Sitting of 30 April 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Cambridge (Eastern or Newmarket Division), in the room of Sir Charles Day Rose, baronet, deceased.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Burton-upon-Trent, Kendal, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Stockton-on-Tees, and Torquay." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Biddulph." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AT PRICES OF 1900.
Copy presented of Tables showing for each of the years 1900 to 1912 the estimated value of Imports and Exports of the United Kingdom at the Prices prevailing in 1900, with an Introductory Memorandum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA.
Copy presented of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries, 1907–8 to 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 28th April; Mr. MacCaw]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Accounts presented of the Metropolitan Police and the Police Pension Funds for the year ended 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Medical and Sanatorium Benefit) (Wales) Order, 1913, dated 28th April, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the National Health Insurance (Joint Committee), acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions Amendment) Regulations, dated 22nd April, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the National Health Insurance (Joint Committee) and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, under the National Insurance Act, 1911, as to the Contributions to be paid in respect of Out-workers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 100.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, as to the Payment to be made on the Death of a Deposit Contributor out of amount standing to his credit in the Post Office Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 101.]
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 102.]
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Outworkers Exclusion) Provisional Order, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 15th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled The National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions Amendment) Regulations (England), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Navy and Marine) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Soldiers) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 107.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. Stuart-Wortley reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir David Brynmor Jones to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Extension of Polling Hours Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers upon the North Eastern Railway Company for the construction of new railways and other
1152
works, and the acquisition of lands; to authorise the construction of railways and the acquisition of lands by the South Yorkshire Joint Line Committee; and for other purposes." [North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas Company to construct additional works; and for other purposes." [Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Swansea Harbour Trustees." [Swansea Harbour Bill [Lords.]
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas Bill [Lords],
Swansea Harbour Bill [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Silloth Gas Bill, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill;"

2. "That, in the case of the Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit;"

3. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    "DREADNOUGHT" FLEET.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether in the middle of next year our "Dreadnought" and super-"Dreadnought" fleet, when deductions are

    1153
    made for Colonial, foreign, and Mediterranean requirements and for ships not ready for immediate use, will be in excess of the like fleet of Germany; and, if so, by how many battleships of the class indicated?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the statements which he made in the debates on the Estimates, and to the published Returns laid before Parliament.
    Mr. HUNT: How many ships of the "Dreadnought" type shall we have in Home waters in April of next year immediately ready for sudden war, to defend us against invasion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have said, Returns have been laid before Parliament.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Mr. FALLEasked if the existing rates of pay of certain ranks of commissioned and subordinate officers, Royal Navy, namely, sub-lieutenants, midshipmen, assistant paymasters under two years' seniority, clerks, and assistant clerks were fixed some fifty years ago, and that, notwithstanding the higher standards required for entry and the corresponding increased expense of preparation, no improvement of pay has been suggested for these young officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. FALLE: Have not the parents of these young officers to assist them very largely?
    Mr. FALLEasked whether the existing table governing the rates of retired pay of accountant officers, Royal Navy, and based upon age and service, dates from the Order in Council, 22nd February, 1870; whether the table then applied to navigating engineers, chaplains, and medical officers, as well as to accountant officers; and whether amendment and improvements have been introduced in the forty-three years interval as regards all the classes, except navigating and accountant officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, there is only one officer of the separate navigating class now on the active list, the duties for which that class existed being
    1154
    now carried out by officers of the military branch. In respect of accountant officers, there has been an improvement owing to the institution, in 1903, of the rank of paymaster-in-chief on the active list with additional retired pay for service as such. The maximum retired pay to which an accountant officer can attain is now £50 in excess of that laid down in the Order in Council quoted.
    Mr. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any hope that the matter will be looked into and revised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I am afraid I cannot.

    TURKISH BATTLESHIPS.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether any negotiations are in progress for acquiring the battleship or battleships, at present under construction for the Turkish Government, for the British Navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Sir, I have nothing to add on this subject to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 20th of November last.

    H.M.S. "MALAYA" (CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the "Malaya" has yet been commenced; if not, on what date her keel will be laid; what is the anticipated date of delivery for service; and what is the contract period of construction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Preparatory steps for the building of the "Malaya" are being taken, but whether the contract period of construction will be thirty months or twenty-seven has not yet been settled.

