorary commission."
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to insert, after the word "children" ["maintain his wife and children"], the words "the word 'sixteen' shall be substituted for the word 'fourteen' and."
    I think this is a very sensible and quite a serious Amendment. I have had it in view for a good number of weeks. I had it already to put down the very night this Bill passed its Second Reading. For several days it was the only Amendment to this Bill on the Order Paper, and I claim the attention of the Committee for it as an Amendment which is seriously meant, and has a great deal to be said for it. It refers to the liability of a soldier to support his children. Never mind whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, the point is that a soldier ought to support his children up to the age of sixteen, just as much as a civilian. Probably that is the law although it has not actually been decided by a Court of Law. I think, however, we may say it is the only safe course to assume that it is the law that a soldier is liable to support his children up to the age of sixteen. But when an order is made that a soldier must support his children or his wife, the Army Act only contemplates the supporting of a child or children up to the age of fourteen years. There is, therefore, some doubt and difficulty in this matter. Suppose an order has been made upon a soldier serving in the Army, and the child is above fourteen and under sixteen years of age. The Colonel does not know in what position he stands, and he does not know whether the money ought to be deducted from the soldier's pay or not.
    This difficulty has been recognised by the Secretary for War. I put an unstarred question upon this point some time ago, and the right hon. Gentleman fully recognised the liability of the soldier, and also the fact that there was some doubt as to whether this might be charged upon the soldier's pay. In order to make the point quite clear I move this Amendment, and I hope my proposal will commend itself to the representatives of the War Office on the Treasury Bench. Just let me point out one more fact which will show that this is really in the interests of the soldier himself. If an order is made under the Summary Jurisdiction Act upon a soldier for the maintenance of his wife or children, only a certain amount can be deducted from his pay. That amount may not be sufficient to meet the payments which are ordered
    1994
    in the magistrate's order, and in that case there will be a deficiency each week, and when the soldier leaves the Army, all the amount of his deficiencies can be added up, and he will be in arrear to that amount. It is not infrequently the case that a soldier who has been paying all he can be made to pay under the Army Act, finds himself on leaving the Army, saddled with a large amount of arrears, and he is liable for them, especially if the woman or the guardian of the child is represented by a not very reputable solicitor, in which case the soldier may be proceeded against and arrested on a warrant and put into prison immediately after leaving the Army whilst seeking a situation. Therefore, I think it is entirely in the soldier's interests to have the payments clearly defined, and paid out to the maximum amount that can properly be demanded. In the interests of the mother, the children, and the soldier himself, I move this Amendment, and I hope the representatives of the War Office will accept it. I know there is the difficulty about having a Report stage, but in view of the fact that there has been no obstruction whatever, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman fully admits the reasonableness of this Amendment, I hope it will be accepted.
    Mr. H. BAKER: My hon. Friend said quite truly that this Amendment has been looked upon favourably by the Secretary for War, but he must not take that as meaning that he has given any guarantee that this Amendment would be accepted. My right hon. Friend has said that there is a great deal to be said for this proposal. Perhaps I might point out to the House exactly how the matter stands with regard to the liability of the soldier at the present moment. Under Section 145, Sub-section (2), which deals with this Section, the soldier, unlike the civilian, is open to a double process. He is on exactly the same footing as the civilian, and may be dealt with for the maintenance of children, either legitimate or illegitimate under the law. He can also be proceeded against by the military authorities in respect of his legitimate children. It is true that the age up to which maintenance can be ordered is fourteen under the Army Act, whereas under the ordinary Bastardy Law for civilians at large the age is sixteen. I have made some inquiries why this difference in the law was made, and I find that the age of fourteen goes back for a

    1995
    very long time. Probably it dates from the Articles of War, and it certainly dates from a time prior to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 which fixes the ordinary age for the civilian at sixteen. Therefore, from the soldier's point of view he is not getting any advantage by the age being fourteen as against sixteen, because he can be got at in two ways instead of one. In reply to my hon. Friend, all I can say is that before this time next year the matter will be very carefully considered, and the Secretary for War will see whether he is able to insert an Amendment of this kind in the Army Act. I am told by those who know that soldiers do suffer in this respect and are victimised unduly. Of course, one does not wish to increase the stringency of the law in cases where it may be used unfairly, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter will be very carefully considered, and if possible next year something will be done to meet this point.
    Mr. KING: If I withdraw my Amendment, I think I ought to have a pledge that it will be put in the Bill next year.
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot give that pledge.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I do not know what was the origin of the age being fixed at fourteen, but I might remind the hon. Member that the school board system of ages has been fixed since, and it is highly desirable for reasons connected with education that the age should be taken up to sixteen.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-sections:—
    "(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the amount which may be deducted from the pay of a soldier in respect of a bastard child under Sub-section (2) of the cited Section shall, if the soldier is at the time of the making of the order of affiliation unmarried, be increased—

    (a) in the case of a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of a sergeant to ninepence;

    (b) in the case of any other soldier to sixpence.

    Provided that for the purposes of this Sub-section a soldier shall not be
    1996
    deemed to be unmarried by reason of the marriage having been celebrated without leave.
    (3) Where an order has, before the commencement of this Act, been made authorising deductions to be made under Sub-section (2) of the cited Section, whether in respect of a wife or any legitimate or bastard child, it shall be lawful for a further order to be made increasing the amount of the deductions to be made after the commencement of this Act under the former order up to the limit authorised by this Section.
    Provided that no such further order shall be made in respect of a bastard child if the soldier is married (whether with or without leave) at the commencement of this Act."
    If the hon. Gentleman had given way on the last Amendment he would not have been troubled with this long Amendment, but now I shall insist upon moving this one also. He is young on that bench, and let it be a warning to him to give way at once. He will then get ample return. Last year the Secretary of State for War put in an Amendment which I had suggested the previous year, and he will no doubt next year quietly insert the Amendment I have just moved because of what has transpired to-day. This Amendment is also needed to make the matter quite clear. It is necessary, in order that yon should not have to refer to one or two Acts correcting one another, to have some such Amendment as I propose. Clause 6 does not provide for the existing liability of a warrant officer being increased from the passing of the Act. That is the real point, and that ought to be done. It is entirely in line with the Amendment introduced last year, and with the Amendment which I have just moved, and I hope I shall have some expression of sympathy also on this point.
    Mr. H. BAKER: My hon. Friend in the course of his remarks has pointed out that other tactics have met with success on previous occasions, and I would therefore certainly advise him to adhere to them on this occasion. The fact that last year the Secretary of State brought forward Amendments which the hon. Member had suggested the previous year shows that he gave them careful and sympathetic consideration during the course of the year, and perhaps the hon. Member will in this case be also prepared to wait for a similar event. When the whole question was

    1997
    discussed in 1911, it was on the basis that there had been an increase in the soldier's pay since the amounts payable had been last raised. That was some ground for raising them again, but there has been no corresponding increase in pay since then to justify a further rise. I would commend that to the consideration of my hon. Friend. I hope he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. KING: After the sympathetic answer of the hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move to leave out the word "shilling" ["and in respect of a bastard child one shilling"], and to insert instead thereof "ninepence."
    Mr. ASHLEY: I most heartily support this Amendment that 9d. should be substituted for 1s. I do not know why the wretched warrant officer should be singled out of the whole community for special treatment in this matter. The pay of a warrant officer in the British Army varies from 5s. to 5s. 9d. a day, and you are proposing to deduct one-fifth of his total income. That is a very large proportion of a man's pay to take away from him for a bastard child, especially when we consider that a civilian is only liable to pay 5s. per week. I believe I am right in saying that a civilian cannot be made to pay more than 5s. per week. We are therefore picking the warrant officer out of the whole of the British community and saying he shall pay at the rate of 7s. per week. This is the man whose pay, given him by the State, is 5s. or 5s. 6d. a day. We ought to have some substantial reasons given why this change has been made and why he should be singled out and punished much more severely than any civilian is under the ordinary law of the land, or at any rate according to the usual custom. I feel rather strongly about the matter, but I will reserve any further remarks until I have heard the views of the War Office.
    Mr. F. HALL: It is proposed in this Clause that the increase shall be from 6d. to 1s. per day. I should like to ask on what ground the War Office have found it necessary or advisable to propose an increase of practically cent. per cent. A warrant officer at the present time receives 5s. per day, and, taking one who is liable for two illegitimate children, you are proposing to
    1998
    take away two-thirds of his pay. It has been admitted up to the present that the needs of the case are met by a payment of 6d. for each child. I am not aware that there has been any increase of pay to account for this enormously increased liability of the warrant officer. The pay warrant officers receive at the present time is quite small enough. They are to all intents and purposes experienced officers; they are men on whom enormous duties devolve, and I think when one comes to consider that their payment is only 35s. per week, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will appreciate the smallness of their income, placing their requirements against the requirements of many unskilled labourers. I sincerely trust the War Office will not press for this 1s. a day, but that they will accept the Amendment. I hope, if necessary, my hon. Friend will press this to a Division, and if he does so I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
    Mr. WARD: There is one point upon which I should like the Financial Secretary to give us some explanation. Reading Section 145 of the original Army Act one sees these limiting words:—
    "These shall be the sums paid by a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant."
    I believe a corporal is a warrant officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think there really ought to be someone here who could advise us legally on this point. Do we still retain those limiting words in the original Act? If so, why are we in this Clause changing the words which are in the original Act, the meaning of which everybody knows? You say in the original Act that these sums shall be the sums to be paid by non-commissioned officers not below the rank of sergeant. One can at once see that it is only those who are sergeants, or above the rank of a sergeant, who will pay these amounts. Now you use the term warrant officer, and there ought to be some justification for that change in terminology and for the proposals which the Government are making. I would request the hon. Gentleman to look at the Preamble of Section 145 of the old Army Act, which is as follows:—
    "A soldier of the Regular Forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be

    1999
    the father to the same extent as if he were not a soldier."
    We are not proposing to alter that in the slightest degree. If you do not attempt to amend this Section how can you carry out that Preamble which I have read? If you go on to say that he is to contribute so much more than an ordinary civilian in similar circumstances — and there is no doubt you are doing that—then certainly you ought to strike out the words which state most distinctly that the soldier shall only be called upon to pay as much as ordinary folk in ordinary civilian life. I would like to have some explanation as to how far we are going in reference to this Section. In the first place, why is the new term introduced, "Officer of Warrant rank," whereas in the previous Army Acts there has been a clear definition, namely, "Non-commissioned Officer not below the rank of Sergeant." Everybody can understand that at once, yet those words are now excluded and we are going to say "below the rank of Warrant Officer" without any exception. What is a warrant officer? Surely there would be some difficulty arising under these words. I submit that such an innovation as is here proposed requires justification and at least some explanation. The probability is that if the Secretary of State will explain to us the situation all our doubts will be removed, but we certainly ought to have some explanation before we proceed to make the payment from the non-commissioned officer in the Army actually more than that demanded from the ordinary civilian under similar circumstances.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hesitate before he accepts this Amendment, which is only put forward at the very last moment. It is a serious matter that it should not have been put down on the Paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "How could it be?"] There has been an appeal made from the other side on behalf of these poor, underpaid men, pointing out the hardship it would be to them if they had this amount deducted from their pay. I do not want to see the men in the Army underpaid, but the question whether they are or are not receiving a sufficient wage is one that should be dealt with separately. We have to consider in this connection not only the position of the man, but also that of the unfortunate illegitimate child. This proposal on the part of the Government will make the lot of the unhappy mother of the child easier. There is no doubt
    2000
    whatever that the death rate among illegitimate children is far higher than among legitimate children, and one reason is the miserable pittance on which the unhappy mothers have to eke out existence for themselves and their child. This House will be doing wrong if it hastily decides to make that pittance smaller.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There may be something perhaps to be said in favour of the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I would point out that it is also an argument in favour of vice. The hon. Gentleman says that the sum ought to be larger because the mothers are unhappy. But surely that would be promoting vice. One wants to discourage these wrongful alliances, and not to provide an amount of money which would encourage them.
    Mr. HARVEY: Is the hon. Baronet prepared to put the penalty on the father?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The penalty is on the father; he has to pay the money. The only question before the Committee is, how much money he should pay. That he should pay a considerable sum I think is right, but the amount should be regulated in accordance with his means, for you cannot expect him to pay away the whole of his income. In my opinion it should be the same sum as is demanded from the civilian. Why should a soldier be worse treated than a civilian?
    Captain JESSEL: I reiterate strongly what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. I cannot see where the justice comes in if a man is to be penalised for being a soldier by having to pay a great deal more than a civilian. As far as I know—and I have studied the question because I am interested in another Bill dealing with this measure which is to be introduced shortly—in the case of a civilian the Court can only make an order of 5s. weekly. That is the maximum sum. Again you are here making a distinction between the rank of non-commissioned officer and warrant officer. A warrant officer may be a sergeant-major, an armourer-sergeant, or a bandmaster, while officers of non-commissioned rank are sergeants and lance-sergeants, and corporals and lance-corporals. I cannot see why a warrant officer should be called upon to pay 2s. more than a civilian. If there is going to be any alteration of the law in

    2001
    this respect it should be made, not by an Amendment of the Army (Annual) Act, but by legislation promoted either by a private Member or by the Home Secretary, who is the Minister responsible for dealing with matters of this kind. I cannot understand what has induced the Army authorities, when they have so much else to do, to plunge into this very difficult subject. Why should they take upon themselves to alter the law in this respect, especially as not long since we had a Royal Commission which dealt with the whole question of bastardy? I hope that hon. Members who are not in favour of a change being made in the amount payable by the soldier will not, because they feel a natural sympathy for the hardships endured by the mothers of these children, accuse hon. Members on this side of being indifferent to the claims of humanity, simply because they object to differential treatment being meted out to civilians and to soldiers. We who have served in the Army feel it our duty to make this protest against a palpable injustice, and we hope that the Secretary for War will give this proposal his grave consideration. I would like to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment that it does not go far enough, and I hope that he will withdraw it and move another, fixing the sum at 5s. per week. Again, I would like to ask why should a warrant officer without honorary rank pay this large amount, while no limit is fixed on the amount he has to pay if he bears honorary rank? The sergeant-major of the regiment is the warrant officer without honorary rank. The bandmaster very often has honorary rank, yet it seems to me he gets off scot free, or is only liable under the ordinary law to pay 5s. Why should the sergeant-major be penalised to the extent of 2s. weekly? I hope the Secretary for War will seriously consider before he rejects this Amendment?
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I should like to join strongly in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman by the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward). I cannot understand why a soldier should not be treated on this question of bastardy just the same as an ordinary civilian. In the latter case the Court, if it adjudges a man to be the putative father of a child, orders him to make a contribution according to his means. It is quite true that this new provision which we are discussing only
    2002
    fixes the maximum contribution, and that the Court making the order will still have the power to put it at 5s. But it is sure to read the Section, if it includes this special provision that the warrant officer shall pay a sum not exceeding 7s. per week, as if the House of Commons, in passing it, had some special object in view, and as if it must have been intended that, in the majority of cases, 7s. should be the amount ordered to be paid. Why should this departure have been made? It it had been left exactly as it was, and the man treated as a civilian, then the Court would always have had the power to make an order proportionate to the man's means. It is a dangerous precedent to put into an Act of Parliament a provision fixing a maximum above the ordinary rate which obtains in the country and which a putative father may be bound to pay. Why is it being done? If you leave it as it was, you give the ordinary power which was exercised in regard to a civilian, but if you put it in, you are apt to mislead those who make the order, to the detriment of a man who can ill-afford to pay more than the ordinary member of the public.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel SEELY: The discussion we have had has made the point in dispute quite clear. It being admitted that a man should pay in support of his child in accordance with his means, and it being agreed that the scale to be laid down is graduated accordingly, as it is, the question is, Have we graduated it too high for the higher ranks? There are three parties to be considered on whose behalf appeals ad misericordiam can be made—the father, the mother, and the child. The Committee will rightly say that we must not be too sentimental in this matter, and that while we sympathise with the mother and with the child, we must not be too hard on the man. If this proposal had emanated from some very sympathetic Member of the Committee there might have been some force in that contention. I will tell the Committee how it comes about. There have been many cases, sad cases, brought to our notice. There was a particular case which was pressed upon us. It was not pressed upon us by sentimentalists, but first of all by the soldiers in command—the brigadier-general and the officers in the command—and it was brought to the notice of the Army Council that it was a real hardship that a man who had a considerable income in the way of pocket money, as the hon. Member for

    2003
    Stoke (Mr. John Ward) will know, should only allow this comparatively small sum. If, therefore, you are to graduate the amount, what should be paid for the children, and ought you to graduate further? The apparently hard-hearted Army Councillors sat and considered this question most carefully, and came to the definite decision that in the interests of the mother of the child it was fair to deduct from money which a man would always have over and above his necessary requirements a sum which would give the mother and the child a better chance. If the Army Council have been too sympathetic towards the mother and the child the Committee will rightly vote in favour of the Amendement. If, on the other hand, the Committee considers, and I hope it will, and I appeal to every member of the Committee to believe that it is not likely that the soldiers who recommended this and the Army Council as a whole are overborne by sentimentality—if they think it is a fair deduction to make with full knowledge of the facts in the interests of the mother and the child, then I hope they will reject the Amendment, which I know has been moved with the best of intentions.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I have not heard the whole of the Debate, but from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said I do not think he has given any reason for raising the sum to a shilling a day. I do not know whether he has the whole of the military authorities behind him in bringing about this very great change. I should like to ask him, in the event of a warrant officer being reduced, if he becomes a sergeant or is still further reduced, what will be the position of the mother and child? Is the allowance to be reduced in accordance with his rank, or is he to suffer an additional penalty if he has been reduced? That is an important point to which the right hon. Gentleman might direct his attention. It seems very hard on the mother, after being accustomed to receiving one shilling a day, that the sum she receives should be reduced owing to the fact that the putative father has been reduced in rank. I hope the Amendment will be carried, because I have not been able to discover the reason why the right hon. Gentleman and the military authorities have made this alteration.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has missed one of the chief
    2004
    points of our objection to the proposal in the Bill, and why we support this Amendment. Those who have listened to his explanation will consider it to be practically no explanation at all. I wonder if he realises that if this change is made a warrant officer will be liable to pay 7s. a week for a bastard child, while the colonel of his regiment, under the civil law, will only be liable to pay 5s. That seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs, and I cannot imagine that it would be embodied in a Bill by any Government. The right hon. Gentleman is far too fond of shielding himself behind what he calls his military advisers. One day it is the Army Council and another day the General Staff. So far as I can make out, the sole reason for this alteration is that a single case only came before the Army Council, and on that case alone and the recommendations made upon it he considers it desirable that the Army Act should be altered in this manner. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Perhaps I may be able to shorten the discussion if I explain to the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) that these figures are maxima, and that it must not be supposed they will always be acted upon to the fullest extent.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: So is the 5s.
    Mr. TENNANT: The shilling a day in this Clause is a maximum, and it does not follow that it will always be imposed to the full. With regard to the question of the Noble Lord as to the warrant officer who is reduced to a non-commissioned officer, I may say that this Clause does not apply at all. It specifically states that it is only deducted from the pay of the warrant officer.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, that the figures in this Clause are only maxima, but everybody knows that in cases of this sort, where in an Act of Parliament the maximum is mentioned, it has the tendency to become the normal. Therefore the figures in the Clause are almost certain to be acted upon in any orders or decrees which are made. The Secretary for War a moment or two ago said that the persons who had to be taken into account in this matter were the unfortunate mother of the child and the father, but he leaves out of account third parties, who in very many cases deserve as much