    H.M.S. "DELHI," "BENBOW," AND "TIGER."
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the "Delhi," "Benbow," and "Tiger" are likely to be delayed; when they will be launched; and by what date it is now hoped they will be completed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Every effort is being made to expedite work on these ships; but I do not wish to forecast the date of their completion at present.

    PROGRAMME, 1912–13.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked when it is hoped to launch the four armoured ships of the 1912–13 programme; and if there is any delay in their construction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is too early to give anything but a rough estimate of the launching dates. No delay in the dates of completion is anticipated at present.

    ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the privilege of wearing plain clothes by non-commissioned officers below the rank of colour-sergeant, and men of the Royal Marine Artillery serving at Eastney Barracks has recently been cancelled; whether he is aware that hitherto these non-commissioned officers and men have been allowed to wear plain clothes whilst on pass in their station, and that the deprivation of this privilege has entailed hardship and dissatisfaction amongst all ranks, and is considered to be an unmerited punishment upon a body of men who have in no way contravened the Regulations, but who have, on the contrary, greatly appreciated the boon; and whether he will at once take steps to have the recent order abolished?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It appears that certain orders respecting the wearing of plain clothes recently issued by the General Officer Commanding the troops in the Southern Command have been taken by the Commandant to apply to the Royal Marine Artillery. The matter is now being investigated, and the result will be announced as soon as a decision is arrived at.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I take that as a reply to my question, or shall I put it to the Secretary for War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry, but I do not know the question to which my hon. Friend refers.

    BATTLESHIPS (NAMES).
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked when the Town class for cruisers will be reopened?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no Town class of battleships. I cannot say at present when the practice of giving the names of towns to cruisers will be revived.

    COALING HULKS (PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the working hours and the pay of the men employed on the coaling hulks C1 and C11, moored in Portsmouth Harbour?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The normal working hours of the men employed on C1 and C11 are as follows:—
    Ordinary days, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. (with half-hour for dinner); or 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. (with 1½ hours for dinner), according to coaling requirements.
    Saturdays, 7 a.m. to noon.
    The men are also required to take turns in keeping watch throughout the night. When coaling His Majesty's ships or discharging colliers, it is frequently necessary to employ the men beyond the above mentioned hours. The men are paid the following daily rates (including allowances) for seven days a week, the payment for seven days being made to cover all ordinary overtime:—Coal Depot C1.—Master, 8s. 6d.; mate, 4s. 10d.; 1st engineer, 9s. 6d.; 2nd engineer, 6s. 6d.; leading harbourmen, 5s. 5d.; harbourmen, 4s. 3d. (including an allowance of 4d. per day for electrical knowledge); leading stokers, 4s. 3d.; stokers, 4s. Coal haulabout.—Master, 5s. 5d.; harbourmen, 3s. 11d.; leading stoker (in charge), 4s. 9d.; stokers, 4s. Overtime pay is allowed in addition under certain special conditions, and the superintendent is also empowered to approve extra pay when men are subjected to unusual exposure. I may add that the conditions of service of these men, amongst others, are being considered by the Departmental Committee on Yard Craft.

    H.M.S. "PSYCHE."
    Mr. GRETTONasked if His Majesty's ship "Psyche" was docked at Cocatoo Island last month; if extensive repairs are necessary; and whether a large part of the ship's bottom is rotten?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have already stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Finsbury, on the 7th February a report was received to the effect that a small leak had been discovered in the "Psyche's" bottom under the cement No. 3 stokehold. She was ordered by the commander-in-chief to Sydney for the removal of the cement, and the examination and necessary repairs to the bottom, and to be taken in hand for annual refit. Further reports state that several plates in the bottom have been found worn thin, necessitating renewal. Extensive repairs to the ship are now being carried out. A report in full detail on the condition of this ship is now on its way home.
    Mr. GRETTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the nature of the report? Alarming statements, coming from Australia, have been made as to the defective condition of the ship's bottom.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have answered the latter in reply to the question on the Paper. As to whether I could submit the report, I could not at present say.

    ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many merchant ships have now been supplied with guns for their defence against the attack of foreign vessels; how much farther the experiment is to be carried; and will he undertake to make widely known a list of these armed merchantmen, in order that the public may abstain from employing ships which involve danger of conflict with the armed vessels of a foreign Power?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to make any statement about this matter at the present time beyond saying that my hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that these vessels are armed for offensive purposes. I am equally sure he is still more mistaken in supposing that the public will not support a measure necessary for their safety.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is that the way a peaceful feeling is being promoted amongst those who use the sea as a highway?
    Mr. HUNT: May I inquire whether the public and their merchandise and the hon. Baronet himself would not be much safer in an armed ship than in an unarmed ship?

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Rowhedge Engineering Company of Colchester, who are contractors to the Admiralty, do not pay wages up to those ruling in the district to blacksmiths and electricians; and if he will take steps to get compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no knowledge of any complaint against the company to this effect. I am in communication with them on the subject.

    BOOTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN LEATHER).
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked whether the test of English box-calf against the foreign leather used in the manufacture of boots for the Navy has yet been made; and, if so, with what result?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is in the negative. It has not yet been possible to commence this trial owing to the difficulty which has occurred in obtaining suitable skins. A communication is being addressed to the Light Leather Trades Federation on the subject.

  AIRCRAFT.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (JUNIOR MECHANICS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the exact amount of pay to naval junior mechanics in the Royal Flying Corps and to those naval junior mechanics not so employed; and what, calculated on this basis, is the amount of danger pay which the former receive?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Junior mechanics in the Royal Flying Corps receive pay at the following rates:—

    First-class mechanic

    …

    4s. a day

    Second-class mechanic

    …

    2s. a day

    together with flying pay of 4s. or 2s. a day if qualified as fliers. If they are not so qualified, they receive only the pay of 4s. or 2s. a day according to their class in the corps. These mechanics are drawn from various classes in the Navy, where their pay may have ranged from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 10d. a day. For instance, a carpenter's crew in the Navy, with pay of 2s. 6d. a day, is graded as first-class mechanic at 4s. a day. The actual addition on joining the Royal Flying Corps to the pay received while in the Navy is not, therefore, the same in all cases. But in every case the rate is on a scale higher than would be received by the individual in the Royal Navy, the Royal Flying Corps rates of pay being intended to cover the risk involved in being occasionally taken up as passengers in aeroplanes.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the pay of carpenter's crews has been raised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, no, no; I gave the hon. Member an illustration showing how the Royal Flying Corps is on a scale higher in the Navy.

    AIRSHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked how many airships are under construction or have been ordered for the British Navy; what are their types; and do they belong to the rigid, semi-rigid, or non-rigid category?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Two non-rigid have been ordered and are almost completed; one has carried out successful preliminary flights. A joint naval and military non-rigid airship is also under construction. This vessel is for training purposes.
    Mr. HUNT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the size of these airships and when the contractors are bound to deliver them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I could give that information or a good part of it if notice were given.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich): What will be the speed of these two airships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The speed will be considerable, but I should not like to say without inquiry whether or not I ought to give it.

    AEROPLANES AND HYDRO-AEROPLANES FOR BRITISH NAVY.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked how many aeroplanes and hydro-aeroplanes, respectively, are complete, building, or on order for the British Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to add anything at present to my statement in presenting the Navy Estimates.

    ZEPPELIN AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, of the sixteen Zeppelin airships that have been built in Germany, only six remain, the rest having already proved obsolete, useless, or disastrous; and whether he will continue to resist the appeal made to him to build or buy airships similar to those which in other countries have been found far from satisfactory?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The statement that of sixteen Zeppelin airships built in Germany only six remain is correct. There is no intention of building or buying airships of types that have proved unsatisfactory in other countries.

    AIRSHIPS (LANDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a German airship was recently driven out of its course and forced to alight on a French champ de Mars, and that before this airship was released drawings, photographs, and descriptions were taken of five inventions hitherto held to be the exclusive property of the German Government, and of which specifications were treated as military secrets; and whether he can state that due care will be taken to prevent British aircraft from alighting on foreign drill-grounds, and being thus exposed to the scrutiny of foreign military authorities?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The replies to the first and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information to give.