    2005
    commiseration and consideration as others whom he named. It is the case that in very many instances the man who becomes the father of an illegitimate child, either at the time the child is born or not long afterwards, himself becomes a married man. Therefore you have, not only to consider the mother of the illegitimate child and the father, but that man's wife and children. We should be acting in a sentimental but perfectly intelligent way in the interests of the woman if we left out of account the superior claims of a man's own wife and children, but if a heavy tax is to be put upon a man for a fault of this sort, it is very unfair that the penalty for that fault should fall not only upon the mother of the child and the man, who are the sinners in the case, but upon perfectly innocent parties who are involved, namely, his own wife and family. The procedure which is put into this Bill loses sight of the whole purpose of the Act itself. As I read Section 145 of the Act, the whole intention is solely to provide a method of execution in cases of debts incurred under decrees of the Civil Courts, because the Act says that the man shall be liable for the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father to the same extent as if he were not a soldier.
    It is clear that the Act contemplates, so far as the weight of the penalty is concerned, that there is to be no departure from the ordinary liability of a civilian, and it is only because it is felt necessary in the case of a soldier to make special provision for protecting his uniform, accoutrements, and so forth, from being taken in execution that the Section goes on to provide for the possibility of the Army Council or an officer deducting the amount which may have to be paid. In these circumstances it would be a most unjustifiable proceeding to suddenly incorporate in this Act, not merely a variation of the amount for which a man may be liable, but a complete alteration of the whole purpose of the Section in the original Act. If that is to be done; if the Army Council or the officer is to be given the power, not merely of execution on behalf of the Civil Court, but themselves practically to impose under this Bill a greater penalty than has been imposed before in all similar cases, we are straying from the ordinary intention of the Army Act. I agree with what fell from the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), that it is a monstrous thing merely because a man
    2006
    happens to be serving the Crown and wearing His Majesty's uniform that there should be a different law in respect to a matter of ordinary social life, and that owing to his special connection with service in the Army he should be treated in a different fashion and on a different grade of punishment from the ordinary civilian. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. He appears to resist the Amendment merely upon the strength of someone or perhaps a few individual cases, no doubt cases which have stirred his sympathy and would no doubt stir our sympathy if we knew the facts, but he entirely forgot the very old and true saying that hard cases make bad law, and I think we should be in danger of creating a very much greater injustice, not only to unfortunate soldiers who have made a fault of this sort, but also to those who are dependent upon them, and who are perfectly innocent of any sort of fault, if we departed from the law as it at present stands, and imposed this greater penalty.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I would ask the Committee to deal with this subject in a practical way, and to put sentimental considerations for the moment out of their minds. What are the facts that have emerged from this discussion? Under the Statute Law of England at present no civilian can be made to pay more than 5s. a week for the support of an illegitimate child.
    Mr. KING: Will the hon. Member explain whether there is not an addition for arrears and for costs?
    Mr. ASHLEY: That may be so, but, broadly speaking, the money which may be handed over to the mother is 5s. a week. Also a Bill is being brought in to increase that amount—I think a very excellent Bill and one which many of us will support. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do under this Clause to-day? He proposes that we should enact that a warrant officer should be liable to pay 7s. a week, whereas the law of England says no one else shall pay more than 5s. a week. It may be said that is the maximum. I agree they will not always be mulcted in 7s. a week, but we are laying down that they may. Is the commanding officer to follow the Army Act or the Statute Law? Is it not conceivable that an action would lie on the part of a soldier against the command-

    2007
    ing officer for having deducted 7s. a week, whereas the law of England only allowed him to deduct 5s. a week? I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider the matter till Report stage and consult the Law Officers of the Crown.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There will be no Report stage unless there is an Amendment.
    Mr. ASHLEY: That makes it all the more important that the right hon. Gentleman should justify his proposition which, with all due deference, he has not done. He did not deal with the point why a civilian should be treated in one way and a soldier in another. It would make the Committee ridiculous to pass a law which conflicts with the law at present, and which may put officers in a difficult position, because they will not know which law to obey.
    Colonel GREIG: I think that the Committee is under some misapprehension. The soldier and the civilian have always been treated, and in the Statute Law at present are treated in a different manner, and for very substantial reasons. A number of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side do not seem to have borne in mind the Section of the Army Act with which they are dealing. Section 145 contains the statement of a general principle, but it is a principle confined to this, that you are to treat a soldier, so far as regards payment, as much as possible as a civilian:—
    "A soldier of the Regular Forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of his children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father, to the same extent as if he were not a soldier; but execution in respect of any such liability, or of any order or decree in respect of such maintenance shall not issue against his person, pay, arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments, regimental necessaries, or clothing."
    Up to that point the civilian and the soldier are the same, except that you cannot take the soldier's pay, regimental equipment, and so on. Now comes a Sub-section which treats the soldier as a very different person from the civilian:—
    "Nor shall he be liable to be punished for the offence of deserting or neglect-
    2008
    ing to maintain his wife or family, or any member thereof, or for leaving her or them chargeable to any union, parish, or place."
    Then the Sub-section proceeds further down to make a distinction as regards liability in respect to and as a consideration for this exemption that the soldier has in comparison with the civilian, and says this:—
    "The Army Council or officer shall order a portion not exceeding in respect of a wife or children one shilling and in respect of a bastard child sevenpence of the daily pay of a non-commissioned officer."
    Of course the essence and principle and scope of the Army Act is that the civilian and the soldier are different persons. You cannot take his pay or his equipment, or seize him and bring him up for desertion, because his services might be wanted to defend his country, but if you put him in that position you are entitled at the same time to say, "You have to maintain your wife and children, and we are going to take a little more of your pay than in the case of a civilian."
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I do not think the hon. Member quite apprehends the point I was trying to make. He said the case did not come under this Section. I think it does, because an order may have been made for 7s. in the case of a warrant officer who is reduced to a non-commissioned rank or to the ranks How is the mother to get the money? If the warrant officer is reduced to non-commissioned rank, there is no longer any right to deduct 7s. from his pay. That is the point to which the right hon. Gentleman might direct his attention.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the effect of the Section: Would it be possible under that Section for the Secretary of State to order 7s. a week to be paid by the warrant officer? The objection has been taken on this side that a Civil Court can only order a warrant officer to pay 5s. a week. Then it is suggested that the Secretary of State may order a warrant officer to pay 7s. a week. Is that really the true effect of the Clause? If it is so, it seems to me a very obvious hardship upon the warrant officer that the Secretary of State should be allowed to impose an additional 2s. a week beyond what a Civil Court would impose upon him.

    2009
    If that is not the effect of the Clause, the objection which has been raised on this side is met to a certain degree. I am inclined to think the effect of the Clause is not to allow the Secretary of State to give more than a Court would give, and that the Secretary of State could only give an order for payment of 5s. a week.
    Mr. KING: I want rather to protest against the way in which this Debate is going on. The whole question is raised by a Clause of this Bill. I put down an Amendment at the very earliest opportunity raising these various points. I brought it forward and got sympathy from the Secretary of State, and withdrew it because he is going to consider it. After I sat down an hon. Member got up with a manuscript Amendment and no one now knows what it is, and without understanding the Army Act and without having read it, as his speech very clearly showed, he has wasted a great deal of time by throwing dust…
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member should give credit as he expects it himself.
    Mr. KING: I am trying to show the dust before I clear it away. I am not going to argue this case, because it has been very well put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig) and by others. I will only point this out. Those who have spoken on the other side think that a man cannot have several illegitimate children. It is possible that he may have more than one illegitimate child. Looked at from that point of view, it is quite obvious that 7s. a week may be quite inadequate for the amount that may be demanded from him by law, and if a larger amount than that is demanded by law, when he leaves the Army there will be a large amount of arrears attaching to him. If that is the case and the mother or the guardians of the child have got a pushing solicitor, they will have a warrant for him as soon as be leaves the Army. I have known cases of men leaving the Army who have been paying as much as they were ordered to pay by this Army Act, but were yet persecuted when they left because of the amount of the arrears. That is a point of view which is quite ignored by hon. Members opposite. They do not see that the provision which is introduced by this Clause is as much in the interest of the man as in the interests of everyone else. Therefore I hope the Secretary of State will resist this
    2010
    Amendment. Anyone who understands the question knows that it is perfectly ridiculous, and, if I have not made it so, I am willing to get up again and make another speech.
    Mr. F. HALL: I was rather surprised at the statement of the hon. Member that he had brought certain Amendments before the notice of the War Office dealing with the very point referred to in the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. Yet in his closing remarks he implored the Committee to adhere to the Bill as printed. I really cannot understand what he can mean. Perhaps he really has something in his head that he has not been able to explain fully, therefore I cannot help thinking we shall all be looking forward with the greatest possible interest to reading exactly what the Amendments are that he intended to bring before the House. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Colonel Greig) he referred to the second part of Clause 145 dealing with desertion. Does he think it would be feasible or proper that if a soldier were ordered abroad he would, to all intents and purposes, under the civil law be regarded as having deserted his wife? It is in order that the soldier may be protected that the Clause has been regulated in that manner. The Secretary of State has not informed the House of the reason for increasing this from 6d. per day, as it has been from time immemorial, to 1s. a day. If he had come forward with the suggestion that there should be an increase from 6d. to 9d. I cannot see really, although our sympathies might have been with the soldier, how we could have resisted it. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and I cannot help thinking that many Members on the other side also will agree, we say, at all events, the soldier should not be mulcted in a heavier fine—for it is a fine, after all—than the civilian. The Secretary of State was particularly anxious to impress upon the Committee that we should not be too sympathetic in this matter. I quite agree with him. But it is not a question of being too sympathetic; it is a question of treating the soldier and the civilian alike by putting them on equal ground. We are not here to ask exceptional treatment for the soldier, but simply that he should be treated on the same lines as the civilian. It may have been the case that hitherto he was treated, for some reason or other, slightly more advantageously than the civilian,

    2011
    but when you come down and ask to increase the amount from sixpence to a shilling per day for each illegitimate child, I cannot help thinking that, at all events, if the Secretary of State would leave the question to hon. Members to decide according to their ideas of justice, a very large majority would vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.
    Colonel SEELY: I shall answer the questions which have been asked. The first was asked by the Noble Lord opposite as to what would happen in the case of a warrant officer being reduced. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was quite correct in what he said with respect to that matter. I have taken legal advice on the subject. It may be said that it would be very hard on the wife or the mother. It is always the case that the wife or the mother is placed in a position of hardship when the father suffers pecuniary loss. That is the answer to the question which has been asked.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I ask whether the same effect would not take place in the case of a warrant officer giving up his commission? He would then not be liable for the illegitimate child at the same rate, while the warrant officer would be paying the higher sum.
    Colonel SEELY: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to finish my explanation. The next point was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward), who asked whether we had, in point of fact, consulted the Government's legal advisers on the question. He suggested that, if we had not done so, we might put this off. We did consult the Government's legal advisers before the change was made. Of course they may be wrong, but we rely upon them, and we do not think that they are wrong. The third question asked was, why should a soldier have more deducted than a civilian, or, indeed, than a commissioned officer? The answer to that was given by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me. There is this, also, which should be remembered. In the case of a child no deduction is made except after an order of the Court. The Court awards a maximum deduction of 5s. a week. We have taken power to be able to deduct a further sum. Why? In order, not to pay more than the 5s. which would be payable under an order of the Court, but to do what is always necessary, as
    2012
    those who know the circumstances in these sad cases are aware, namely, to pay off arrears. We have taken this power under the Bill in order that arrears may be properly paid off. If that were not the case, arrears might not be paid off at all.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: What would happen if there were no arrears?
    Colonel SEELY: If there were no arrears at all the deduction would be only 5s.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I think that satisfies my point.
    Mr. J. WARD: That statement would have satisfied me if it had been made before.
    Colonel SEELY: We have had two points to deal with. The first is whether it is right that a man should pay the same rate when he gets more money, and the second is whether in the case of the civilian the mother gets more or less than in the case of the soldier. I think I have pointed out what the law is. The Courts make a similar order, and the man is liable to make up those arrears and the doctor's fees. I think the Committee will see that the whole case falls to the ground on this particular point. I cannot say that we will consider it again in any way whatever. I have taken legal advice, with which I am quite satisfied. If the Committee wishes to go to a Division, I would only appeal to it to do so soon. There is no suggestion as to going behind the arrangement which was come to. It was agreed that we must get the Bill by to-night for the convenience, not so much of the Government as of another place which has to discuss it to-morrow. There are one or two important points which can be raised here before the discussion closes. There is, for example, the horse census question, with respect to which I have undertaken to give a reply. I think that will be in order on the new Clause. Perhaps, in view of the explanation I have given, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that part of Section 145 of the Army Act deals with a soldier who has deserted or left in destitute circumstances his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age. There is

    2013
    nothing in the Section about arrears at all. If the Court has ordered 5s. to be paid, you have no possible right in law to deduct 7s. The only question of arrears is in relation to legitimate children.
    Colonel SEELY: I have tried to make this matter quite clear. What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is not very germane to this particular question. In point of fact, we have been acting on the highest legal advice for years past. Again I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision. If hon. Members go on raising legal points…
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: It is not a legal point. The Section refers also to liquidation. Liquidation means the liquidation of that which the Court has ordered. You cannot in liquidation of 5s. deduct 7s.
    Colonel SEELY: I am so anxious that we should come to an agreement on this point that I will give a further explanation. The Court awards 5s., and it is not paid, but although it is not paid it is still due. Suppose that there is 30s. due, in order to liquidate that sum the Secretary of State, under paragraph (b), orders a deduction of 7s., 5s. of which is in respect of the weekly payment, while the remaining 2s. goes towards the liquidation of the arrears of 30s. which have accrued when nothing was being paid.
    Major M'CALMONT: There is one question I wish to ask. Why is it that the warrant officer, one of the most deserving of His Majesty's soldiers, has been singled out for this, what I regard as very nearly an insult? Instead of making the scale a sliding one, the warrant officer has been selected, under Clause (6), for a special rate which can be levied against him which does not apply to a quarter-master-sergeant.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I wish to know definitely from the Secretary of State whether the Section of the Army (Annual) Act which is sought to be amended by the Amendment now before the Committee gives to the Army authorities any right to impose any penalty on a soldier which is not imposed upon him by the Civil Court, or whether it is simply to protect his wages from deduction beyond a certain amount after an adjudication has been made upon him by the Civil Court?
    Colonel SEELYwas understood to say that it did not.
    Mr HUNT: It appears to me from what has been stated that a warrant officer, with four or five children, has got to pay two shillings a week more than anybody else. I really cannot see how there can be any possible doubt about this matter. The Secretary of State for War is the very last person who ought to…
    Mr. KING: Divide!
    Mr. HUNT: The hon. Gentleman cries "Divide!" but I do not know that his remarks are any more sensible than mine. The right hon. Gentleman might very well give way. The Debate is hopelessly against him and the justice of the case is hopelessly against him. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will vote from a sense of justice and apart from party considerations, they will assuredly vote for doing justice to this particular class of British soldiers.
    Colonel YATE: I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. I cannot follow his argument as to the case of a warrant officer. A man is sentenced to pay so much, and the payment dates from the date of the sentence. I cannot understand the necessity of taking the proposed amount or how it is lawful. All hon. Members who know the custom of county magistrates in reference to affiliation orders will agree that the ordinary payment in the case of a man earning about 30s. or 35s. a week is 3s. 6d., and that to put on 7s. a week in the case of a man drawing 35s. a week is a most unusual thing. The right hon. Gentleman states that this is being done by the advice of his Army Council. Well, some of the advice which I have heard quoted as having been given to the right hon. Gentleman makes me think sometimes that the sooner he gets rid of some of the Army Council the better. In this case I cannot follow the advice of the Army Council. It is a great injustice to put on this 2s. beyond what is allowed by the law of the land, that is 5s., and I shall press this to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words 'one shilling' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 50.]

    AYES.

    [6.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gill, A. H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Ginnell, L.

    Middlebrook, William

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Glanville, Harold James

    Molloy, M.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alpert

    Alden, Percy

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Greig, Colonel James Wilson

    Mooney, John J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morison, Hector

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hackett, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Munro, R.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

    Hancock, John George

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Beauchamp, Sr Edward

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Neilson, Francis

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Bentham, G. J.

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Boland, John Pius

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Brace, William

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Brady, P. J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Malley, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Hinds, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hodge, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipwich)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Clough, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Radford, G. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, M.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cullinan, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robinson, Sidney

    Delany, William

    King, J.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Dillon, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowlands, James

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Doris, W.

    Leach, Charles

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Schwann, Rt. Won. Sir C. E.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lynch, A. A.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McGhee, Richard

    Sheehy, David

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shortt, Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Field, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Snowden, Philip

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Furness, Stephen

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    2016

    2017

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wiles, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wing, Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Webb, H.

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wadsworth, J.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Newman, John R. P.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Baird, J. L.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Norton-Griffiths, John

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Grant, J. A.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bird, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boyton, James

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Kimber, Sir Henry

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon, J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Younger, Sir George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Fell, Arthur

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel Yate and Mr. Ashley.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Rowland Hunt) does not appear to be in order as it stands. It ought to be moved without the words referring to Section 4 of the Act of 1881.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Right to Trial by Court Martial.)
    "On and after the passing of this Act, every person accused of an offence under the Army Act shall be entitled to demand to be tried by court martial."
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HUNT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    2018
    In obedience to your ruling, Sir, I have erased the words from the Clause as it stands on the Paper, "with a view to amending Section 4 of the Act of 1881." The object of the Clause is to give the right of trial by court martial to everybody in the Army. There was a similar Clause moved in April, 1905, by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Yorkshire), on the other side of the House, and he said:—
    "There had been many cases of injustice in which men would have liked to have been tried by court martial, but were disgraced for life without trial, and were at the mercy of some one above them."
    I think that is a very serious state of affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War knows perfectly well that to be quite true. He knows that the

    2019
    system is very unsatisfactory, and I feel sure personally that he would like to alter it. The right hon. Gentleman made the same complaint in 1905 as I do now. He himself made an appeal for exactly the same thing that I am asking for now, namely, that every officer as well as every man in the Army should have the right of trial by court martial, so that he might have the chance of being judged, after stating his own case for himself. The present Secretary of State for War on that occasion appealed to the then Financial Secretary for War to carry out what I now propose. He sat below the Gangway and he used very eloquent words in enforcing his appeal. I am now endeavouring to appeal to him in exactly the same way. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "The hon. Member would remember that in the case of a distinguished officer who was dismissed, he himself brought the matter before the House, and in very eloquent language pleaded again and again that officers should have the right to demand a court martial. He was sure that anyone who had heard the hon. Member…"
    the Financial Secretary to the War Office—
    "then, would be quite certain that, when they appealed to him to fulfil when he was in office what he said when he was out of office, they would plead not in vain."
    I am making the same appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, that he himself made before he took a seat on the Treasury Bench. He went on to say:—
    "This officer was removed from his position, and he frequently asked for a court martial but could not get one. He would ask the Financial Secretary whether he would not on that occasion say something of the same kind as he said two short years ago, when he vehemently upheld the view which they were now bringing before the Committee."
    I venture to say the same to the right hon. Gentleman now. I would remind him that since that time there have been bad cases of injustice to officers because they could get no trial. I know of one case which the right hon. Gentleman may remember, for I have asked a good many questions about it to which the right hon. Gentleman was not able to reply and really did not attempt to reply. It was the case of Captain Price Wilson. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman remembers it. If the Secretary for War had answered the questions which I have put to him, I would have been very much more satisfied than I am. In the case to which I refer the War Office began by breaking their own regulations. They did not show the bad report to this officer before it was sent in to the officer commanding the
    2020
    district, whoever it was; though that was laid down as a duty it was not done. This officer appealed again and again to be allowed a trial by court martial, but he was continually refused. I am not saying that he was right, but I do say that the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office were wrong in refusing to give the office a fair trial. I think it will appeal to everybody in the House when I say that any man should have a chance of defending himself. Under the present system of the War Office he has no chance; he is not allowed to defend himself. One of the reasons actually given by the general officer for getting rid of him was that name was "Flash" Wilson, and that it "fitted him very well." I told the right hon. Gentleman once before that neither the Secretary for War nor anybody else would have a very good chance of holding a position if he was to be kicked out because nicknames might he applied to him.
    I put to the right hon. Gentleman plainly that it cannot be right that an officer, as admittedly in the case of Captain Price Wilson, who had more than nineteen years service with good reports, who had given the best part of his life to service in the British Army, should, because he happens to be for a few months under one man, and because he got one bad report from that one man, be kicked out of his regiment, with the result that he could not get employment in New Zealand because the Government refused—well, how shall I put it—to give him a character. Surely it must be obvious to the House of Commons that it is hardly right to treat an officer who had served his country well up to that time, to give him no chance of defending himself, when you allow an alien murderer, an alien spy, or a man engaged in the white slave trade, or anybody, however criminal, a fair chance of defending himself, to the extent even of giving him clever lawyers to defend him. But the British officer has no chance at all. One bad report from one man who may have taken a dislike to him, and his career is practically ruined. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am not stating the case perfectly fairly and perfectly correctly. Is it really beyond his power to put this thing right? I feel sure that he knows perfectly well that it is considered very unsatisfactory by the Army Council at the present time, and has been considered very unsatisfactory for a long time.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this proposed Clause is supported by the hon. Member's speech, which appears to be directed to the case of an officer whose services were dispensed with by His Majesty as no longer required. That does not seem to me to come within the hon. Member's Clause.
    Mr. HUNT: I will not transgress, Sir. I only wish to say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will at all events make some attempt to put this matter right, and not allow a British officer to suffer under such serious disadvantages.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Secretary of State for War the same question—how does the case quoted by the hon. Member come under a Clause of this kind?
    Colonel SEELY: On that point I was going to submit to you, Sir, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman were really not germane to the Clause which he has moved. I presume, however, that the Clause itself is in order, but that a discussion of the case of the particular officer to whom he refers would not be in order.
    Mr. HUNT: On the point of Order, Sir. May I draw your attention to the fact that a very similar case was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and it had reference to a distinguished officer.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are always improving as we go on.
    Colonel SEELY: I am afraid I cannot accept this new Clause. It is impossible to discuss the particular case of an aggrieved officer, because it would not be affected by this new Clause. Cases like that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are not cases where the persons concerned have committed offences under the Army Act. They are mainly cases where it has been decided that an officer should be removed for inefficiency.
    Mr. HUNT: It is particularly stated that this officer was not turned out for inefficiency.
    Colonel SEELY: I am not referring to this particular officer. I am referring to the cases of officers who may be turned out for inefficiency, and such offences in many cases do not constitute offences under the Army Act. Therefore, I should be out of order in referring to the case
    2022
    cited by the hon. Member. But apart from that consideration, I do not think we can accent the Clause. If the hon. Member wants to raise the case, he can find another opportunity, although it has already been fully argued. As far as the Clause is concerned, I do not think it is required, nor do I think it would be in the interests of the soldiers themselves. Wherever punishment is awarded by a commanding officer under the Army Act, the man has a right to claim trial by court martial. It is only in minor cases a man has not that right. Therefore I think it would not be in the best interests of the soldier that he should have that right.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: But the soldier has that right!
    Colonel SEELY: That he should have that right in all cases. With regard to officers, this raises a great constitutional point which has been argued on many occasions, namely, as to whether an officer should always have the right to have a court martial. It has been held, in the interests of the Army as a whole, that the unquestionable right of the Sovereign, acting on the advice of those whose duty it is to advise him, to dispense with the services of an officer is an inherent right, which should be maintained. I do not think I can take on myself the responsibility for changing it. There is much to be said for it, and there is much to be said against it, but on the whole I should be disposed to think we would be well advised not to adopt this Clause.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think it is rather a pity that the Secretary of State did not deal with this question on the merits. It is not the first time this question has been discussed in Committee of this House. It has been debated on ten or fifteen occasions, and on each occasion it has been pointed out to those responsible for the conduct of the Army that it was very desirable that an officer should in all circumstances have practically the same rights of showing that he was innocent of any offence with which he was charged as a private soldier has got. The private soldier who is charged with an offence has got the right first of all to appeal to his superior officer, and, under the Army Act, from him to the officer in command, and from him, again, he has also an appeal, so that he can have the whole circumstances investigated. The

    2023
    real trouble with regard to this matter is in the case of the officer. At present he has got no such right. His case goes behind his back to the Army Council, and in a great many cases he has no knowledge of the offence with which be is charged, and no opportunity of answering it. His Majesty simply dispenses with the services of the officer. There is, I am sure, a large body of opinion, both outside and inside the Army, which considers that that state of affairs ought to be put an end to. I am not very keen myself upon supporting what are called courts martial, because I have read of and I have seen courts martial conducted in a manner not calculated to do justice to the culprit or anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, I have. I am simply stating my own point of view, and it will be open to other hon. Members to tell theirs. I say I am not particularly keen on that special form of Court, but what I have always thought and advocated every time the subject has come on in this House is that an officer in the Army, like every other subject of His Majesty, ought to have the right in some kind of Court to vindicate his character, and the right to show he has not been guilty of the particular offence with which he is charged, whether or not his services are going to be dispensed with afterwards for other reasons. For those reasons, if any hon. Members are willing to go to a Division, I shall be willing to go with them in support of the contention that an officer is entitled to common justice, although he is an officer.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: The subject-matter of this proposed new Clause is extremely interesting. I venture to suggest it is one of the subjects which sooner or later when we are considering the Army (Annual) Act we shall have to place on a much more satisfactory basis than it is at the present time. The reason I object to the Clause as it appears on the Paper is that it would lead one to suppose if it were adopted by the House of Commons that it was adopted because the House of Commons thought that there was some equity and justice to be obtained in courts martial, and that from those courts the officer or the common soldier might expect justice equal to that he would receive in the ordinary Courts of the country. The observations of the hon. Member who spoke last are, I believe, supported by the rank and file of the Army generally. While no doubt
    2024
    the common soldier will claim to be tried in a court martial in preference to being disposed of without any trial, yet at the same time he does not make that choice because he believes the court martial is a fair court to decide his case, but just as the lesser of two evils, and because he knows that he will have some kind of publicity, and that there will be a chance, in case of very severe punishment, of his being able to appeal to some sort of third party with reference to the conviction. I venture to say that the country will, sooner or later, come to the conclusion that art Army like ours, which is a voluntary Army, and which I hope will be democratic, and at any rate is organised for the purpose of protecting a democracy, that sooner or later, at least as far as circumstances will permit, in peace time, the soldier will not lose his right of citizenship, and that when an accusation of any kind is made against him he will have exactly the same power as any other citizen to have his case tried before the Courts in the country in preference to courts martial. One could quite understand if we were at war or if there were danger of war, or even if this House were to declare…
    The CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member seem to be rather for the Third Reading, and to go a great deal further than this new Clouse.
    Mr. J. WARD: My point is that the Clause would suggest, if it were adopted by the House or supported by any considerable proportion of the House, that we were in favour of courts martial and regarded them as courts of equity where those who were brought before them got that ordinary justice which one expects in the ordinary courts.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Are they not better than nothing?
    Mr. J. WARD: Perhaps they are, bat that even is doubtful. I cannot say, from inside knowledge, what is the point of view of the officer as to court martial, but I believe those courts are not in the interests of the ordinary private soldier in times of peace, and I object to the new Clause because, if we were to adopt it, we would be supposed to believe that those courts were courts of equity and justice, where the men accused could get a proper decision. That, I think, not even the Presidents themselves of courts martial would ever dream of suggesting to anyone.
    Mr. PIRIE: I think if the system foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) were to come to pass it would mean that discipline might disappear in the British Army. I feel sure that the British soldier has confidence in the spirit of equity and justice which always animates the British officers who sit in courts martial. I am, personally, very glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt) has raised the question if for no other reason than that it would tend to diminish the military and naval cases which ought never to come before this House, for if there is one bad court in this realm for military or naval questions it is this House. I therefore support the new Clause, because I wish to see those cases diminished, though I do not commit myself to the precise wording of the Clause, but rather to the principle which has animated the hon. Member. I regret that the Secretary of State for War, after his very lame answer of a few sentences, should have left the House, more especially when the hon. Member for Ludlow quoted the views expressed by the Secretary of State when he was in Opposition.
    Mr. J. WARD: He did not read a quotation.
    Mr. HUNT: It was a quotation from the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. PIRIE: It seems an astonishing thing to me how hon. Members when they come from the opposite benches to the Front Bench here, seem to eat their words and abandon every principle and idea they ever had. The Secretary for War laughs at this…
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not Secretary.
    Mr. PIRIE: He has something to do with the War Office; some minor post quite suited for him. I shall certainly support the hon. Member who moved the new Clause. I hope his efforts will not be lost, and that we shall have removed the grave scandal, which exists in no other Army, and that an officer when he demands a court martial shall have the right to demand a court martial.
    Captain CRAIG: I wish to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke, because I think there is very little discontent among the rank and file of the Army with regard to the way in which their cases are dealt with. I have often heard civilians complain of the delay to which they are subjected as compared
    2026
    with the man in the Army who is had up before his commanding officer and has his case dealt with within a reasonable time. Anybody with any experience of the rank and file will appreciate the fact that it is to the interest of the officers to be on good terms with the men and to know them thoroughly, not only on the drill grounds, but also in their everyday life in barracks. The Army, more than any other branch of the service of the State, requires to be absolutely self-contained. It is necessary to be able to mete out justice within the ranks of the Army itself, without having to appeal in every case to the Civil Courts. When the Army is required to go abroad it is necessary to carry with it the whole machinery of courts martial, and if you do not start at home in peace time to train both the men and the staff necessary to carry through the work of meting out justice either in the orderly room or in courts martial, how can you expect the men to be properly dealt with when abroad? It is only by building up the whole fabric at ordinary times that you can ensure that justice shall be meted out rapidly and fairly. I do not agree as to the necessity of this Clause. I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline, which everyone would desire to see maintained at the highest pitch of perfection. It would be injurious to the Army to undermine the authority of commanding officers by giving this right to demand a court martial when those in authority considered that it would be prejudicial to the Service to grant one. Personally, I have never heard any expression of discontent on the part of officers on the ground that they were not able to have their cases properly considered, or on the ground that they had not the right to demand a court martial.
    Colonel BURN: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Clause to a Division. If every soldier was able to claim a court martial, I think it would cause delay; it would certainly delay the discussion of the case. It is not always possible to assemble a court martial at very short notice. The powers of commanding officers, as I know by experience, are quite sufficient to deal with most of the offences that occur in the Army at the present time. Very few soldiers will ever wish to claim a court martial when Hey have been sentenced by their commanding officer. The soldier always gets a fair hearing, and has his squadron or company officer to speak as to his character. In

    2027
    the Service fair and just treatment is meted out, and the British soldier knows it. As to officers, it must be remembered that their offences are not criminal offences. The case that the hon. Member quoted was that of an officer who was considered inefficient as an officer.
    Mr. HUNT: That was not the case.
    Colonel BURN: As a rule if an officer does not get his promotion or has to leave the Army, it is on account of something quite other than a criminal offence. His ease is altogether different from that of a private soldier. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his proposal to a Division, as I feel that it would not be to the advantage of the Army.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 115 of the Army Act, 1881.)
    Section 115 of the Army Act of 1881 shall be amended by omitting therefrom all reference to the requisitioning of animals and horses.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a second time."
    My object in moving this Clause is not to prevent the War Office from getting their horses, but to obtain from the Secretary of State a statement with regard to the census of horses. This census is a somewhat new idea, but I think it is a most valuable mode of enabling the Army authorities to find out where the horses of the country are. If, however, you are to have a census, it ought to comprise such details as the age of the horse, whether the horse is sound or not, whether it is fit for heavy or light draught or for riding, and certainly some clue as to the value of the horse. It is no good including in the census a horse worth £200 or £300 when the price usually paid by the Army authorities is about £40. To get these particulars you must employ someone who knows a good deal about horses. It should not necessarily be a veterinary surgeon, but I think some private individual would be the best person to appoint. It, must certainly be someone who knows more about a horse than the mere fact that it has four legs and a tail. I wish to put these questions to the Secretary of State. First, are the persons who at present make the census experts in the sense of being able to make an authoritative statement as to the character and
    2028
    description of a horse? Secondly, what details does the census furnish? Does it contain particulars such as those that I have indicated? If the answer to the first question is in the negative, will the Secretary of State take steps, as soon as he can get the necessary money from the Treasury, to appoint for the purpose of taking the census persons who are really experts in the matter? I do not think that the expense would be very great, but unless the census is made by experts it will be absolutely worthless in time of war.
    Mr. TENNANT: I venture to intervene in this Debate now because I made some observations on this very subject when the Army Estimates were before the House two or three weeks ago. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member relates to what His Majesty may do at a time of great emergency. I would like the hon. and learned Member to differentiate in his mind between what happens now in time of peace and what would happen in the case of a national emergency, when mobilisation took place. This provision in the Act of 1881 relates entirely to emergencies—that is to say, mobilisation. With regard to mobilisation, we have made arrangements whereby committees throughout the country are ready to go round and put into force the provision set forth under the Section to which the hon. and learned Member refers. In the great majority of cases they are admirable country gentlemen, men who are interested in horses, and have a knowledge about them. These are the people whom we trust, and I think the House would trust to select from among a large number of horses those which are of a character and condition to go to the front. With regard to the census of horses which we have just made for the purposes of peace-time, that is a totally different matter. I think the House may rest assured that the census has been carried out by competent men of the Territorial Force in a military manner.
    Sir S. SCOTT: I think my hon. Friend's point was as to who were the people responsible for the census, whether they were officers or gentlemen capable of telling a horse from a cow. As a matter of fact, I am told that a good deal of the classification has been done by Infantry officers. If that is the case, I would point out that not every officer in the Army is an expert on horses. There are many Infantry officers whom it is hardly

    2029
    possible to expect should know very much about horses, or have had any, or much, experience from a particular study of horses. I ask the Secretary of State to give some reply on this matter in relation to these officers and gentlemen who are sending the classification of various horses; it is a matter of very great importance.
    The CHAIRMAN: In order that we may not go wrong in the future, I should say that this seems to me to be more a matter for Committee of Supply than for Amendment of a Bill. I have not understood anything in the speeches supporting a Motion that this reference to the registration of horses should be omitted from Section 115 of the Army Act.
    Mr. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled, upon a Motion to eliminate horses from Section 115 (the provision as to requisition), to draw attention to what I suggest are defects in the present mode of requisitioning, and if these defects are not remedied, or a promise given to remedy them, to say that the horses should not he requisitioned at all? What I was going to ask the Secretary of State to explain is the difference between this census made for peace and made for war. I certainly did not follow at all the information as stated by the Under-Secretary. What I was really driving at was the census for an emergency, because under Section 115 there is a provision that you can go and take horses from different parts of the country wherever you can get them. That is quite right. My point was that in order that you should know where to he able to get suitable horses you should have a census made in peace-time by competent persons, so that when the emergency came upon us you would know what the horses were, where they were, and where to get them. I really do want the Secretary of State for War to tell us what steps he has taken in making up this census. If the people who have made it are only Territorial adjutants, then, with all respect to them, I venture to say that in nine cases out of ten they are probably not experts in horses. In the first place, you ought to appoint experts in horses to make up this census; and, in the second place, you should have a census for emergency purposes with such details as will enable those concerned to know what horses there are and where to get them.
    Colonel SEELY: On the point of Order. We do not seem to come to a conclusion; but, by your leave, Mr. Chairman, I might answer the specific points put by the hon. and learned Gentleman which he thinks have not been made clear by my hon. Friend. He asks us what steps, in fact, have been taken in regard to this census, and are those who have carried them out persons fit to carry them out? He asks, thirdly, if we have got that information which will make us reasonably certain in an emergency that when Section 115 of the Army Act conies into operation we shall get the horses we require? My hon. Friend rightly drew a distinction between actual action taken in an emergency, say, on a declaration of war, and steps being taken in peace time in order to ensure that our position shall be effective. My hon. Friend told the House that arrangements had been made to ensure that the knowledge we obtain from the census shall be usefully and wisely applied, so that, for instance, we shall not, as has been suggested—perhaps not in tins Debate, but it was certainly suggested last year—take steps that would lead to the taking of a very valuable race-horse, so that we may find ourselves, owing to the decision of the County Court Judge, liable to pay £300, £400, or £500 for a horse, though in fact it would be no more fitted for our purposes of war than a horse valued at £50. We have those arrangements made to which my right hon. Friend referred, and I need not therefore now deal further with respect to machinery. As to the question of how far the census of horses enables us to know what horses we have, and whether our arrangements are satisfactory, I am glad to say that in the opinion of my advisers that a very real advance has been made. In justice to hon. Gentlemen opposite I cannot help saying that the force of their criticism as directed against our arrangements—the criticism, too, was not all on one side—was no doubt of great value in forcing us to take steps still further to perfect our arrangements. The well-directed criticism of the House of Commons is valuable. In regard to the officers selected who have been and are still performing this duty, in the first instance, as the Committee knows, the police made the census. That was a very valuable one, and just gave us the amount of information we primarily needed. From that census we learnt that there were an ample number of horses. The next thing to know was whether there was enough of a particular stamp. We proceeded to take

    2031
    a further census. That was taken and will be continued to a large extent by experts of the Remount Department. To have had special officers to take the census everywhere would have involved a very large expense, and a very large increase of staff, which I do not think the House would have thought justifiable. We have ensured that we had expert officers to take this census to ensure, broadly speaking, that we have a reasonably complete knowledge of the stamp of horses we are going to get. We have found that there is an ample supply for the purposes of mobilisation of all classes of horses except one, and that is light draft horses. For this purpose we have, as the Committee will remember, obtained Treasury sanction for a scheme on a considerable scale…
    The CHAIRMAN: I really must prevent this discussion from following the line it is taking. It has become more and more clear to me that this is a matter for Committee of Supply. In Committee of Supply we must not discuss legislation, and the converse also holds good; when discussing legislation we must not trench on questions proper to Committee of Supply.
    Colonel SEELY: I apologise for having transgressed your ruling. I fell into the mistake, because of the courteous note sent me by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who was anxious for the information. I will give it him on some other occasion. I will conclude by saying that we have carried out satisfactorily—and I can give my reasons on a proper occasion—the points which he has brought to the notice of the House. I would like to make an appeal that we should get on with the Clauses now, so that we should get the Third Reading.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill reported, without Amendments.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
    Sir S. SCOTT: On a previous occasion I brought a certain point to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the question of horses. He gave me then an undertaking, or he promised that he would, when possible, communicate the basis upon which he proposed to take the horses in the various places. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and I am pretty certain that
    2032
    when he gives an undertaking of that kind he always does his best to carry it out. I appreciate very much what he has done towards this matter in view of the fact that he has been so much engaged upon working out a complete scheme of horse mobilisation. I quite understand he may have found difficulties in making these communications to various firms, but I can see no reason why he ought not to give this information now. This scheme has been worked out, and I think the House will appreciate that when an owner of a certain number of light draught horses which has been inspected by some Army officer or by somebody appointed by the War Office, and found suitable for Army purposes—such a man may have a hundred horses—and he has no conception how many of these horses are to be taken on mobilisation, that if possible he should be given some idea. At the present time I know certain firms who have applied to the War Office and asked for some documentary guarantee that only a certain percentage of their horses will be taken. The War Office has hitherto been unable to see their way to give this guarantee. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a mistaken policy on the part of the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that they have found ample horses in the country for riding purposes and for heavy draught purposes, and that their shortage is in light draught horses. The firms that I am thinking of are firms who employ light draught horses for the purposes of their business. I know certain firms who are seriously contemplating changing their light draught vehicles to motors in order to carry on their business.
    8.0 P.M.
    The reason is this, and they have told me so, that if there is a scare or rumour of war, it makes people think very much, if there should be a mobilisation, how fair it will affect their business, and they therefore turn their thoughts to motors. I cannot see, in these circumstances, why the right hon. Gentleman would not say to a firm with 100 horses, "I guarantee not to take more than 55 or 50 per cent., and I will not touch the other 50 per cent. until all other available sources are exhausted." Then a man would know exactly where he is, and he could make arrangements for his business accordingly. But it does not please him to be at the mercy of the collecting officer who very naturally does not care about