    VOLUNTEER FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked what steps are being taken in regard to the offer of Messrs. Cain, of Liverpool, of two fully equipped aeroplanes; whether he is prepared to countenance the formation of a Volunteer Flying Corps; and if he will consider the possibility of asking the donors above mentioned to apply the gift to the furtherance of aviation in some other direction in the event of the present offer being unacceptable?
    Colonel SEELY: This matter is now under consideration, and a reply will be sent in a few days, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Gentleman. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    FLYING INSTRUCTION (SPECIAL RESERVE OFFICERS).
    Mr. HUNTasked (1) whether it has yet been found possible to give Special Reserve officers pay during instruction in flying; and (2) whether, as officers have to provide their own lodging and outfit for instruction in flying, he can now say whether anything can be allowed towards these expenses if an officer is prevented by illness or accident from obtaining a certificate?
    Colonel SEELY: I recognise that there may be cases in which the present Regulations operate hardly upon individuals, and I am considering whether some means of obviating this can be found.

    CLEMENT-BAYARD AIRSHIP.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War (1) the names of the members of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee who induced the War Office to purchase for £18,000, part of which sum was contributed by wealthy patriotic persons, the Clement-Bayard airship which has lately been dismantled; (2) whether, when the Clement-Bayard airship was dismantled, any of the parts were sold; if so, what sum was realised; if not, what value has been obtained for an airship which in 1910 was considered cheap at £18,000; and (3) whether he is aware that the Clement-Bayard airship purchased in October, 1910, was stated by its owner to have cost over £30,000 originally, but was soon after sold by him for £18,000; that this airship was declared by the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee to have proved her worth for military operations, but has proved of no military value whatsoever; and whether he will now publish all the correspondence about this airship which passed prior and subsequent to the purchase?
    Colonel SEELY: There is no official record of the names of the Committee mentioned, of which the hon. and gallant Member for the Fareham Division was Chairman. No parts of the airship have as yet been sold. The engines are still available and are at the aircraft factory. As regards Question 33, the reply to the first part is in the affirmative; and as regards the second part, no such definite statement by the Committee can be traced. As regards the last part of the question, the reply is in the negative.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the action of the War Office in regard to this airship was justified? If the airship was fit for service, why was it not used, and if it was not fit for service, why was it purchased?
    Colonel SEELY: I think part of the last two supplementary questions is answered in some of the replies I have just given. Of course, it is the fact that the envelope of this balloon leaked so badly that it would have been very costly to have inflated it. No doubt mistakes were made on both sides, by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, as well as by my Department, but we have not made half as many mistakes in this matter as our neighbours.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Was not the leakage known to the War Office before the ship was purchased?
    Colonel SEELY: It was before my time. There was a strong Committee of this House engaged in these transactions, and I understand they thought the airship was serviceable, and I suppose we thought it was when it was taken over. Mistakes must be made in a new matter of this kind. We have not made very many mistakes of a large kind in the matter of airships. We have been signally successful.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS (INDIAN OFFICERS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the provision of £15,500 and £4,100 for forming a school of aeronautics and for aviation buildings, respectively, represents all that is to be done in India in 1913–14 in respect of military aviation; whether officers of native regiments when on leave in England will be under some official disability, which prevents them from being appointed to the Royal Flying Corps; whether officers of British regiments serving in India can only join such corps on less favourable pecuniary terms than their brother officers serving in regiments at home; whether an officer who was attached for a short period to the late air battalion has been appointed adviser on aviation to the Indian General Staff; why officers serving in India, which offers superior physical conditions for airship and aeroplane practice to those obtaining in these Islands, are not encouraged to perfect themselves in the art of aviation by being allowed to join the Royal Flying Corps on favourable terms; and whether the Secretary of State in Council will advise the Governor General in Council that the provisions made in the Budget and the conditions under which officers serving in India can learn the art of aviation are wholly inadequate to the importance this branch of warfare has attained?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India intend to have their own school of military aviation, and have provided the sums mentioned by the hon. Member to meet preliminary charges in the present year. The scheme will be under an officer trained in the Home air battalion here, and the future staff of instructors will be similarly trained at the cost of Indian revenues. In view of the facilities which will shortly

    1163
    exist in India, it is not considered necessary to assist from Indian revenues officers of the Indian Army to learn flying in this country, or to accept charges on account of the training here of officers of British regiments stationed in India. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that these arrangements will prove inadequate.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the hon. Gentleman fill in the answer with a date or two; when it is going to take place?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I could not do so without referring once again to the papers. I will let him know.