    2033
    the man's business but cares for the best interests of the Army. The officer may find a few horses short in one place, and he will then very naturally take what he finds in another place. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as this is a matter of policy as well as fairness, that a good many of these firms who own these light draught horses, should have a guarantee that only a certain percentage of their animals should be taken on mobilisation, and that the War Office should give them that guarantee, and thereby allow them to make proper arrangements for the carrying on of their business
    Mr. ASHLEY: We discussed on the Committee stage of this Bill, the price which should be paid to licensed victuallers for the accommodation and feeding of troops. Section 108 "A" of the Army Act, states what should be paid on mobilisation, and settles the prices for the licensed victualler; but when the Territorial Force is mobilised, it will be billeted, not upon licensed victuallers, but in private houses, and I want to know from the Secretary of State what price is to be paid to the private citizen, as distinct from the licensed victualler for the accommodation and feeding of the Territorial Force. As far as I can make out, there is no scale fixed. He says the price has been fixed by regulation made by the Army Council with the consent of the Treasury, but I should like to know the price to be paid by the ordinary citizen for the keep of these men, and whether it is to be the same price as what we paid to the licensed victualler.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I wish to know if the Secretary of State for War is satisfied with the inspection and registration of horses, and that it is being properly carried out? I think in some parts of the country it is done in a very perfunctory manner. I think the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite is an important one, and that the registration of horses should be carried out in a way that we may know exactly the kind of animals available, and how many there are of them.
    Mr. J. WARD: On five or six previous occasions we tried to persuade the Secretary of State for War to adopt some principle that would make it more easy for promotion from the ranks. I am very pleased that, upon the seventh occasion of asking, the Secretary of State has done
    2034
    something to meet the wishes of the civil representatives in this House; and while I certainly thank him for what he has done and for the direction in which his policy is proceeding, it is not even yet all that one would expect from a democratic Government. The whole matter so far depends upon the commanding officer's recommendation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I see nothing about this in the Army (Annual) Act. We are not in Committee of Supply, and the principle which the hon. Member for Stoke wishes to debate can only be raised in Committee of Supply, or on some occasion when the administrative action of the Department is under criticism.
    Mr. J. WARD: I understood from the statements of the two hon. Gentlemen as to the collection and census of horses, and that being an administrative matter, that my observation would be equally in order. Probably I did wrong in following on their lines, but I will not continue, and I would proceed to deal with the matter that may be in order, and that is, to allude for a moment to a subject which I touched on previously. An hon. Gentleman opposite said he was quite sure that, so far as my opinion went, it did not represent in the slightest degree the opinion of the rank and file of the Army upon the subject we were discussing a little while ago. He thought probably that he was better able to gauge the opinion of the common soldier than I can. So far as that is concerned, I venture to say I have at least as good an opportunity of knowing what is the opinion of the ordinary soldier in these matters as most Members of the House. I say that, first of all, from the slight connection I myself have with the forces of the Crown, and, next, because I receive an immense amount of correspondence from soldiers, largely, I expect, because of the attitude I adopt in these debates. And not only do I receive this correspondence from private soldiers, but also from officers on this and other subjects. They are very interesting to me, and if I could get some of those who speak for the officers to really know the opinions expressed to me, it would rather surprise them to learn how very often the Service Members of the House do not represent the views of their own class upon these matters. I venture to say there is no real opposition to civil Courts for the trial of cases in times of peace. Officers who try

    2035
    cases of soldiers are not the kind of men one would expect to take the ordinary methodical care than a Court of Law takes when dealing with these matters. It is quite impossible to get officers in the Army to conduct investigations in the elaborate, slow, and even painful manner which one observes in the ordinary Courts of the country. I suggest to Service Members of this House that soldiers are not perfectly satisfied to be tried by military courts in times of peace.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present…
    Mr. J. WARD: As a matter of fact, there were forty Members present all the time.
    Colonel SEELY: I shall certainly bear in mind the points raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir Samuel Scott). A good deal has been done already in accordance with the promise I made, but we have not done so much as we hope ultimately to do with a view of removing the very natural discontent felt by the owners of these particular horses. It would be rather difficult to reply to the several points raised by hon. Members in view of your ruling, Mr. Whitley, that these matters could be more properly raised in Committee of Supply. I therefore propose to send hon. Members a memorandum in reply to their points. In reply to the questions asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Ashley), I think he will see that the amounts to be paid in connection with the Territorial Force have to be fixed by regulation. I can assure him we will see to it that the allowance will be reasonable.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Ordered, That Mr. Arnold Ward be added to the Select Committee on Putumayo.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  ESTIMATES.
  Ordered, That Mr. Mills be discharged from the Select Committee.
  Ordered, That Mr. Ashley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  Ordered, That Sir Henry Craik be added to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  STAGE PLAYS (THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to move, "That the attempt to maintain by means of antiquated legislation a legal distinction between a theatre and a music hall, and to differentiate between productions called stage plays and other dramatic performances, is unworkable; that the system of licensing stage plays before production in Great Britain, though not in Ireland, by means principally of the perusal of a manuscript should be abolished; and that, as regards stage exhibitions of whatever kind or wherever given, reliance should be placed on subsequent effective control."
  I must apologise to the House for introducing a subject which I believe has not been debated in this House for nearly a century. But the submission I shall make is that we have neglected, and that by our neglect we have injuriously affected, an important element in our national life. Various picturesque descriptions have been applied from time to time to those who dwell in this Island. Patriots have pointed out that our distinctive function is to rule the waves. Enemies have said in anger that we are a nation of shopkeepers. But, on the whole, I think the most popular of our attributes, which pleases even the most aggressive of our Philistines, is that we are the country of Shakespeare. Surely it is not too much to ask for an hour or two after an interval of a hundred years for the consideration of the "drama's laws," which have recently been investigated by an important Committee! You cannot say that this subject is unworthy of the attention of Parliament, because Parliament, to my deep regret, has already given the subject its attention. That really is what all the trouble is about. Places of entertainment are regulated not by custom or by the common law, or by public opinion, or by police supervision. They are the field for definite and distinctive statutory enactment. Precisely as we have passed laws with regard to factories and refreshment houses, so we have spatch-cocked the theatre and the drama into the public general Acts. The

  2037
  only difference in this case is that we did it nearly 200 years ago, and we have been so astounded apparently at our own ineptitude that we have refused ever since to revise our efforts. The Acts are extremely old Acts. But they are not necessarily bad because they are old. I know many people who have a kind word even for Magna Charta. But the Home Secretary does not regulate biplanes and Zeppelins by enactments originally designed for sedan chairs, and I shall contend that the stage has outgrown its legislature.
  There is a separate law for the theatre and a separate law for the music hall. Both laws are equally out of date, though for different reasons. For the purpose of clearness I am afraid I must ask the House to bear with me while I consider them for a moment or two separately. First of all, the case of music halls. At the time the Committee sat in 1909 music halls were regulated almost exclusively by an Act passed in 1751 for the purpose of dealing with disorderly houses. There are, as we all know, music halls and music halls; but, after all, places of entertainment visited by thousands of respectable citizens, many of which have presented works of high artistic merit—Bernhardt, Rejane, Shaw, Leoncavallo—are not really the proper subject-matter for the provisions of an Act no doubt usefully designed at the time that the Act was passed for the conduct of the tavern and for the suppression of the brothel. It is merely a question of date. Those places which were the subject-matter of this old Act are not the places which are regulated under those provisions in default of better provisions at the present time. The provisions, so far as they go, are sensible enough. They set up a simple system of control which anyone can understand, and I shall describe them a little in detail. The local authority licenses the places of entertainment once a year. If it does not like the way in which these places have been conducted, the licences can be withdrawn. Of course, in practice it does not come to that. A large London or provincial music hall is an immensely valuable property, and it would be disastrous to the proprietor if the licence were lost. On the other hand, the music hall is also a very valuable milch cow for the local authority. Large rates are levied upon it, and the local authority certainly does not desire to see it stand empty. There is therefore a mutual check. The proprietor does not defy the local authority for fear of his licence. The local authority does not sub-
  2038
  ject the music hall to factious persecution out of regard for the ratepayers. I doubt if any dispute has ever been pushed to the point of withdrawing a licence. What happens is this: the manager as a rule does not present objectionable performances, but, if he does, an officer of the local authority makes a remonstrance. The manager, knowing that he holds his licence at the pleasure of those who are advising him, either withdraws or modifies his performance. That is a practical system which has worked, by common consent, remarkably well.
  Let the House observe that this is a licensing of buildings, but it is not a specific licensing of individual performances in those buildings. The thousands of songs, for instance, which are sung in hundreds of music halls are not previously submitted in manuscript to any outside body. There is nothing, I believe, to prevent the London County Council from requiring an examination of songs previous to the production, but in point of fact they do not do so. Universal compulsory censorship or licensing of performances in music halls does not form a part of the Act of 1751. Interference takes place as and when required if anything seems to be amiss. Why, then, is the Act of 1751 insufficient? It is insufficient because the licence granted under it is too limited in scope. It does not cover the performances which actually take place. The music hall licence must be one confined to music and dancing. It was intended to rule out in these buildings the performance of what used to be called the legitimate drama. Stage plays, from "Hamlet" to the one-act farce, are forbidden territory to the tavern and its successor the music hall. Legislation designed originally to protect the vested interests of the two patent theatres continues in force, and at the time the Committee sat in 1909 every single stage play given in a music hall was a definite legal offence, not because they were open to any objection—they were frequently by far the best part of the performance—but simply because the performance of any entertainment not coming under the head of music and dancing was outside the intention of the licence.
  I now turn to the control of the theatres. For the first time we enter here into the presence of the Lord Chamberlain. It must be clearly understood that Parliament only gave him cognisance of the par-

  2039
  and the special class of entertainment designated a stage play. How did he first come upon the scene? The early history of his functions is a little vague. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Lord Chamberlain or the Master of Revels, as Court Officials acting under the Royal prerogative without Parliamentary authority, exercised a certain supervision. But in 1737 prerogative was replaced by a definite Statute providing what is called the Censorship. To what high-minded Puritan do we owe this law? It proceeded from that fastidious moralist, Sir Robert Walpole. But in the interest of historical accuracy one is bound to add that it was not mainly designed for the promotion of morality. It was wrung from the personal necessities of the Minister. Walpole is a great figure in our history. I was largely brought up on Walpole. He was my father's favourite statesman. But even he admitted that Walpole had certain public and private failings. Walpole was not a prude, and his administration, not to put too fine a point upon it, was notoriously corrupt. People had the bad taste to say so openly. Fielding satirised upon the stage the venality of Walpole's satellites, and Walpole did not like it. It inconvenienced him. It limited his freedom of action. He desired to buy his Members of Parliament in peace. It is acknowledged by his biographer that he dare not suppress Fielding's play because that course would have been extremely unpopular. He thought it better to take steps of a more general kind and to put the responsibility upon somebody else, the Lord Chamberlain, an officer who from that day to this has never been accountable in the ordinary way to this House, and in order to avoid the inconvenience of having to try a man before convicting him to suppress the play before its birth. The Act, in a word, empowered the Lord Chamberlain to require the production of the manuscripts of stage plays and to keep off the stage those which he did not like. He subsequently appointed what is now called an Examiner of Plays to assist him. That, taken briefly, is the Act of 1737. It was passed rapidly and without serious opposition, if one excepts a notable protest by Lord Chesterfield which is still one of the acknowledged models of British oratory. It met, I am prepared to admit, the general wishes of the House of Commons. Yes, but what was that contemporary opinion? In 1737
  2040
  the House of Commons suppressed free speech upon the stage. If you turn to Parliamentary history you will see that the very next year they resolved that it was a high indignity for any printer to presume to give any account of the proceedings of the House, and this Resolution, we are told, was also passed without a single dissentient voice. The Parliament which censored plays equally forbad the publication of its own debates.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ellis Griffith) may tell me that this is ancient history—it is, and that the Act of 1737 is repealed. That, I believe, is technically true. A Parliamentary Committee sat and reported upon it in 1832. Our ancestors, with that alacrity which to some extent we have inherited, took ten years to consider that report, and they legislated in 1843. The Theatres Act of that year is now the principal Act which governs the stage. It substantially re-enacted the masterpiece of Walpole. So much for its provisions. Again, I must ask the House to consider two dates, and to consider opinion then and opinion now. The House in 1909, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister and on the Motion of the Government, appointed another Committee to review the Theatres Act of 1843. It was presided over by my right hon. Friend, who is now the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel) and who was even then a Member of the Cabinet. His report—the chairman's report—which recommended drastic changes is a State paper. which I think I may say, without any exaggeration, will be of permanent interest to the historian. It deals with the fundamentals of toleration, brilliantly but not rhetorically. It is a sober reasoned argument of the limits of permissible autocracy, of the necessary bounds within which free subjects may demand to live. My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I put it in this way in order to bring out the historical point of view, and I only do it for that purpose. What if my right hon. Friend had lived in 1843, possessed of the same ability and animated by the same lofty and liberal conceptions of human thought and of human activities? He could never have written that report. He could never have served upon that Committee, because, I believe, he could not have been a Member of this House. The door would have been bolted upon him, because he did not profess the

  2041
  religion of Sir Robert Walpole. I hope that is not an offensive historical analogy.
  Since that date taxes on knowledge, hindrances to the free circulation of ideas, have been swept away. The repeal of the Paper Duty, the cheapening of the Press, free education, the abolition of Parliamentary and university tests, wider franchise are milestones on the road. The whole tendency of the time has been to give full range to thought and to make orthodoxy depend upon conviction and not upon compulsion. At the end of years close knit with many sided reform, the work of both parties in the State, we find a single absurd survival of the days of the Penal Laws, the veto of the Lord Chamberlain over the drama of the world. The present Bishop of Winchester—even my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will not wholly neglect the opinions of prelates when they are against Establishment—stated in evidence that he would not desire to interfere with the treatment on the stage, quite free and bold, what may be called moral questions. The report of the Samuel Committee, a mixed assemblage of Lords and Commons, a jury of ten ordinary men holding almost every possible opinion, dismisses in a sentence the whole philosophy of dramatic censorship. Let me give their conclusion in a single paragraph which was adopted with unanimity. They say:—
  "A censorship with a power of veto before production is open to grave objection. Secret in its operation, subject to no effective control by public opinion, its effect can hardly fail to be to coerce into conformity with the conventional standards of the day dramatists Who may be seeking to amend them. These standards are not absolute. It is an axiom underlying all our legislation that only through the toleration of that which one age thinks to be an error, can the next age progress further in the pursuit of truth."
  They said in effect that this veto should be abolished, and that the Lord Chamberlain should no longer be able to prevent the performance of a play. Without regard to the exact terms of my Motion, which I may say are not verbally inspired, I do ask the House at this stage to accept that general conclusion of the Committee. It is not only a statement of principle, but it is based upon definite evidence. The limitation of dramatic output involved in the censorship is not imaginary. If I had the time this general proposition could be amplified and documented. Plays of high value are refused, or what is even worse, they are pruned and trimmed until the author would rather lose his work than be judged by the Censor's version. Author
  2042
  after author of standing and reputation stated that the existence of a dramatic censorship was a definite deterrent to new and original work being put upon the stage. Men preferred to keep their best ideas, their boldest treatment for a novel rather than a play. The system of prior licensing may be right or it may be wrong. I think, of course, that it is wrong, but, at any rate, I would argue it to this point. It is perfectly obvious that if you are going to have a system of prior licensing, you must proceed upon some kind of principle. You must necessarily have some specific indication of what form the official point of view constitutes offence. You want, indeed, a kind of schedule of prospective permissibility. I may be told precisely the same kind of argument applies to control after production. I suggest that a far simpler problem confronts an authority which interferes after a public performance. It has the guidance of definite experience. The officer charged with the duty will be able to say, "Well, the public hissed, the people walked out of the theatre, a dozen newspapers have condemned the play as scurrilous or improper, or they have singled out an incident as undesirable. If I interfere I have, at any rate, something to go upon." I will quote again a sentence from the Report, where it is pointed out that:—
  "With dramas of a certain class, it is only after performance and by reference to their effect upon the audience that a final opinion as to their propriety can be reached."
  But the case is wholly different when the officer is invited to pronounce judgment in advance, to anticipate evils which may never occur, and not merely to put his opinion against the judgment of all other persons whatsoever, but to create a situation by the exercise of his veto which will effectually preclude a public judgment from ever being pronounced. This is a subject which may interest few or many, but it is really a vital principle of public administration, because it raises the whole question of the proper limits of discretionary power. It is perfectly true that there are certain rules. But they are simply invented by the Lord Chamberlain for his own guidance from time to time. They are about as coherent and consistent as the unassisted ethics of the child who says to herself, "I won't pull nurse's hair, but I will tease my canary." There was a rule, for instance, that scriptural characters were barred. Mr. Brookfield's predecessor, Mr. Colman, ruled that it was

  2043
  not permissible for a gentleman to call a lady an angel, because an angel is a scriptural character—"a celestial being authorised to intervene in terrestial affairs." That is perfectly serious. The House will find it in the evidence given before the Committee of 1832. These things remain a tradition, and they are acted upon. The opera, "Samson and Delila," was vetoed for years, and then it was allowed suddenly and without explanation. The same thing applies to "Salome." "Everyman," containing the character of the Deity, was performed. "The Miracle," containing the character of the Virgin, was seen by tens of thousands of people. On the other hand, a play called "Bethelehem," by Mr. Housman, was refused. It is sheer chaos. These rules are altered from day to day. No one knows where they are. The unfortunate author is never able to know what he will be able to produce. There is a rule against living persons being represented on the stage. It is notoriously and habitually broken. You cannot control the matter before production. You cannot arrive at a right conclusion by simply reading the manuscript. No obligation rests on the Lord Chamberlain to give any reason for vetoing the play. He can refuse to reconsider his decision or that of his predecessor. His clerk, the Examiner, will not, unless he likes, resubmit the play. In one case where a manager wrote in to ask for a play to be reconsidered, the Examiner would not even return an answer in the form in which it would have been returned by a second division clerk. He merely returned the letter endorsed in one corner, "Surely you are aware that I have already refused to licence this play"—G. A. R., thus claiming for the Examiner of Plays the power of veto, which, We were told by no less important and competent a witness than the Speaker of the House of Commons, was a power which belonged to the Lord Chamberlain alone.
  That play was "Mrs. Warren's Profession," by Bernard Shaw. It happens to have been produced within the last week—last Thursday—in Glasgow. I was myself present at a performance of it in London. How comes it that an unlicensed play can be presented? It is done by a league or society, a frankly bogus club, which will not take money at the door, but which will admit anyone to membership, on payment of 6d., in addition to the price of a seat. And so the working of our marvellous legislation is, firstly, the
  2044
  Lord Chamberlain vetoes a public performance, and, secondly, the manager gives what is humourously called a private performance, which apparently protects him from public interference. Anyone can read this play; hundreds of people have seen it here, and tens of thousands have seen it in Germany and America. The society which produced it in Glasgow has for its president the right hon. the Lord Provost of the City. Three professors and a minister of religion are on the committee. Its reception by the audience was enthusiastic. The Press notices which I have read are a compound of praise for the play, and contempt for the Censor. "The play," says the "Glasgow Herald," "contains no sentence to make a Puritan blush." Another paper, "The Glasgow Times," speaks of "The anachronism of the censorship ".…. If 'Mrs. Warren's Profession' had a waltz melody introduced it would pass the Censor." "The Glasgow Record" said:—
  "If the British censorship subserved some high moral end, there might be found some to defend it, but nobody in his right mind believes it does. … There is no pandering to vice in 'Mrs. Warren's Profession,' but who can say the same of many of these extravaganzas of modern times, which hare been licensed. The success of much of the modern entertainment lies in its insidious suggestion. These are the things that prosper by order of the Censor's office. Any work that seeks to disrobe vice of its mantle, and to indulge in moralising aims, is taboo."
  I will read a few sentences from the "Westminster Gazette," for I am anxious to argue this matter on the ground of ordinary popular opinion. The "Westminster Gazette" said:—
  "One is merely left in wonder at the officialism which permits salaciousness in almost any extreme, so long Ls its framework is light, and the spirit in which it is approached flippant, and at the same time condemns as immoral and dangerous plays such as this. The truth is, of course, that 'Mrs. Warren's Profession' is as moral as a sermon with more than average character and understanding in it."
  I will only add, if you are going to protect the censorship of the Lord Chamberlain, you will really have to re-establish a censorship over the Press, and if you are going to defend this particular proscription, I can only recommend the Treasury Bench to undertake at once the prosecution of the Lord Provost of the City of Glasgow for his impudent evasion of the law. I will not labour these various inconsistencies, because I am extremely anxious to give an opportunity to my hon. Friends, and especially to the hon. Member for Central Hull, who has some facts to relate to the House of his own experience. Before I sit down I would only

  2045
  put this point to my right hon. Friend and to the Under-Secretary. I do suggest that after a study of the evidence before that Committee there is surely a primâ facie case for a modern workable Statute. That the point which I really want to consider. It would be impertinent for me to go into details; I merely say that it should provide a single uniform licence for theatres and music halls subject to an effective control of actual performances. There should be no silly compulsion to submit manuscripts, and there should be no power of veto until there has been an actual public production. My right hon. Friend will agree those are the main governing recommendations of the Committee. I would only add this: That precisely as Lord Mansfield said that—
  "the liberty of the Press consists in printing without any previous licence subject to the consequences of the law'…
  so I contend that on the stage you may preserve both law and liberty, while you abolish licence. Offenders will be faced either with legal process, or with the control of a central authority after production, or the control of a local authority after production; but we shall have got rid of what the" Law and Custom of the Constitution" calls—
  "A quaint survival"…
  that is, the censorship. Study in the argument of Milton, the narrative of Macaulay, the commentary of Anson or of Erskine May how newspapers were once prohibited and all writers fettered, as are dramatists to-day. You will find the censorship of the Press defended then, precisely as is now the censorship of the stage. Macaulay described the vote of the House of Commons in 1695, which freed the Press, as doing more for liberty and civilisation than the Great Charta or the Bill of Rights:—
  "Some weak men had imagined that religion and morality stood in need of a licenser. From the day on which the emancipation of our literature was accomplished, the purification of our literature began. That purification was effected, not by the intervention of senates or magistrates, but by the opinion of the great body of educated Englishmen before whom good and evil were set, and who were left free to make their choice."
  That is the policy which, fortified by precedent, emboldened by experience, with a deep personal conviction of its necessity, its virtue, and its wisdom, I commend to this House for acceptance to-day. I beg to Move.
  Mr. MARK SYKES: I beg to second the Motion. After the very admirable review,
  2046
  both legal and historical, not only admirable, but brief and detailed, of the hon. Member, there is very little for further speakers to do than to back the case which has been put. The only reason I rise is that perhaps it may be useful for one who takes an entirely different political view of history to show that it is possible for parallel lines to cross occasionally from one point to another, and that in fact, that it is quite possible for anybody, no matter how conservative they may be in their ideas, no matter how reactionary they may be in their ideas, to support this Resolution, because personally, I shall be very jealous of interfering with any formality, or any traditional course of conduct that in any way gives people a reminiscence of history, or in any way brings back to people's minds old manners and old customs, or in any way tends to link up the present and the past. Any change with regard to the King's Maundy or the Bluecoat boys' dress or the attire of His Majesty's judges, I should be prepared to resist, not only with passion but, I am sure the House will believe, with sincerity. But in this particular change which is advocated there is no thing of beauty that is threatened, there is no thing of any particular meaning that is threatened, and there is not even a moderate sinecure going to be abolished. The only tradition of which it can possibly remind people is a tradition with which every Tory-minded person would be very glad to do away, that is, the tradition of weak tyranny and an old tradition of weak hypocrisy. The arguments fall into two very distinct heads—there is the case of the clashing of the playhouse and the music hall, and the case of the Censor. I will take the playhouse versus the music hall question first. If a distinction is made between a legitimate dramatic play and another kind of dramatic entertainment fit to be produced in the music hall, I submit to the House that must be bad for the art of play writing itself, because it introduces a new convention.
  Conventions may have some justification when they are the result of some old artistic formula for which people have some adequate reason, such as the reason for the conventions in the Chinese play, or for the soliloquy or for the chorus, but if there is introduced an entirely new convention which has nothing to do with the play or the writing of plays, I submit they will have a bad effect on the art of play-writing in this country. The convention

  2047
  introduced here is a most absurd one. It is that no matter what dramatic entertainment is going to be performed in the music hall, it must be preceded by six other items in the programme. A man juggling with balls, a dog performing, a lady dancing in nothing but beads, a cinematograph show, or a negro entertainment, or something of that kind. It is absurd that these six items should be forced into the entertainment merely because another dramatic performance is taking place elsewhere. It is bad for the public, because the public get things they do not want to see and which people do not want to show them, and the managers are influenced by financial considerations, and considerations of time and space. It is a very ridiculous rule. It would be very absurd, supposing one said that at one theatre you may only sing, at another you may only have operas, at another only tragedies, at another only comedies, and at another only farces. All that would be admittedly absurd, and it is even more absurd to say that at one theatre you can act "Romeo and Juliet," while at another you could only have the balcony scene because you have dancing, juggling, and performing dogs. I think this absurd situation was never intended to arise when the legislation which has produced this situation became law. It is a matter of common knowledge that a music hall and theatre were two utterly different places, just as much as a theatre differed from a Punch and Judy show, and just as regulations were made for Punch and Judy shows, others were made for the music hall and others for the theatre; but it was no intention of anybody who made those rules to keep these two forms of entertainment apart. They never foresaw that one would vary from the other, and if they had foreseen that they would have accepted the situation and not forced them to come apart, as they are at present, because it is not in the public interest or in the interest of public morals that they should be particularly kept apart. Therefore I submit that for the separation there is no defence at all, because it was not the intention of people originally to prevent them from coming together, and there is no public interest served in keeping them apart.
  But with regard to the Censor, that perhaps is a matter of a wholly different set of considerations. I know there is a body of opinion in this country which sym-
  2048
  pathises with the existence of a Censor, and I am not ashamed to admit that I once formed part of that body, but at the same time I was very surprised, when I did write a play, to find that these draconic regulations which I formerly admired fell with crushing weight upon my own head. It happened that I wrote a play and, to my astonishment, it was refused the necessary imprimatur, and subsequently—this is the astonishing part—the same play, with all the things that were objected to left in it, was acted at a school before 100 boys, their sisters and parents, and twenty-five clergymen. Of course, I felt at first I must be rather a depraved person, but afterwards I felt myself justified by the performance, which resulted in no scandal whatever. I do not think one should be indignant about that, because it is only natural. If we made no allowance whatever for bias or personal prejudice or caprice on the part of the Censor, I submit that a person or body of people who are trying to do this work of censoring plays are pursuing something so intangible and so elusive that they are bound to fall into an absurdity sooner or later. All censoring is difficult. Censoring books is possible. The Church to which I belong censors books on theology, but there is a basis of dogma upon which to do it, and even then there are results which people do not like. Voltaire and Milton eventually got into the same boat of Trinitarianism. But there is always a basis of dogma, and people know what they are doing. They do not draw the line themselves. The line is drawn for them. They can apply some test. In censoring news in time of war you have the fact that you want no information to go to the enemy and only good information to go to your own side, so as not to have any alarm or despondency amongst your troops. But even that results in absurdities, as I saw in South Africa. For instance, it was understood that a paper called the "Bloemfontein Post" was not to publish news which would be likely to cause alarm and despondency amongst the troops. One day I saw in that paper, "Dastardly attempt of the Boers to wreck an express train frustrated by a ganger." That looked very well, but when one looked into the facts of the case the ganger had gone down the line on his trolley and had been blown up by a mine instead of the express. That is the sort of ridiculous result that you get. In the same way there is the censuring of political pamphlets. I remember

  2049
  at Smyrna, in the time of the ex-Sultan Abdul Hamid, there was a very strict censorship of all pamphlets, and the censor got hold of a Turkish translation of the New Testament. He read it through, and said it was all right except in one part where a certain Paulus was writing inflammatory letters to the people in the district of Ephesus.
  These are the kind of absurdities that people get into when they have a logical basis to work on. But in censoring plays there is absolutely no basis that I can see at all. If one is attempting to stop blasphemy or sedition or riot or indecency, there are laws to prevent that all along the line, but the Censor is being asked to prevent these crimes being committed by reading a type-written copy of the play, with perhaps none of the real stage directions in it at all. It is notorious in the theatrical profession that an actor-manager very often cannot tell, even after the play has been in rehearsal for a long time, whether a certain situation is going to make people laugh or cry or to drive them out of the place or send them to sleep. If a professional who has been years at the job does not know what the effect is going to be upon the people after seeing it in rehearsal, how is it possible for the Censor to say what is going to scandalise people and what is not? There is one historic instance which was given me by the late Professor J. W. Clark, which has a great bearing upon this particular case. When the play of "Robert Macaire" was rewritten, I think in 1834, by Le Maitre, it was produced in Paris, and the actor who took the part thought the play was doomed to hopeless failure. He decided at the last minute to take an entirely different reading of the main character. That is one side of the story. The other was that Louis Phillippe at that time had the most rigid censorship of anything published in the Press or on the stage that had to do with politics. The actor took the part contrary to the author's meaning, and the audience, contrary to the actor's meaning, thought the part was a caricature of the King, and Louis Phillippe was known as Robert Macaire from that time forth.
  9.0 P.M.
  If it is impossible first of all for a Censor to see anything dangerous in it, if it is impossible for the author to see what the play is going to be like, and for the actor to know what effect it will have on the
  2050
  public, the position of the Censor is really almost impossible. The Censor is asked to say from the typewritten copy what the play is going to be like, when he does not know the gags, does not know the business, and does not know what the orchestra is going to do—all these little touches may have their bearing on what is going forward—and above all, being human, he has not got that sense of what the feelings of a particular crowd at a given moment, under given conditions, will be. I suggest that the position which the Censor, or the persons who censor plays, have to fill is impossible for anyone or any body of men to carry out. If it is a question of blasphemy, or sedition, or riot, or indecency, managers of theatres ought to take the same risks that journalists do when they produce newspapers. Of course, I know it is no doubt true that there is a certain idea abroad that people who write plays or people who act, or people, who have anything to do with the stage, are such depraved rogues and vagabonds that they have no sense of decency whatever, and would not know black from white. That is not a view that anyone would care to confess he held, though I have no doubt it is held, and at the same time it must be admitted that anyone who upholds the present order of things must be assumed to hold that view or something very like it. I submit that there are great evils attendant upon the present order of things, evils to morals and to taste. Because there is a Censor there are no fewer immoral plays produced in this country, but there is a certain conventional immorality. If a French Palais Royale farce is translated into English, the discarded mistress is always spoken of as an actress. Everyone knows what is meant. The result is identically the same. In the same way you may speak of politicians on the stage apparently if you wear an outrageous wig and a red nose, but you must not treat politics seriously. Another very serious point of view is that this sham standard of immorality that we have now on the stage is that it is a matter of notoriety that adultery may be treated as a joke, but not as a crime on the stage.
  With regard to religious questions, the anomalies are almost incredible. I believe that Father Benson wrote a play, and that it was a beautiful and harmless little thing which could not have given offence to any one. At the time that play was censored I was at His Majesty's Theatre, and saw

  2051
  interpolated into a performance of Richard II. the administration of the Last Sacrament to John O'Gaunt. There was nothing in the performance that any Doctor of Divinity had any right to object to. The Censor did not know that it was going on. He only knew that Richard II. was being acted at that time. When we come to Shakespeare, is that great dramatic author to be censored, and are we going to make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the whole world? If you censor his plays, you must leave out his clowns, his bawds and procurors. If you do not censor Shakespeare, you must allow these characters to speak their words. Is this House going to allow it? If these things are to be said, is Bernard Shaw's cow-boy to be put to silence for saying something that would hardly shock anybody, coming from such a man, under such circumstances, in such a situation? Again, there is no doubt that the whole of this system of censoring plays has produced a system in England which is a kind of secret indecency—indecency by implication and by silence, and innuendo has been brought absolutely to a fine art. By the system of censorship we have now evil plays which have obtained a notoriety they never would have obtained before, and on account of that they are produced in some other English-speaking places as interesting plays which have been censored in England. On the other hand, undoubtedly quite evil plays have obtained sanction in England, and because the Censor has passed them public opinion is content to remain silent. It works out in this way: Pernicious writers exercise their whole ingenuity to dodge the Censor, and see how far they can go to get past him, and then see how much they can put in, while, on the other hand, honest writers are harassed at every step, and wonder whether some catch phrase does not destroy the labour of months and cause great monetary sacrifice as well. Personally, I think, if one sums it up, the case stands in this way. So far as the music hall argument is concerned, I think that to keep the two forms of entertainment divided is a nuisance for which there is no excuse whatever. So far as the Censor is concerned, I submit that his existence now as a bulwark against false taste is an absurd and arbitrary convention, and prevents the law and public opinion from destroying those evil things which they loathe.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I am sure the House will congratulate itself upon having heard to-night two very brilliant speeches from hon. Gentlemen who are not merely Members of Parliament for whom we have great respect, but writers of plays—a distinction not very common in this Assembly. My hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt) was fortunate enough to escape the censorship of the Censor. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mark Sykes) was less fortunate, but I think it was better to have the approval of twenty-five clergymen than the censure of one Lord Chamberlain. From the two speeches we have heard to-night one would think that the matter was very easy, but I am going to submit to the House that the matter is not quite so easy of solution as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. The hon. Gentleman opposite told us that when he was in the rank of common men he was quite willing to accept the judgment of the Censor, but when he joined the rank of authors, and joined the rank of unlicensed authors, he began to change his views. He believed there was much more to be said for his play than the Censor would admit. I do not complain of that attitude. It was very human, and, although he said he was rather a believer in reaction, his reactionary feeling received a severe shock from which it never recovered when a licence was refused for his new-born play.
  There are two branches of this Resolution. The first is the separation of the theatre on the one side from the music hall on the other; and the second is with respect to what shall be the control exercised over productions either in the theatre or the music hall. With regard to the former subject, it turns out that so far back as 1842 the dramatic authors of that time were very anxious to emphasise this separation between the theatre on the one hand and the music hall on the other. But one must be perfectly frank, and say that there has been a great change in the music hall since that time. The two institutions have approximated one to the other, and, although my hon. Friend talks of antiquated legislation, I would remind him that it is only early Victorian after all, and I should not have thought that he would have called anything antiquated which was post-Plantagenet. But, although there have been changes since 1842, it must not be forgotten that there

  2053
  have also been changes in the law applicable to the two institutions since then. In January, 1912—or, at any rate, at a recent date — there was an agreement arrived at by consent between the theatre managers and the music-hall proprietors. A compromise was arrived at, and within the limits of that compromise things have gone on very well. I think there is a good deal to be said for it. It may be illogical and indefensible in theory, but workable it is, and I think if my hon. Friend would consult those engaged in the business of theatres and music halls, he would find I that theatrical managers, music-hall proprietors, actors, and the writers themselves, are agreed and are content with the compromise now in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am speaking subject to correction, but my information is that, at any rate, there is in the main satisfaction with the working of the compromise which was arrived at. The Joint Committee in 1909 found, and rightly found, that there ought to be one licence for both these classes of entertainment. I think that is a position nobody can quarrel with, and when the proper time comes no doubt legislation will take that form, and the two classes of houses will be put on the same footing. May I refer to what is the substance of this discussion, namely, what is contained in the last two branches of this Resolution? The Mover and Seconder put two propositions before the House. They first of all want to abolish the censorship, and to substitute in its place effective control. That is really the issue the House has to decide upon to-night.
  A great many inquiries have been held on this subject. There were Committees in 1832, 1853, 1862, 1866, and 1892. All these Committees decided in favour of retaining the censorship. Then there was the Committee in 1909 of which the hon. Member behind me was a most distinguished Member. It contained five Members of the House of Lords and five Members of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend has quoted from its report. There is more to be quoted than he quoted, though he is perfectly entitled to select his own quotation; but the House must not think that that Committee was in favour of the unconditional abolition of the censorship. This Resolution does suggest an unconditional abolition of the censorship. This Committee of 1909 went into the matter very carefully and had a great number of witnesses before it, and it recommended on page 12 that the office of
  2054
  Examiner of Plays should be continued. They say—
  "We conclude that the producers of plays should have access, prior to the production, to public authority, which should be empowered to licence plays as suitable for performance."
  The House will see that this modifies the conclusion which my hon. Friend has suggested to the House in the quotations which he has placed before it. Lord Gorell in 1909 put the substance of this Resolution before that Joint Committee, and the only support he got was that of my hon. Friend. There were two who voted for it, Lord Gorell and my hon. Friend. Six other members of the Committed voted against it. So really, when the House is asked to support a Resolution of this kind, I think, without expressing any opinion of mine at all, that it should bear in mind that this Joint Committee appointed for this specific purpose, having heard a great deal of evidence both for and against by a majority of six to two came to the conclusion that this Resolution was not a practicable way of dealing with the situation.
  Mr. HARCOURT: My hon. Friend is dealing very fairly with me, but may I give what I consider the salient words of the Chairman in the Report on page 11:—
  "It should be optional to submit a play for licence and legal to perform an unlicensed play, whether it has been submitted or not."
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Yes, they say, after being very much pressed to do so, that if anybody wants to perform a play he should have the safeguard for his own protection of coming to the Lord Chamberlain and asking for a licence, but if he likes he may take the risk of saying, "I do not want to come to you for a licence; I have such confidence in my play that I will not ask you; I will submit to whatever penalty may come afterwards, if there is any." It is equally true, after the interruption of the hon. Member, that the substance of this Resolution was put in an affirmative form before the Committee by Lord Gorell, and seconded by my hon. Friend, and beyond that it got no further support on the Joint Committee. When that Joint Committee, having gone into the matter for a great many weeks, came to that decision, it is not all plain sailing, and it requires a little consideration before we allow ourselves to be carried away by the eloquence of the two hon. Members who have just addressed the House. Who are the people who ought to be consulted in a matter of this kind? First of all, the public. As far as I am able to gauge the opinion of the