    Putumayo Rubber District.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further information regarding the sale of eight Indian boys and four girls brought from the Putumayo district by Lieutenant O'Donovan in August of last year; and whether he has taken any and, if so, what steps in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Acting British Consul at Iquitos has lately reported that he has received information confirming the allegation that eight Indian boys and four girls, brought from the Putumayo by Lieutenant O'Donovan, of the Peruvian Army, were received on board the launch at the mouth of the River Javary. The Acting Consul is further informed that these Indians were sold and put ashore at an estate, named San Pablo, some 120 miles above the frontier in Peruvian territory. The eldest girl, whose age was estimated at about seventeen years, is said to have been since seen at Iquitos. I am instructing His Majesty's representative in Peru by mail to bring the substance of this report to the notice of the Peruvian Government and to ask them for any observations they may desire to offer on the subject, calling attention to Article XV. of the Treaty of 10th April, 1850, between Great Britain and Peru, in regard to prohibition of participation in the slave trade.

    Naturalisation Laws (Colonies).
    Mr. LONGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory manner in which the naturalisation laws
    1164
    have worked in our Over-sea Dominions; and whether he can see his way to introduce a Bill on the subject?
    The SECRETARY OF STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The amendment of the Naturalisation laws formed the subject of consideration at the last Imperial Conference, and, subsequently, of correspondence with the Dominion Governments, and the proposed Bill has been recast. The draft of the Bill which it is hoped to introduce shortly is now before the Dominion Governments.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter of naturalisation has been before the Imperial Conference since 1887?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It has never been technically before the Imperial Conference. It has never been so effectively before the Imperial Conference as it was last time, and as it will be before us within the next few weeks.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (EMPIRE DAY).
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Marlborough College contingent of the Officers' Training Corps has been forbidden by the Army Council to attend Empire Day celebrations at Marlborough on the ground that the celebration is an unofficial one; whether the junior division of the Officers' Training Corps forms any recognised part of the Army under the Army Act; whether its contingents are mainly supported by school funds and cadets' parents; and whether it is intended that public school corps shall not in future parade for school and local celebrations as heretofore?
    Colonel SEELY: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a question on this subject put yesterday by the hon. Member for the Devizes Division to which I have nothing to add.
    Major M'CALMONT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the second, third, and fourth parts of my question which were not included in the question which was put yesterday?
    Colonel SEELY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see supplementary questions which the hon. Gentleman put to his question, and which were answered.

    OFFICERS (PUBLIC DISCUSSION).
    Mr. LONGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to adopt the suggestion made by Colonel Sir Lonsdale Hale that a conference should be held at the United Service Institution at which free discussion should be invited by officers, whether on full pay or not?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. Such a proceeding would be inconsistent with paragraph 453 of the King's Regulations. Obedience to the rule there laid down has been of great advantage to the Army, and strict observance of it is necessary.
    Mr. LONG: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same rule to officers on full pay who express their opinions in favour of the system as he does when he refuses to allow officers on full pay to express their opinions against it?
    Colonel SEELY: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has himself held office, should ask that question. Of course, every recruiting poster and every general officer presenting prizes to the Regular Army or Territorial Force endeavours to obtain recruits under the present voluntary system. If it is required to make a change in the law or to adopt another system, the proper place to bring it is here in this House for Debate and Division.
    Mr. LONG: That is not my question at all.