  2055
  public, they are not greatly concerned about this matter. They have maintained a very discreet attitude, both one way or the other, and they have kept perfectly calm in the face of to-night's Debate. So I do not think that the public at the present moment are concerned very much about this question. Then there are the managers of the theatres. They are against the abolition of the Censorship. I can quite understand that they should be.
  Mr. HARCOURT: It protects them from prosecution.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I should have thought that that was a very good reason why they should be. I know that it is the practice to speak rather discouragingly of the managers who get their thousands of pounds for these productions, but why should not the man who invests his capital in a production go to some authority before he incurs all this expenditure, and say, "Do you mind reading this and telling me whether it is fit for performance or not?" Does not the hon. Member think that this is a reasonable safeguard? I speak now as a friend of capitalists, if I may. I do not speak as an author. I submit to the House that when a manager spends a large sum of money on the production of a play it is a reasonable safeguard to be able to go to some authority and say, "This is the play which is going to be performed in my theatre, and before I incur all this expenditure I should be very much obliged if you can tell me whether this is a play which you can license for production." I think that the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite has this point, that, as he says, it is rather conventional, and what is right one day is wrong another. I quite agree with that. But on this point I think that the manager of a theatre is entitled to come for some safeguard before producing a play. With regard to the actors, I understand that they are all in favour of the censorship of plays. Sir Charles Wyndham said:—
  "I cannot recall to mind any manager who is in favour of interfering with the system which at present exists. We are all for letting well alone."
  It is only from a few authors, including the hon. Gentleman opposite, that objections are heard. I think that I am right in stating to the House that the main objection to the censorship, comes from authors, and, of course, it is quite right that it should. We expect it to come from
  2056
  authors. They are writing plays, and they naturally want to write what they like, and they want it produced in the form in which they do write it, and some of them say, "Here we are, writers, authors. Why should we submit what we write to the superior criticism of a man who is no better perhaps than ourselves, and perhaps not so good, although he is a Member of the House Of Lords—the Lord Chamberlain?"
  May I say what has been done in this respect? What takes place is this: The manuscript is sent in, and it is read by the two readers. It is then sent to the Comptroller and the Lord Chamberlain. That was to be the whole process. But since 1910—I hope the hon. Gentleman's play was sent to the Lord Chamberlain before 1910—there is a new system, under which I am sure his play would have escaped censure. What happens is this. If the Lord Chamberlain and the Comptroller have any doubt—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had a personal interview with the Lord Chamberlain—the Lord Chamberlain asks the author and the manager to come and see him, so that by conversation the whole matter might possibly be amicably arranged. When alleged objectionable sentences are pointed out, in a vast number of cases there is not the slightest difficulty in coming to an arrangement. To show what takes place, I may mention that in the year 1912 there were 1,281 plays licensed, and only eight were refused the licence. In this year, up to date, 176 have been licensed, and only one refused the licence. Since 1910, if the Lord Chamberlain, the Comptroller and the readers have any doubt about a play, it is submitted to the advisory committee. Before a play is refused a licence it is submitted to a committee consisting of five members—two Members of this House, both eminent lawyers, one sitting on that side of the House and one on this, one Member for Dublin University and one representing the Keighley Division; the others are Sir Walter Raleigh, who is one of the greatest critics of the age—I do not think there will be any dispute about that—Sir Squire Bancroft, and the Comptroller. These five members read the play, and I am authorised to tell the House that in no case since this committee has been appointed has their decision been objected to in any way, and what they have decided upon the merits has been adhered to. That is a step in the right direction.

  2057
  The author will say, "Why should I submit my work to one man, who may be guided by his sentiments and caprices?" But, before a licence is refused, the play goes to this committee of five members, and I submit to the House that it would be very difficult to get a more competent tribunal than those five gentlemen. It seems to me that there are really only two logical propositions—the one is to have no control and the other is to have control. I can understand no control, though my hon. Friend does not go so far as that. But directly you go in for control, then let us think what it comes to. The control can either come beforehand or afterwards—before the play is produced, or after it is produced. I should have thought that it would save both time and money to come beforehand. If the Lord Chamberlain said to the manager and author, "You go away; I do not want to see you before you spend thousands of pounds and risk your capital. I will send somebody to see whether your play is right or wrong, and in the meantime, you had better go and spend your money." That might recommend itself to brother barristers of mine, but it does not recommend itself to the capitalist, who has to spend his money on the production of the play. What does subsequent control come to? You get the decision of one man, and the effective control comes after the play has been produced. I wonder whose duty it would be to say anything about the matter at all. What happens? If a policeman were sent, he would take shorthand notes and make a transcript of them, and go to the police station at night and give his report to the inspector, who, amongst his midnight pursuits, would read the play.
  Mr. HOLMES: How does it work in the case of music halls at the present time?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member is not asking for information; he seeks to put me in a difficulty. What happens in music halls is that if a stage play is produced they require a licence from the Lord Chamberlain, just as a theatre does. If a play is produced at a music hall within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, a licence has to be obtained for that play to be produced. How are you to put effective control into operation? There may be some suspicion about a play, and the manager or author
  2058
  is summoned before the magistrate. What is the kind of evidence you get? It is admitted there is no principle to guide the magistrate. What happens? The policeman will read his report, and then I suppose there will be a series of experts in morality on the one side, and a series of experts in the other direction on the other side. One will say, "This is a very improper piece, and its tendency is to corrupt the people who hear it." On the other side, the expert might say, "Do not talk about conventional morality. The morality of to-day is the immorality of to-morrow, and the immorality of to-morrow is the morality of the day after." Then at the end of all this evidence, who is the judge? The magistrate. You therefore come to the censorship under another name, at the very end of the whole performance, and after all the expense has been incurred. I think it is very difficult for us, in all the circumstances, to come to a decision on this question, but what I have to put to the House on behalf of the Government is that no legislation on this subject would be justified unless there was a general demand for it. The theatrical profession is very smartly divided. Theatrical managers, owners of theatres, and actors in the main are for the censorship. There is no doubt that a very brilliant body of authors and playwrights are against it. The authors, of course, are in the minority, as they always expect to be; if they were not in the minority, their whole position would be gone. As long as they are in a minority I do not think they can quite expect the House to pass legislation for a minority, however brilliant and in hostility to the majority, however less brilliant that majority may be. It might be said, why do you not legislate upon the Report of the Joint Committee of which my right hon. Friend was Chairman? My hon. Friend will not have that. The Report of that Committee, as I have said, was by six to two against the substance of this Resolution.
  Mr. HARCOURT: As my hon. Friend asks me, I only put down what I thought was the simpler solution of Lord Gorell, though I quite agree there was, as is usual, a compromise adopted. May I quote this particular sentence in the Report, which I think would go a long way to meeting my views. That sentence is:—
  "It should be optional to submit a play for licence and legal to perform an unlicensed play, whether it has been submitted or not."
  Do the Government accept that?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The point is that there is such diversity of opinion among experts that it is very difficult as yet in the present situation to know on what lines you could legislate. The sentence my hon. Friend has quoted no doubt was the opinion of the Committee, but he himself did not adopt that when he was a Member of the Committee. As far as this Resolution is concerned, no doubt it is a second best, but he must remember that even then he was in a distinct minority. The theatrical profession of this country whose capital and labour are involved in this profession are against the abolition of the Censorship. It is only a minority of authors and playwrights who very vehemently ask for that abolition. We should be chary before we commit ourselves to a proposal of this kind. I am informed that a great many even of the authors would prefer the compulsory Censorship plus a court of arbitration rather than the proposals of the Joint Committee.
  Mr. HARCOURT: No.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My hon. Friend will find it in the "Era," a paper with which he is much more acquainted than I am, and I have no doubt he will recognise it as an authority more than I do—except on this occasion. With these divided counsels prevailing, and when we know that the theatrical profession, which are mainly interested, are so severely divided on this point, and when we remember—and I think this is a cardinal point—there is a very languid public in face of this proposal, I do not think the House will be surprised to know that we are not in a position now here to legislate on a question upon which there is really so much division of opinion. In order to obtain guidance, the Government is anxious to listen to this Debate and to leave the decision to the unfettered discretion of the House, and if, as a result of this Debate or otherwise, any proposals are brought forward which will really obtain the substantial consent of the theatrical profession or of the public generally, they will be very glad to consider those proposals carefully and sympathetically, and, when opportunity occurs, to found legislation upon any such proposals as will have regard to the interests of the community generally.
  Mr. FRANCIS NEILSON: I am reluctant to take part in this Debate after the
  2060
  very brilliant speeches we had from the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, but I must say, if I had any doubt as to the wisdom of having a Censor of plays, that doubt is removed by the speech I have heard from the Under-Secretary. I have had some little experience with this matter, but I should like to-night to approach it with a certain aloofness. I have known cases where there had been a great expenditure of money and rehearsals had gone on for three or four weeks, and in which, after that, a breathless acting manager has rushed back on to the stage to the producer and asked him, "Have you sent the manuscript to the Censor?" It has been, I should think, the last thing thought about in connection with the production. I know time after time the precious manuscript has had to be sent to Great Cumberland Street, and sometimes two or three letters have been sent asking that there might be no great delay and that the production of the play be not postponed by not having the licence sent down in time. It is the Censor that has brought that about. Managers accept plays ninety-nine times out of a hundred without thinking of what the Censor will say. It is only when a man comes along with new ideas, and wants to go deeper into some great subject, that you begin to think, as a manager, whether the Censor will licence the play. I object to that restriction on the art. I want to know who can support a system which gives to any man or to any five men such tremendous power as to decide what is and what is not fit for you or me to see. Is he a censor of the morals of men and women or a censor of the morals of children? If he is to pick and choose plays for men and women to see without their sensibilities being shocked, then I say that he performs his work, or has done so in the past, very badly indeed. If it is a matter of picking and choosing plays for children, then I think that can be done in quite another way. Plays for children are performed at Christmas time, and I do not think we have ever had the name of the Censor brought into connection with them. The part of the matter that has been brought before the House which interested me very deeply was that of giving to anyone the power to judge of a play by merely reading the manuscript. I have in my-personal experience read hundreds of plays, and I consider that the art of reaching a play is one that takes years and years to cultivate. I know that the reader

  2061
  of plays, when he has perhaps to read, we will say, three or four plays per week, has a very difficult task to apply his fresh intelligence upon each manuscript and to do it justice.
  Would the House try to imagine the position of the Censor, who perhaps has in one season 100 or 150 plays to review. How tedious the whole matter becomes! He cannot do justice to each manuscript as he goes along. To put into the hands of the Censor a manuscript which perhaps he does not feel inclined to read, when he feels that he must get on as he has such a mass of work to get through, is fair neither to the author nor to the public. It only goes to show, when we look at the matter from this standpoint, how it is that French farces can be passed and plays of Maeterlinck banned. To show the difference between our system and the systems that obtain abroad, may I take one of Maeterlinck's plays—"Mona Vanna"? I was deeply interested in "Mona Vanna" as soon as it was published in this country, and hoped that it would pass the Censor and have a public production here. Hon. Members know, of course, that the licence was withheld. Shortly afterwards I went to Germany, and I heard when in Munich that the Comedy House were rehearsing "Mona Vanna." I asked that I might be privileged to watch some of the rehearsals. As it was to be produced in a week or two, I determined to stay and witness the first performance of the play, because I wanted to see what kind of audience would assemble to see in Germany a play that had been banned in London. "Mona Vanna" I consider to be a great piece of dramatic art. I stood in the vestibule of the Comedy House in Munich from the time the doors opened until a minute or two before the rising of the curtain. What did I see? Mothers, fathers, sons and daughters down to the age of twelve or ten, coming along to witness this work of Maeterlinck's. I went into the lobby again when the play was over, and watched the audience disperse. No one was shocked; no one left the theatre; no mother took out her child, not even in the middle of the second act. That really was a commentary upon the position here in England. I am bound to say that if "Mona Vanna" had been licensed here a very similar thing would have taken place, with the exception perhaps that the sons and daughters would have been a little older than those who assembled at the performance in Munich.
  2062
  Further, I cannot understand why it is possible here in this country to licence Wagner. It is because, as a rule, the words are sung in German and the vast majority of the people who go do not know Wagner's poems? Why, on the other hand, could not "Parsifal" be licensed here? I went years ago to a performance of "Parsifal" at Bayreuth. I shall never forget the first performance there. I have attended great religious ceremonies in different parts of the world, but I never in my life saw an audience so moved by the marvellous music drama as they were on that occasion. Would it be bad for the morals of the people of England to have a great, wonderful performance of "Parsifal" here? I think it would lift the plane of culture in this country enormously. The Seconder of the Motion referred to Shakespeare. I wish to point to the difference between the way Shakespeare is played in Germany, where they are unfettered, and the way it is done in this country. I have never seen in "Romeo and Juliet" the scene between Lady Capulet, Juliet, and the nurse. If I want to see that scene I have to go to Germany to see it, and around me there I find members of different academies, schools, and societies, young people, students. The same is true with regard to many other scenes from Shakespeare. They boast in Vienna that they have performed every one of Shakespeare's plays, including "Troilus and Cressida" and "Measure for Measure." Why are we in London not to see these plays? Not because the Censor would censor a Shakespearean play, nor would he I think debar any particular scene in Shakespeare from being acted. But because of the whole sense of restriction that the Censor has brought about, managers themselves when they are considering the production of a Shakespearean play have to emasculate the whole force of the drama itself time and time again, and cut out essential scenes, until sometimes one is made to think that perhaps the managers themselves do not wholly understand why Shakespeare wrote the scenes. This is bad not only upon the people, and particularly young people, but upon the dramatist.
  I have not had much experience, but I can imagine some dramatists whom I know to-day sitting down to work. They do not go about it as they used to in the old times—think out the situations first, and then make what we used to call a cardboard play. The dramatist chooses his characters, lets them assemble in his mind, an0000d

  2063
  then through the clash of temperament lets them work out their action and their situations. While this process, which is so dear to the true dramatist, is going on, must he be haunted all the time with the thought that the actions of these people must be governed by what the Censor will think of the play when it is finished? It is impossible under such conditions for a man who really wants to do justice to his characters, and the actions that are consequent upon the clash of character to make a play that is going to be of any worth at all. In these few rambling remarks I want particularly to throw out the suggestion that it is impossible for a man to decide by merely reading a manuscript how that manuscript is going to be treated in rehearsal and by the actors. My hon. Friend stated that the Censor was a benign personage who, when he came to an Act that he could not pass, sent for the actor-manager and the author, and pointed to this word here and that sentence there. What a simple matter it would be if it was only a word here and a sentence there. How obdurate would be the author, who would say "No, I want every 'if,' 'and' and 'but' in my play." The serious thing is not an accidental word or sentence; it is the subject, the character. Sometimes when you take away something that the Censor objects to you emasculate a character. Very often if the Censor were to hear the artist-actor speak that sentence or word in the production he would say "How stupid I was. How different it is when it is spoken and acted."
  That brings me at once to this point. How absurd is the system that permits the miss at school or the boy at a public school to take a novel as at present. A boy is put into possession of what is in the novel that will appeal to his senses by reading perhaps one of our best journals, possibly on the schoolmaster's table; there is the critique written boldly, giving in a sentence what the novel contains. The boys say, "I should like to read that." He gets it; he takes it up to his room, and he reads it in secret—I know that that is going on all the time—he can gloat over it; he can take a sentence and read it over and over again, particularly the sentence that has been referred to. He can read it over a dozen times. But he goes to the play once, and he sees the whole thing in action, probably with the objectionable sentences or the
  2064
  objectionable words, and he has forgotten them by the time the curtain comes down. It is preposterous that you should have one system for literature and another system for the drama. I shall not take up more time, but I do speak for those men who to-day are wanting to infuse some new life into our drama. Dear me! we have only got to look back a few years at the agitation which took place in this country when "Ghosts" was performed. I remember the first performance of "Ghosts" in New York. I watched it with William Dean Howells and Albert Steinberg, who was then the chief critic of the "New York Herald." Steinberg was one of the finest intelligences that I ever came across. When I met him that night, he said, "I have just read "Ghosts." I asked him, "What do you think of it?" He replied, "It is a very bad play; it will not act." When we came out of the theatre afterwards, that fine intelligence had to admit that the play was a very fine one, and a great acting play. If Steinberg could make such a mistake at that time, what mistake could be made by such men as we pick to be Censors? It is not right or fair to the dramatist that after years and years of work he should have to submit his work to a Censor who might be in ill-humour, attacked by dyspepsia, or sick and disgusted at having to read day after day manuscripts of various kinds, and probably have his property wholly destroyed. Let the House think for the moment of all the work that is preparatory to a play like Ibsen's "Emperor and Galilean." I need not refer to the quarrel with history. Look at it as a piece of dramatic work. Consider the years he was passing it in his mind; his journey to Rome; the great care he took in research; the selection of his characters; and the bringing of them altogether; then the giving to us of this wonderful work of art. By the process we condemn, the world runs the risk of having one great masterpiece less. We want to encourage the drama here. We want to have a broad view. We want the minds of the public raised to a higher plane of culture and refinement. We cannot possibly do it so long as you put restrictions on people and their work.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Into this very interesting Debate I wish to bring, so far as I can, a personal experience. I would say first to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that I live in a country where there is no Censor. We, in Ireland, get on without any. The only thing that

  2065
  does happen in Ireland is that sometimes a play that has been licensed by the Censor here, and that has been passed by the public, comes to Ireland where there is no Censor, and it finds itself hissed off the stage. I am prepared to say, from our experience in Ireland, that every single difficulty and danger which the Under-Secretary has put before us is imaginary and illusory. After all, there is the possibility of a play being hissed off the stage, and prosecuted by the police, but that does not deter managers from putting upon the stage even plays such as have been spoken of. The manager of a theatre will no doubt, for his own interest, take the same course that his publisher takes; he will not go looking for trouble. At the present time, the Censorship really is a convenience for those who want to sail near the wind. Everybody knows it. Managers know it. I suppose that is one of the reasons why the Under-Secretary defends it. Let me
  consider some of the existing facts of the situation. In the first place, I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is not, now in the House, on having raised this subject again, because there is no doubt that by a ventilation of it, something has been attained. That much emerged from the speech of the Under-Secretary. We are not in the same position as we were three or four years ago, and if the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway escaped the Censor at that time I am bound to say, though he did not tell us by what process he did it, I suspect him of having written a play on a scriptural subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, it was not that."] Then it was worse than I anticipated. Somebody has got to write plays. If this particular form of art is to be put under restriction imposed upon no other form, at least it is reasonable that we should have the task given to a man who is a cultured and educated man. We have the satisfaction of knowing that we have a Censor at present who really knows, by experiment, how far it is wise to go in the way of indelicacy. That ought to be a great advantage from a certain point of view to the censorship. But, after all, this question is not merely one of indelicacy. I wonder if the House realises how far the absurdities of the thing go. It is fair to say that some absurdities are apparently being done away. A short time ago there was prohibited on the English stage the play, "Edipus Rex." On the same ground
  2066
  Shelley's "Cenci" could have been prohibited. The production of Milton's "Samson Agonistes" has been prohibited by the Censor, and I think it is probable that now that play might be permitted, because I understand that the Censor has given a licence—and I am delighted to hear it—to a dramatised version of the Book of Job, which was some time ago produced in London. There is still the fact that a play before it can be played for a licence has got to have a theatre found for it. I would like the House to consider for a moment how that affects the question of a play, which up to the present time has been tabooed like Mr. Housman's "Bethlehem," which was tabooed simply because it dealt with a scriptural subject. I think it is quite clear that for that class of play there is a public demand. Take, for instance, the play "Eagerheart," produced some six or eight years ago. I understand that that play has been given at least 100 representations, and has been played to something like 100,000 persons. That passed by a mere fluke, because there is no doubt that we are describing the mental process of getting a licence.
  10.0 P.M.
  No human being could explain why "Eagerheart" was licensed and "Bethlehem" was prohibited. It passes my comprehension. There are other plays that are seeking for licence. You cannot apply for a licence. Let me state to the House to produce your play in. You can only submit your play after you have taken a hall and gone to considerable expense, unless it is to be produced by an ordinary theatre, and that up to the present is a considerable prohibition even to applying for a licence. Let me state to the House how the matter works out. I happened to be associated with two plays in the last couple of years. I was interested in them as works of art; other people were interested in them from a religious point of view. At any rate, they were under the patronage of bishops. The first was under the patronage of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and it was produced at the University of London. Before it was produced the University of London was threatened with prosecution because of some technical breach of the law, because all these plays can only be produced by evasion of the law, and it seems to me unpleasant that you cannot produce a play which the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to see produced without a technical evasion of the law. The first time the play was given it was a great artistic success, and I under-

  2067
  stand that many people were as moved by it as people might be by a great sermon or a great service in a church.
  Then it was proposed to produce another play at the University of London, but the university was not going for a second time to expose itself to the threats of prosecution, and what was the result? The only place in London where you could produce a scriptural subject under the patronage of the Archbishop of Canterbury was the National Sporting Club. I do not want to say a word against the National Sporting Club. They have a beautiful hall, and they are very civil people to deal with, but many people thought that that atmosphere was not congenial to this form of art, and even at the National Sporting Club we were again threatened with prosecution because of some technical breach of the law. Really I hope all this kind of absurdity will be swept away. The Lord Chamberlain has the matter absolutely in his own hands, and he can sweep away all this absurd matter of tabooing plays on Scriptural subjects, and he can make sure that plays shall not be debarred from licence merely because the authors choose their subjects from the same scope and range as Racine chose to write his "Esther" for performance in girls' schools. I think perhaps, it is worth while to add a consideration upon that matter.
  There has been only one great school of drama in the world and that is the Greek tragic drama. These people made their drama out of stories that were part of their religion and familiar to everybody. They carried with them the association and atmosphere of moral ideas. The equivalent to that from modern English dramatists can only be found in the story of the Bible and the Old Testament. All that atmosphere, all that inherent association is open to the poet and to the novelist if he wishes to use it, and is open to anybody but the dramatist. A friend of mine some time ago wanted to write a play upon the subject of David. The friend I speak of was then writing the best verse written since Tennyson was in his prime. If he wrote a play upon the story of David, it would be worthless because it would not have been licenceds. The result was he twisted the story and maimed and manacled it for the stage, and the result was failure. I think the Censor robbed English literature in that sense of a masterpiece. It seems to me that the only thing the censorship has done is harm.
  2068
  If you want to get your work on the stage you have to pass an arbitrary and irresponsible tribunal. Everybody knows that people are inclined to treat the novel as a worn out form of art, and would gladly turn to the stage but for the difficulties with which we are confronted, and for what use is it that you set up this barrier? I say if you want to decide for yourself what the censorship is worth, you have only to compare the novel of to-day which has no censorship with the play of to-day. It seems to me clear that of the two forms of literature, the novel, from the moral point of view, stands infinitely higher. The modern play is limited practically to the sexual appeal. In the novel you get a much wider range of interest and you may get work purely of an intellectual character. Plays which could shock nobody, shock the Censor, because they make him stop and think. There are a great many people in the world who say that they do not want to be asked to think when they go to the theatre, that they only want to be amused. It is perfectly right that they should be amused, but what I say is that other people who go to the theatre in the same spirit as an artist goes to a picture gallery to keep his faculties alive and alert and to stimulate thought, ought to have the right to see plays they want to see, while leaving other people to be provided for as they always are amply provided for already.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: I desire to give one or two reasons why I intend to vote against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I firmly believe that the abolition of the censorship would be offensive to the taste of many people and would be a menace to the morality of a large number. I am fully aware that if the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution and my hon. Friend below me thought that their proposal would have such an effect they would not ask the House to adopt it, but even the hon. Member for Montrose has admitted that there is considerable danger attached to the production of plays, but he has suggested that the remedy should be in suppression after evil had been manifested. We who support the censorship believe that it would be better to prevent that outrage on good feeling and morality from being produced. In other words, my action is dictated by the principle that prevention is better than cure. The one object of censorship should be to protect people from the influence of the production of immoral plays, and on the

  2069
  whole I think it has operated very beneficially in promoting that object. The hon. Member for Montrose said that free subjects demand liberty. To follow out that principle to its full etxent, would be an argument against all laws for the protection of the subject which we are constantly putting into effect. What are our sanitary laws for? To prevent disease. Does anyone believe that by the promotion of sanitary laws we are guilty of an unreasonable interference with the liberty of the subject? The object and purport of the Censor is to prevent immoral plays being placed before the public. Quite recently we were engaged—successfully, I am glad to say—in dealing with the white slave traffic. The object in that case was prevention rather than cure, and on the same principle I hope the House will hesitate before taking the retrograde step of doing away with this reasonable protection to prevent immorality and the production of plays offensive to the taste of the people. I shall vote against this Resolution because I am convinced it would be strongly resented by the majority of the people of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a matter of opinion. I think the Under-Secretary was quite right in pointing to the fact that there has been no strong agitation in favour of the alteration which has been proposed to-night, and I therefore strongly protest against it. I believe the change suggested would be offensive to the taste of a large number of the people of this country, and it would menace morality, more especially of the younger classes who would come under the baneful influence of some of the plays that would be produced. There are many pure-minded persons who attend the theatre who would resent an immoral play, but, on the other hand, we know there are a large number who would glory in the immorality of the play. You cannot in every case trust to the judgment of the theatre-goer as to the desirability of plays being produced or not. The hon. Member for Montrose says his remedy is to suppress plays after they have been proved to be objectionable, and even there he admits the presence of a great danger. Again, in this case, prevention is better than cure, and it is better to have a censorship and prevent the public being injured by the production of immoral and indecent plays.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I am afraid on the present occasion I find myself in op-
  2070
  position to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock. I rise to support the Resolution before the House. I speak on this subject with some little practical experience, and certainly with considerable enthusiasm for the great profession of the stage. I could not help thinking, when I heard my hon. Friend who has just sat down say that the presence of the Censor will save the people from offence, he is entirely ignoring the force of the fact that the public opinion of the British people has never in the long history of our country approved of immoral or degrading performances on the public stage. I attach enormous weight to the opinion of the British public. I attach still greater weight to the great and overwhelming safeguard which exists in the fact that those licensed houses have annually to apply for a licence for the performance of stage plays, and that if a manager allows indecent or immoral or degraded plays to be produced on his stage the magistrates in whom we have placed, and I think rightly placed, the power, may withhold the licence on the ground that the house has not been properly conducted, just as we to-day withhold a licence for a public house if those in authority find that the house is not to the public advantage. The Under-Secretary told us that this question was not so easy as it appeared, but what he really meant was that the answer to the Resolution was not so easy as it appeared. I must confess that while much impressed with his ingenuity, I thought he spoke on very inadequate instructions and very little knowledge of his case. He drew a graphic and, I think, an utterly ridiculous picture of what would happen if the position of the censorship was ended. He said, "You would send your policeman into the theatre with their pocket-books ready to make shorthand notes of the play which was being acted, and if they thought there was a case against the management of the theatre on the ground that the play was indecent, then they would go and report to that effect." What nonsense! I ventured to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and to ask him, "Do you do that to-day in music halls?" Then the hon. Gentleman gave us a wonderful insight into the lack of knowledge with which he came to the House, because his answer was, "We do not do it in music halls, because stage plays which are produced in music halls have to pass the Censor." My only answer to that is, "It is not true."

  2071
  The hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Government to-night really does not know his case. He is entirely ignorant of the fact that I can go with my manuscript to-morrow to a music-hall manager, and he can produce it without first submitting it to the Lord Chamberlain for approval. Why should there be that distinction. It is a distinction to which attention is drawn in the Resolution before the House, because the hon. Member's Motion protests against the distinction which is made between the theatre and the music hall.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member is mistaken.
  Mr. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has consulted officials, but I can assure him that it is a fact that plays which the Censor never sees are produced in music halls day after day.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not in London.
  Mr. H. SMITH: The jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain extends all over England as regards the ordinary stage play, and, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly, it does not extend beyond London as regards a music hall. If that is so, surely my argument is just as logical, and surely the answer of the Under-Secretary is just as illogical. If that is so—and with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman's advisers I am still inclined to doubt it—why in the name of common sense, if I write a stage play, should I have to take it to the Censor to be approved before I can produce it in Liverpool, whereas if I write a play for production in a music hall in Liverpool, I have no need to submit it to the Censor at all. That is the case which the right hon. Gentleman, after consulting with his colleagues, puts to the House, and if he does the House the honour of summing up this Debate, I ask him to justify that anachronism. The Under-Secretary also refrained from answering another point in the Amendment which calls attention to the distinction which is made between Ireland and England. I ask a representative of the Government to tell us on what logical basis it can be said a playwright who produces a play in an English theatre must get it passed by the Censor before it can be played, while a playwright who writes for an Irish theatre can say, "We do not care a snap of the finger whether
  2072
  the Censor approves the play or not." These are questions which surely those in authority must answer before they ask the House to follow them into the Division Lobby. It is surely amazing that the hon. Member who spoke for the Government carefully avoided dealing with these two vital points to which the Resolution calls attention.
  The hon. Gentleman has told us that the theatrical profession, as a whole, is against the proposals in this Amendment. He cited the evidence of one distinguished actor. I do not consider that in any way conclusive because that distinguished actor is also a manager, and every manager is determined to do everything he can to cling to the protection which the Government, under our present system, gives to him. I do not value the opinion of the manager at all. He is in an entirely false position. He can produce a play and introduce into it any gags or any business, however indecent—perhaps I am putting it too high when I say however indecent, but business and gags certainly suggestive and sometimes indecent—and he knows he is safeguarded in practice against prosecution and against risk to his licence because he has the protection which the Censor has given him in passing his play. I must, therefore, under these circumstances, attach very little weight to the opinion of theatrical managers. I agree that they are in clover, and I ask the House to attach little importance to those who are protected by this present system, and rather to apply its mind to the hardships of the author who has spent months, and even years, in producing a play which, when it has been produced, has secured the approval of literary people and acknowledged experts, but which, nevertheless, has been banned by the Censor because of some sentence or some part which he disapproves. The Censor will disapprove a play, if I write one, in which I make the Under-Secretary the principal figure, and with the aid of the perruquier and the make-up produce, as near as possible, the classical features of the hon. Gentleman on the stage at Drury Lane. The Censor will stop such a play, but I can go to the Empire and produce a stage play in which the hon. Member will perform all sorts of antics entirely foreign to him perhaps; nevertheless, I can produce him in a manner which would be infinitely more offensive to him and to his friends. The Censor says it is not desirable to put prominent public persons on to the stage, but

  2073
  it can be done in the music halls without interference from the Censor, or without giving offence to anybody, because the British public have never approved of offensive representations of their public men in stage plays. Another example occurs to me. I remember a play, written not very long ago, in which the principal characters were George IV. and Queen Caroline. I cannot remember the name of the author or the name of the play.
  Mr. HARCOURT: "Pains and Penalties."
  Mr. H. SMITH: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I remember that he called attention to the matter at the time by a question in this House. That play was refused. I have not read it, but I understand it was a play with considerable good qualities in it. It was refused on the ground that it might give offence to Royalty now living. You can pick up your newspapers of to-day and find in them articles quoted from newspapers of 100 years ago, upon which there is no censorship, and in which you will find things infinitely more repugnant to living Royalty than you would find in any stage play refused by the Censor. Our present system is indefensible. I am not criticising the findings of the "Council of Five," I am not asking whether they read the play which the majority of them refuse, I am not questioning whether the methods whereby our present system is carried out are right or wrong—I say the whole principle is wrong. It is wrong and indefensible that you should differentiate as you do between the music hall and the theatre, that you should allow a person to write a book which you do not censor until it is in print and finished, and that you should say to the man who writes a play, "You shall not produce it until we approve of it." I believe that if we abolish this ridiculous censorship on stage plays that we shall be in an infinitely stronger position, and that we shall encourage playwrights. You would encourage playwrights to write their very best, regardless of the fact that there is a Censor with a blue pencil in his hand who might make many alterations in an author's play, You would place the responsibility upon the owner of the theatre who produces the play, who has to apply for his licence every year before he can produce a play, and I believe that with that great safeguard in itself, together with the, perhaps, still greater safeguard
  2074
  which public opinion has ever given us in this country, you will find that the proposals in this Resolution, if carried out, will be a great advance and give greater liberty and greater justice to all authors. I believe it will tend to elevate the whole atmosphere of stage plays, whether in the theatre or the music hall. Our present system is an anachronism; it was worn out many years ago. I am glad the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Robert Harcourt) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Mark Sykes) have raised this question. I am glad the Government have advanced so far that they are prepared to leave it to the unfettered judgment of the House, and I ask every Member of the House who has heard this Debate to support this Motion merely as a protest against the present ridiculous system, and as evidence of the fact that it is time we took some steps to fall into line with other great civilised countries. If the House adopts the Motion it will be a message to the Government of the day that it is time an end was put to the present anachronism.
  Mr. WALTER REA: It is a somewhat odd commentary on the speech made by the Under-Secretary, who said that public opinion was not behind the Motion, that with one single exception every speech made by private Members of the House has been in support of the Motion. The only speech in opposition to it was that of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division (Sir J. Spear), with regard to which many of us will feel much sympathy, and I confess I should vote with him against the proposal if I thought that the censorship served, in the least degree, to carry out what he desires. It is because I feel that it does not do that, but is actually mischievous, that I am speaking on behalf of the Motion to-night.
  Most hon. Members who have spoken have had some special claim to do so, either as being more or less connected with the stage or as dramatic authors, and they therefore may perhaps be considered to have, if not an axe to grind, at any rate a little interest. I can claim to speak with no bias whatever, except that of an ordinary man who goes to a theatre, and who likes to be sure that when he goes to the theatre and takes his children he can see a decent and clean entertainment, and that, I submit, is what we do not get under the present censorship, and it is a dangerous situation when we have a censorship which does not carry out what it professes, and when

  2075
  we have to lean upon such a broken reed as the censorship has proved in the past. We are indeed better with mere police supervision, which certainly works most admirably across the Irish Channel. It is by no means difficult for anyone who wishes to do so to find immoral plays being given in theatres in London, and it never has been. Plays of immoral tendency are quite easy to see, but you have not to go to the societies that perform unlicensed plays to see them. I have seen many performances of unlicensed plays given by the Stage Society, but I have never yet seen an immoral one while I have seen many plays I should have blushed to take my family to, flaunting the approval of the censorship on the stage of the public theatres which are under the control of the Lord Chamberlain. The only thing that seems to ban a play under the censorship as we have seen it in recent years is that it treats a serious moral problem in a serious way. If you want to see some of the deepest problems of life treated seriously by a great French dramatist, if you want to see "Maternité" or other great plays, the only place that is open to their production is the highly sympathetic atmosphere of the National Sporting Club.
  But happily for the future of the drama and of literature, the censorship, though it may be wrong, is also futile, and not only is that so, but it always must be so. Some 200 years ago an attempt was made, with which I think the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Spear) would perhaps have sympathised, to suppress stage plays altogether, and it lasted for a few years, with the result that, following the Puritan suppression of plays, came the Restoration drama, which ever since has been a byword for impropriety and for everything that is undesirable. This censorship has been bad for the theatre, it has been bad for literature, and it has also been bad for morality. If we had had this censorship applied not only to the theatre, but to art and literature, much of the greatest work that has been produced in this country would have been impossible. To give only one example, had it been applied to art as it is applied now to the drama, at least we should have had no Hogarth, but I should think some of the old Italian masters would come under the ban of the Censor because they represented Scriptural subjects. The drama sometimes escapes by what I may call a
  2076
  side wind because, happily, this futility of the censorship extends so far that it is not retrospective, and while a number of morality plays have been ruled to be ineligible for public performance, the censorship has, happily for literature, happily for the theatre, been unable to prevent the performance of that highly improper play, "Everyman." My objection to the censorship is on other grounds than these. It not only does not do what it professes to do, but it does not even profess to cover the ground. It is obviously a ridiculous thing that one or two, or, if you like, twenty men with different views should profess to be able to censor what is written for the stage by merely reading the manuscript, and without knowing how the play will appear when it is produced. I remember a play being hissed off the stage because it was not considered decent. It was hissed off the stage because of one particular action which took place on the stage, and which could not be read in the manuscript. When that can occur it is ridiculous to rely on such a censorship. There is another and even graver objection. Not only is it futile and partial, but it is liable to the very grave abuse which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith). It is one of the greatest objections. It enables managers who so desire to sail much nearer the wind than they would do if they had not the censorship, which makes it almost impossible for any local authority to prosecute them for the indecency, immorality, or undesirability of the pieces they present. The very fact that a manager can go before a Court, and say that the play has been passed by the Lord Chamberlain, is primâ facie evidence that there can be no objection to it. I submit that that is an undesirable power to place in the hands of managers, who may be unscrupulous. They may think it desirable that the censorship should be retained. But that is no reason why, in the interest of the public, it should be retained. It is a matter for the public interest, and the public interest by no means coincides with the interests of managers or theatre proprietors.
  It may be asked if we abolish the censorship what we are going to put in its place. I answer with confidence that for many years music halls have gone on satisfactorily under police supervision, and the fear of being prosecuted for anything improper is enough for the managers of those