    GENERAL STAFF (QUESTION OF POLICY).
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before quoting the opinion of the General Staff on questions of policy, he will take steps to ascertain the views of the officers of the General Staff as a whole; and, if not, whether he will make it clear that the opinions he quotes are those of the chief of the Imperial General Staff, who is in no way bound to consult other officers?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. I have no intention whatever of interfering with the discretion of the chief of the Imperial General Staff in this matter.
    Major M'CALMONT: May I ask whether it is not very misleading to the House and unfair to the officers of the General Staff that their views should be quoted when they have not been asked for them?
    Colonel SEELY: I am very much surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is serving in the Army, should make that suggestion in reply to my answer. The present distinguished chief of the Imperial General Staff represents the General Staff in a very special degree, owing to the fact that he has special knowledge of military matters, and I have full confidence in him. I am surprised the hon. and gallant Gentleman should put the question.

    SOUTHERN COMMAND (PLAIN CLOTHES FOR NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether an order curtailing the wearing of plain clothes to non-commissioned officers and men in the Southern Command has recently been issued; if so, whether he will say what restrictions in respect to the wearing of plain clothes this order involves; and why these restrictions have suddenly become necessary?
    Colonel SEELY: Inquiries are being made into this matter.

    BRITISH AND NATIVE OFFICERS (INDIA).
    Captain CLIVEasked whether the proposed increase of officers' pay will be extended to officers serving in British regiments in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State for War has not yet informed the India Office of his proposals for improving the pay of officers of the British Army. When they are received, the Government of India will be consulted on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Captain CLIVEasked whether he can see his way to allow officers of British regiments serving in India to combine privilege and general leave, as is allowed to officers on the staff and in native regiments?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State will consult the Government of India on the matter.

    Opium (Receipts in India).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount received by the Indian Government for opium from 1900–06, and from 1907–12; how much has been received for opium for China; and how much for opium for other countries?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The net opium receipts in the seven years 1900–1906 amounted to twenty-four and one-third million pounds sterling; in the six years 1907–1912, to twenty-eight and two-thirds million pounds sterling. The receipts derived from the traffic with China cannot be exactly calculated. But on the best estimate possible China accounted for about eighteen and a half millions in the first period, and sixteen and a half millions in the second.

    Immoral Traffic (India).
    Mr. FERENSasked whether the Indian Government has received and considered the opinions of local Governments and of the High Court on the Bills introduced in the Viceroy's Council last September for stopping the immoral traffic in foreign women and in young Indian girls; and what steps it proposes to take in regard to these evils?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India has received the opinions of local governments and of the High Court on both Bills, and will submit its recommendations to the Secretary of State. These recommendations have not yet been received.

    Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Indian Reports).
    Captain MURRAYasked whether the Government of India early in 1910 asked local governments and administrations to furnish Reports regarding the working of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890; whether these Reports have yet been received by the Government of India; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of making them public?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answers to the first two parts are in the affirmative; as regards the third part, the Secretary of State will consult the Government of India.

    Engineering Apprentices (India).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether he is aware of the difficulty which is experienced by Indian engineering students in this country in obtaining the necessary practical experience as apprentices in engineering works; whether he is aware that the Japanese Government, in placing contracts with engineering firms in this country, stipulates that every contracting firm shall take a certain number
    1168
    of Japanese apprentices and afford them facilities for practical experience; and whether the Indian Government has considered the advisability of making a similar rule with regard to contracts for the Indian Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 22nd April.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CREDIT BALANCES.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether no balances in hand on the coming into operation of the National Insurance Act are to be allowed on the administration account, whilst a deficit is to be made good at once by a levy on the members; whether this will result in many approved societies being short of funds for working expenses; and whether it could be arranged that the transfer of credit balances from administrative to benefit accounts should take place oftener than at the valuation period, namely, every three years?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The amount which may be carried out of contributions to the administration account (i.e., appropriated for administration expenses) is limited by regulation; but there is nothing to prevent any unexpended balance of sums so carried to the administration account from being carried forward and used to meet subsequent expenses—vide paragraph 4 of the National Health Insurance (Administration Expenses) Regulations, dated 20th January, 1913. There would be no advantage in transferring surplus balances on the administration account to the benefit fund during the period before a valuation takes place, since the whole of a society's funds including such balances are in fact available for the payment of benefits, and the only object of such a transfer is to increase any surplus or diminish any deficiency upon the benefit fund which may be disclosed upon valuation. A deficiency on the administration account has to be made good at the end of each year, but deficiencies as at 12th January last are subject to a special regulation which admits of their being carried forward if the Commissioners are satisfied that there is reasonable prospect of their

    1169
    being liquidated by savings on administration in the following year.