  2077
  places not subject to the censorship. There is no censorship over picture palaces and dances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] At any rate, there is no Lord Chamberlain's censorship as there is over stage plays. Obviously there cannot be. Dances to which objection is often taken cannot be censored. To prevent anything improper happening, by far the best check is the fear of prosecution following in the case of performances which can be made the subject of prosecution at music halls. It is equally possible to keep theatre managers in check by police prosecutions. The fact is that the censorship fails for many reasons. First of all, it does not attempt to cover the whole ground, and it fails to suppress when it does condemn, because stage performances which have been condemned by the Censor have been given under a thin veil by private societies at the National Sporting Club and other places. The censorship generally condemns the wrong play, and gives immunity to what should be suppressed. It checks the literary and artistic development of the drama, because you cannot put these things in fetters. It puts a financial burden on dramatic authors who have to submit to the censorship. I hold that it serves no useful purpose except one. It serves to bring a certain amount of occupation to one or two gentlemen, who, I have no doubt, are very distinguished indeed in their own line, but whose line is neither morality nor literature.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I rise to suggest very briefly a compromise. The Under-Secretary said that he wished in this Debate to gauge the opinion of the House. I would suggest that the Mover of the Amendment would accept what is practically the proposal which united the Select Committee, but I do not propose to move it unless by consent. I would suggest that the second sentence of the Resolution should be amended so as to read "that the system of the compulsory licensing of stage plays before production in Great Britain should be abolished." Those who dislike the present system do not object to licensing if it is optional licensing and not compulsory licensing. One does not object to a manager being able to get the imprimatur of the Lord Chamberlain as an insurance against control by the local authority. Now, of course, the censorship is absolutely compulsory and without the approval of the Lord Chamberlain a play cannot be produced at all in Great
  2078
  Britain. The Under-Secretary stated that the majority of the theatrical profession were against abolition. If he had said that the majority were against complete abolition of the censorship I think that he would have been perfectly right. The reason that they are against complete abolition as contrasted to merely optional censorship is that they are very naturally afraid of municipal control. They do not want to spend large sums on expensive productions and then find that the local council, in the case of a touring company perhaps, has a right to come in and veto the performance. But they would not object to the censorship if it was only optional, and if such optional censorship would give an absolute immunity against subsequent interference on the part of a faddy local authority in any part of the country.
  The Under-Secretary advanced as an argument in favour of the present system the number of plays that have been allowed in contrast to the number that have been disallowed. That is no argument, because one cannot tell on that basis the number of good plays which were made absolutely banal and worthless. The present system is all at one with our educational system in the theory of making every generation see everything through the same spectacles as the previous generation, instead of trying to strike out new ideas, and it makes any progress of thought as difficult as possible, just the same as We see in education, that of the verbal infallibility, a verbal inspiration is given to the opinions of the day and everybody else has got to be poured into the same mould. That is very bad, not only for education, but for every form of thought, and especially for literature, and the great question is that this system does not in any way prevent vulgarity or raise the standard of production or of taste. Its only result is to put literature into a strait-jacket. I think that one of the most discreditable results of the present system of censorship is that the only tragedy by a modern British writer which is ever heard of outside the British Isles had to be written in French, because it was known to be impossible under the present system of censorship in England. Other writers who might be capable of such masterpieces as that of Oscar Wilde are not able to write anything but their own tongue, and they necessarily are driven into other forms of art, such as

  2079
  writing novels, instead of enriching the national drama. I want to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee, and I will not move my Amendment without the consent of the House, but I would beg them to give consent to this Amendment, of the original Resolution, because if they did so I believe they would bring into the same Lobby those who wish to free the drama from its present fetters without inflicting an injustice upon the man who wishes to venture upon the cost of production.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Under-Secretary for the Home Department has frequently used the weapons of which he is master, the weapons of wit and sarcasm and paradox, to attack established and vested interests. To-night he used those same weapons in defence of an established and vested interest. Though we admire his nimble wit, I do not think we were impressed with the strength of the case that he put forward. There was no single argument which he used in defence of the existing system, even in its modified form, which could not be put forward in support of a censorship of art or of literature. The hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the attitude of various interests which were affected in this matter of the censorship of plays, and he first mentioned the attitude of the public. He dismissed the attitude of the public almost with a word. He stated that the public take no interest in the question. But in dealing with the attitude of the public surely the Under-Secretary should have pointed out what the public loss would be under the present arrangements—what the public lose by the fact that the greatest and the most original thinkers and writers would no longer use, under the present system, the play as the medium for the expression of their thoughts. Therefore an intellectual, literary, and moral loss would fall upon the nation as the result of the present system. The Under-Secretary referred to the attitude of the managers of theatres, who, he said, were in favour of the retention of the censorship. But the hon. Gentleman must be reminded that one reason of that attitude is that the existence of the censorship of plays, so far from preserving us from the vulgar, the indelicate, and the improper plays, has given us those plays, and in a certain degree and to a certain extent standardised those plays. So that we can well understand the anxiety of those who
  2080
  are responsible for the production of those plays to be assured, before producing them, that they may sail as close to the wind as possible. I was especially interested to listen to my hon. Friend's description of how the new system would work, and I thought, if he will forgive me, that it was a somewhat grotesque picture he gave of policemen visiting the performances of plays and taking down the words and reporting upon them at midnight to their superior officers. What is the answer to my hon. Friend's remarks in that connection. The answer surely is this, that when at present a play is suppressed we do not have the opportunity of judging at all, and there is no standard of any authority to which to appeal; but if the censorship were abolished we should at least be able to see the play, and have the appeal of public opinion that came from the production of the play, and at least have the opinion of responsible critics and responsible newspapers. I venture to suggest if the ordinary criminal law is sufficient in the case of painting and in the case of books, that surely the ordinary law also is sufficient in the case of plays. Finally, I should like to point out that when the Under-Secretary was complaining—I do not mean in an unfriendly sense—that the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member did not represent the decision of the Select Committee over which the Postmaster-General presided, the Under-Secretary himself threw over not only the Resolution moved to-night, but also the Report of the Select Committee, and proceeded not only to state the case against the acceptance of the principle of the Resolution, but also the case against the acceptance of the considered judgment, which took the form of a compromise of the Select Committee. I trust my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, but I was profoundly disappointed…
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I did not say a word about the Report of the Committee. I quoted the Report of the Committee as showing the diversity of opinion there was and how difficult it was to legislate upon a matter on which there was that diversity of opinion.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I only want to point out that the Under-Secretary's argument which related to what would follow the system of the abolition of the prior licence of a play was an argument directed

  2081
  against the Report of the Select Committee. I accordingly support the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SUFFRAGIST MEETINGS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to call attention to the Police Order issued this morning prohibiting the Women's Social and Political Union from holding meetings in Hyde Park and elsewhere. I do not say anything about the legality of that Order, not being qualified to express an opinion thereon. That will doubtless be tested elsewhere. My objection is the more general one, that the Order constitutes a very serious interference with the right of public meeting. Sir E. Henry in his letter gives two reasons for prohibiting the holding of these meetings. The first is the difficulty of affording police protection. Seeing that at all these meetings the overwhelming majority of the audience is peacefully disposed and willing to listen, and that the disturbance is mainly caused by irresponsible youths, surely the police force of London ought to be sufficient to cope with the disturbances so created. If the police force is not sufficient there is always the military power to be called in. The military power is called in for coercion purposes when working men are fighting for their rights, and if it is to be used in that sense I see no reason why it should not be used in the protection of the rights of free speech. The second reason given is that the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union is to advocate the commission of crime. Assume that that is so; surely the remedy for that is to prosecute the people who are guilty of giving illegal advice. To interfere with the right of holding a meeting because certain speakers may give illegal advice, is surely not logical. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were giving illegal advice to the people in the North of Ireland, no consequences followed, the reason probably being that, should results follow, the law then would take its usual course and punish, not only those guilty of breaking the law by violence,
  2082
  but those guilty of giving the advice. I submit that the same policy should be followed in the present case. I would like to call the attention of the House to one quotation from a leading article in to-day's "Morning Post"—I quote it as an extract from the "Pall Mall Gazette"—as showing the dangerous precedent that is being established if this new police order is allowed to pass unchallenged. The article says:—
  "We may even hope that the Liberal Government will proceed a step or two further in its wise restrictions of the liberty of the subject. For example, it might proscribe meetings held to support strikes which are directed against the safety and well-being of the nation. The ringleaders might be arrested, and, although we are certain that forcible feeding would not be necessary in their case, they might be kept under control and supervision without legal process upon some system akin to the so-called 'Cat and Mouse' Bill, which has been so ingeniously elaborated by our Liberal Home Secretary. We welcome the measures now being taken against these misguided women as useful precedents which will be available against more dangerous and more serious forms of political crime."
  The right of public meeting in this country has been won and maintained by very great task and sacrifice. Right hon. Members who now occupy seats on the Government Bench—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, during the Boer war, and the President of the Local Government Board during an unemployed agitation—insisted upon sufficient police protection being given to enable them to hold public meetings. When the President of the Local Government Board was prosecuted for having broken an Order similar to the present, prohibiting a meeting, he defended himself successfully before a Court of Law. My complaint is that the Police Order of this morning is interfering with the right of public meeting. It will bring to the side of the militants thousands of people who are opposed to their general policy. I repeat that if people make speeches in violation of the law, punish those who make the speeches; but do not interfere with the right of public meeting and set a dangerous precedent in the way that this Order does. The Home Secretary might remember in this connection that "force is no remedy." In all likelihood these meetings will be held. It applies to both sides. The fact of one side setting up a precedent does not justify the official side following that bad example. Further police prosecutions will follow, and a new phase will occur in this connection which will bring large numbers of people to the side of the women's movement who are now against their tactics, with the further danger of driving the movement underground.

  2083
  What is done now in the way of talking is done openly and in the light of day. Surely it is better that the authorities should know what is being advocated rather than have things planned in secret without warning, thus putting the authorities at a disadvantage. My last point is this: Home Secretaries have been beaten in every tussle they have had with the militant women. Forcible feeding has admittedly broken down, and this new method of applying coercion to the movement, and at the same time to interfere with a known and well-established right is also bound to fail. I ask the Home Secretary to repent, whilst there is yet time, and to cause this new Order to be at once withdrawn.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am glad to have the authority of the hon. Member himself that he regards the action of the militant women as a bad example, and that he objects to the course which I have taken on the ground that it will bring thousands to their ranks. It is interesting to know that the hon. Member is to be reckoned, with myself, as a strong opponent of militancy. On no other authority but that of the hon. Member should I have been willing to accept that conclusion. The hon. Member did not read to the House the terms of the letter written by Sir Edward Henry. I hope the House will bear with me while I read that letter, and then I will ask the hon. Member to what particular point in the letter he directs his complaint, whether as to points of fact alleged by Sir Edward Henry or to the conclusion that he draws from the facts. The letter is as follows:—
  "It has been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary that meetings held by the Women s Social and Political Union in Hyde Park, Wimbledon Common, and other public open spaces of the Metropolitan area, have been the occasion of great disorder…"
  I do not think the hon. Member will quarrel with that statement as a statement of fact. The disorder has lasted for many weeks. The letter proceeds—
  "notwithstanding the presence of large forces of police…"
  I do not think the hon. Member will dispute that allegation of fact that at these meetings large forces of police have been present—
  "and I have advised him that, having regard to the character of the speeches delivered thereat, it is not practicable by any police arrangements to obviate the possibility of similar disorder occurring if such meetings are held."
  2084
  I want to know if the hon. Member quarrels with the conclusion which Sir Edward Henry has drawn from the facts which have been entirely within his experience at open spaces in several parts of London during the last few weeks, these facts being that grave disorder has occurred though large forces of police have been present at the meetings, and that the police have been unable to keep order. The letter goes on:—
  "In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that it is the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union to advocate the commission of crimes…"
  The hon. Member does not dispute that it is the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union to advocate crimes…
  "the Secretary of State for the Home Department has directed me to instruct the Metropolitan Police to take such steps as are necessary and within their powers to prevent such meetings being held."
  I do not think the hon. Member would quarrel with any such statement of fact. If the hon. Member doubts the statement that the avowed policy of the Women's Social and Political Union is to advocate crime, I would refer him to the second annual report of that union issued only last week, in which, in black and white, crime is definitely advocated as the policy of the union. This is what appears in that report under the heading "War Renewed":—
  "The Government's betrayal of women was followed by an announcement by Mrs. Pankhurst that militancy would be resumed, and would be more drastic than ever. Guerilla tactics would be pursued; the militants would henceforth be concerned to produce the maximum of effect while retaining their liberty as long as possible."
  Then, in order that there should be no mistake as to what the friends of militancy mean, the paragraph proceeds:—
  "Since this declaration, militancy on a scale hitherto undreamt of has raged. Letter-box protests have continued more vigorously than before; golf greens have been destroyed; telegraph and telephone wires have been severed; a house that was in preparation for Mr. Lloyd George has been wrecked and buildings in Regent's Park and Kew Gardens have been burnt to the ground."
  There is a definite allegation by this society that their policy is crime, and that the members of this society go to these public spaces for the purpose of addressing public meetings in furtherance of the policy of this union. We have allowed these meetings in defence of the rights of free speech to be attempted for weeks. We have seen, as we might have expected to be the case amongst law-abiding people, that the announcement of these doctrines by women in public meetings has roused the audience to such a degree of passion that even a large force of police could not

  2085
  keep the peace. Attempts have been made again and again, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, to maintain order, and they have failed. They have advised me that their attempts in future in face of the growing difficulties of the case must be unavailing. I am confronted with this state of facts. I have a number of women who declare their intention to address public meetings advocating such doctrines and expressed in such language as must insult the meetings of any law-abiding citizens. I say to the hon. Member who has raised this question that from information which I have received as to the character of these audiences he is entirely wrong in what he has said upon that point. All that the police can judge of is the determined attempts which have been made to prevent these women from insulting an ordinary British audience by advocating crime. This is not a case of free speech. If it were the first, second, or third meeting, I would be inclined to say I would rather hear what these women have got to say and I will do my utmost to preserve order, but when week after week I find the task impossible it is insulting the common-sense of our people to allow these meetings to be continued, knowing that in the long run no opinions will be heard, no speeches will be delivered but bloodshed must sooner or later occur. In these circumstances, I think I am justified in directing the Commissioner of Police to instruct the Metropolitan police to take such steps as are necessary and within their powers to prevent such meetings being held. What will those steps be? A woman, who intends to hold a meeting for the purpose of advocating crime under circumstances which are, not likely, but certain as we know from experience, to lead to a breach of the peace, will be warned not to attempt to do so, and, if she perseveres, she will be arrested and charged with conduct leading to a breach of the peace in order that she may be bound over to keep the peace. It is a procedure which has been taken again and again in similar circumstances. The hon. Gentleman endeavours, on the authority of a leading article in the "Morning Post"—this is the first time I have ever known the hon. Member to go to the "Morning Post" for his authority—
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I quoted it in order to show that you are pleasing the "Morning Post" and the Conservative
  2086
  party, and therefore are false to the traditions of your own party.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that is absolutely necessary. I quite admit it is very rarely I please the "Morning Post," so far as I read that journal, or any of the other Conservative newspapers; but I believe in this action, if I am fortunate enough to get the support of the Conservative party, I shall be equally fortunate in getting the support of the Liberal papers. I have to appeal to the House of Commons, and I ask the House of Commons to judge me and to say what other steps any prudent or reasonable man could take in the circumstances. The hon. Member says that the same action might be taken with regard to speeches delivered by Labour leaders in the course of a strike. Speeches have been delivered by Labour leaders in the course of strikes, I can certainly say by the score, if not by the hundred but who has ever suggested interfering with them? Why? At these meetings speeches have been peacefully listened to by the audience. The audience wanted to hear the speaker, and the speaker had a perfect right to express his views to the audience. But here the audience did not want to hear the speaker. It is not a question of protecting the rights of free speech. In no single case can any coherent speech of these women be heard in the public spaces at the present time. I am not interfering with free speech; I am interfering with disorder, and, with the leave of the hon. Member, I mean to keep order.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think this Debate which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has started, ought not to close until there is a clear declaration made in this House of the statement made by the hon. Member, namely, that in his opinion it is necessary that soldiers should be brought in.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I did not say that.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Oh! but you did. My hon. Friend said that soldiers were available.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What I said was that, if the police were not sufficient to preserve the rights of free speech, the soldiers were there.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I want every trade unionist in this country to know that the hon. Member who has been preaching in all the Labour papers and denouncing on

  2087
  every platform throughout the country the Government and their predecessors for bringing in the aid of the military to support the civil power, in the year 1913 comes down to the House of Commons and says, "If the police are not sufficient to maintain order there are the military available. It is only a few months ago that the hon. Member made a violent attack in this House on the Government because they had brought in soldiers in South Wales during the time of the railway strike. Disorder had then prevailed, and it was such, at all events, that the man who was driving the engine was rendered insensible.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: That statement is not true.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It was in the report given by the police to the Home Office at the time, although the hon. Member disputed it. He disputes everything that does not accord with his own particular views. Let the House be clear on this, that despite all the statements made in the Labour press, and by the Labour leaders against capitalists bringing in soldiers in order to suppress the worker, the leader of the Labour party himself [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—at any rate the leader of the Independent Labour party, which is, I suppose, a more progressive party than that which sits on the benches below me, is of opinion that the military are desirable where the police fail to keep order. I only want to say with regard to the issue before the House, we hear much in these days about liberty; but what about the crimes which are being committed in the
  2088
  name of liberty? Here we have people on Sunday using public parks, which are intended for the convenience of the public, and they are converting those public parks into bear gardens, because certain people in the name of free speech choose to go there and incite to disorder and to breaking the law. Surely it is right that people who wish to enjoy the quiet of the parks on Sundays should be allowed to do so, without these persons going there and in the name of free speech preaching something which is contrary to the law. I think the Home Secretary in this matter has acted perfectly rightly. There is nothing to prevent speeches being delivered by supporters of the suffrage movement. There is nothing to prevent any militant suffragist taking a public hall and having the police there to preserve order. But so long as they deliberately preach disorder and incitement to breaking the law, for anyone to say they have a right to hold meetings in the public parks is to my mind absolutely wrong and a proposal to which the House of Commons ought not to listen for one moment.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I desire to say that I happened to have been in the Park during the last two meetings, and in my view, merely as an eye-witness, the statement made by the Home Secretary is substantially correct, while the statement of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) is a ridiculous understatement of what occurred. There was a general riot. I was within a few yards of the platform, and could not hear a single word of the speeches.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Second Division Clerks.
  Second Division Clerks.
  Marconi Select Committee.
  Marconi Select Committee.
  Site Values.
  Site Values.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Lunatics (Ireland).
  Lunatics (Ireland).
  Agricultural Grant (County Wexford).
  Agricultural Grant (County Wexford).
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS.
  PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS.
  ARTIFICER ENGINEERS.
  ARTIFICER ENGINEERS.
  Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
  Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
  Museums (Sunday Visitors).
  Museums (Sunday Visitors).
  Children (Deaths).
  Children (Deaths).
  Poona Case.
  Poona Case.
  Lambs and Pigs (Detention).
  Lambs and Pigs (Detention).
  Swine Fever.
  Swine Fever.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Cows in Quarantine.
  Cows in Quarantine.
  Calf Lymph.
  Calf Lymph.
  Parish Council Elections.
  Parish Council Elections.
  Prices of Commodities.
  Prices of Commodities.
  Telegraph System.
  Telegraph System.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
EBBW VALE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
PORTHCAWL AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Gough be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth; read, and agreed to.
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 Ravensworth be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Ramsay (E. Dalhousie); read, and agreed to.

HIS LATE MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES.
The King's Answer to the Address of the 1st instant reported by the Lord Chamberlain (L. Sandhurst) and read as follows:
"I return you My most sincere thanks
"for your loyal and dutiful Address
"expressing sympathy with Me in the
"great loss which I have sustained by
"the death of My Beloved Uncle the
"King of the Hellenes.
"I unite with you in the expression
"of indignation at the tidings of the "assassination.
"It affords Me great comfort and
"gratification to receive this expression
"of your cordial feelings towards Myself
"and My Family and to be reminded of
"the warm interest you take in all that
"concerns Them."

CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
DUNDEE CORPORATION (IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under the Act:
1. As to the formation of Associations of Deposit Contributors, dated 11th April 1913;
2. With respect to the time within which a Seaman, Marine or Soldier serving at the commencement of the Act, may become a member of an Approved Society for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 46 of the Act, dated 7th April 1913;
3. As to notices to be given by insured persons transferring from the voluntary to the employed rate, dated 24th March 1913:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 18.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord Granard (E. Granard).

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Lord Herschell). (No. 19.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.