    Low-WAGE WORKERS' CARDS.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will arrange to dispense with a separate coloured card for low-wage workers; and whether the fact that such workers are now required to have a card of a special colour works as a handicap against them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The method originally adopted for dealing with persons to whom the special scales of contribution set out in the Second Schedule to the National Insurance Act apply proved so unsatisfactory in working that the special cards referred to in the question were devised. I have had no complaints that workers to whom these cards are supplied find that they are handicapped in consequence in the search for employment.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter into consideration if I give instances, because I can assure him it is very serious?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not altogether satisfied with the system, like the hon. Gentleman, and I shall be very glad to confer with him on the subject.

    PANEL DOCTORS (LONDON).
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that 106 of the London panel doctors have each from 2,000 to 7,000 patients on their lists; that, consequently, some of the patients cannot get medical attendance and have to pay outside doctors as well as their insurance money; and what he intends to do to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that no doctor on the London panel has 7,000 insured persons on his list. Some misapprehension has been caused by the fact that in certain cases the doctor who is supposed to have a large number on his list is in fact the senior member of a partnership or firm, the members of which are collectively responsible for the treatment of those persons. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. If any insured person fails to obtain adequate medical attendance and treatment from the doctor whom he has selected, the insurance committee, on having the case brought to their attention by himself or
    1170
    his approved society or otherwise, will arrange for his transfer to another doctor.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not a fact that the doctors have at all events from 3,000 to 5,000 patients on their books; does the right hon. Gentleman consider that satisfactory, and is it possible for the patients to get proper medical attention under those circumstances?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The doctors have on their books the patients who have chosen them; that is what we mean by the free choice of doctor. If they find they cannot get the attendance they want, then they can be transferred to another doctor.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the greatest number of patients a doctor has got?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I can say that. I do not think I have any specific knowledge.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are several thousands.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that there is no doctor on the London panel with that number.

    AGED AND DISABLED PERSONS.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had his attention called to the following four classes of persons affected by the Insurance Act: members who on account of age do not come under the National Insurance Act, members who become insured persons under the Act between the ages of sixty-five and seventy, members of the society at the time of the passing of the Act who on account of disablement are unable to become insured persons under the Act, and other members of the society who were such at the date of the passing of the Act; and whether he will consider making a Grant to assist such cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A special Grant at the rate of 2s. 6d. a head has been voted by Parliament towards meeting the cost of the provision of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act for all insured persons entitled to that benefit, and a similar amount is also available towards meeting the cost of providing medical attendance and treatment for persons insured under the Act who were between

    1171
    sixty-five and seventy years of age at the date of their entry into insurance, and who are not entitled to medical benefit, but for whom their societies are providing medical attendance and treatment, either as one of the benefits under Section 49 of the Act, or out of their private funds under arrangements made prior to the passing of the Act. The Grant out of Parliamentary funds towards the cost of benefits is limited to persons who are insured under the Act.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if associations having an arrangement with the Board of Trade under Section 105 of the National Insurance Act obtain receipts for unemployment benefit paid to members each week on a Form U.I. 75, and that the forms in question are forwarded for checking purposes to the Labour Exchange authorities for ultimate consignment to the headquarters or branch of the respective associations; if in the case of more than one association not a single form has yet been returned by the Labour Exchange central office; and, seeing that in some cases associations have no other receipts for the moneys paid except on the U.I. 75 forms, and that the failure of the central Labour Exchange authorities to return the forms is causing apprehension and inconvenience to associations, he will take action to ensure that the forms which are found to be in order are immediately returned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I do not think that all the statements in the question are quite accurate, and I hardly see why apprehension or inconvenience should necessarily be caused to associations by the present practice under which the forms referred to are retained in the Department until the whole of the forms relating to the quarter have been checked and found in order. As my hon. Friend is aware, large payments on account are made to the associations in the meantime. I may, however, say that the Board of Trade have for some time had under consideration a modification in this particular form which I hope will very considerably simplify the work both of the Department and of the secretaries of associations, and will incidentally remove any difficulties of the kind which my hon. Friend has in mind.

    MEDICAL INSURANCE.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many insured persons have employed doctors not on the panel in order to ensure prompt and efficient attention; and whether the cost of medical attention so obtained or any proportionate part thereof is refunded?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As insured persons can obtain prompt and efficient attention from doctors on the panel, there is no need for them to employ other doctors on this account, nor have I any evidence that this course is being taken. In any case of complaint of neglect the insured person should communicate with the insurance committee, whose duty it is to investigate the matter.
    Mr. F. HALL: If an insured person is on a given doctor's panel and is unable to obtain the services of that doctor, will he, in the event of being compelled to employ another medical attendant, have a part of the expense thereby incurred allowed to him?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure whether the committee have any power to allow expenses not already authorised.
    Mr. F. HALL: Then the insured person would be paying twice for medical attendance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no evidence that insured persons cannot obtain prompt and efficient attention from his doctor on the panel.

    SMALL FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how many small friendly societies, registered and unregistered, existed in Great Britain two years ago; how many of these have become approved under the National Insurance Act; and how many are known to have been wound up during the same period?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of registered friendly societies of all sizes in England and Wales on the 31st December, 1910, was 6,130; no information is available as to the number of unregistered societies. Of these, 1,318 registered friendly societies and 700 unregistered have been approved under the National Insurance Act, and 955 registered friendly societies have been dissolved, and the registry of seventy-four has been cancelled since the

    1173
    above date. During the same period 309 new societies have been registered. If the hon. Member desires, I will obtain information as to Scotland. Societies have not been classified in the records as large or small.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked in how many and which counties or groups of counties associations of small societies have been formed under Section 39 of the National Insurance Act; and in how many more is the formation of such associations contemplated before the end of the current year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Section 39 relates to associations of small societies for the special purpose of partly pooling any surpluses or deficiencies disclosed by a valuation, and associations formed solely for that purpose would not normally be yet arranged. A number of associations, with functions mainly advisory in character, have been formed to assist small societies in their work under the Act. In England the information in the possession of the Insurance Commissioners shows that such associations have been formed or are in the course of formation in eleven counties or groups of counties. In Wales also eleven associations of small societies have been formed under Section 22 of the Friendly Societies Act. Many of these associations will doubtless be used for the purpose of Section 39 when the time arrives. In Scotland and Ireland (where, of course, the circumstances are very different from those in England and Wales) no associations, so far as the Commissioners are aware, are yet being formed.

    PROSECUTIONS OF FARMERS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how many farmers in Great Britain have refused and still refuse, as employers of labour, to carry out the provisions of Part I of the National Insurance Act, and in what county or counties the bulk of these farmers are to be found; and what steps, if any, are being taken to compel their obedience to the law?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Although in some cases difficulty is being experienced in enforcing the payment of arrears all serious organised resistance of the nature suggested by the hon. Member has now collapsed. The ultimate means of compelling obedience to the law is prosecution, and this is being employed both against persons who
    1174
    are still refusing compliance and against those who, though now complying, have refused to pay arrears. In all fifty-four prosecutions have been instituted against farmers in England, of which seven have been in Buckinghamshire, seven in Warwickshire, six in Berkshire, five in Suffolk, four in Essex, and four in Yorkshire (North Riding).
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Have they all succeeded?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as I know, every case has resulted in a conviction.

    LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the proposed appointment by the Lancashire Insurance Committee of a clerk at a salary of £500 per annum; whether he is aware that the person to be appointed is already clerk to the Lancashire County Council, clerk to the justices of the peace, secretary to the Lancashire Education Committee, and holds other salaried appointments, bringing him in altogether a salary of over £5,000 a year; and whether the Insurance Commissioners will consider the advisability of refusing to confirm the appointment and suggesting the appointment of a man who can devote his time to the duties of the office?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the appointment of the clerk to the Lancashire County Council as clerk to the Lancashire Insurance Committee was fully discussed at a meeting of that committee and was carried by a large majority. The gentleman appointed has been acting as clerk to the committee during the past nine months, and the Commissioners see no reason to override the decision of the committee. I may add that the appointment is terminable at three months' notice and is subject to revision by the new committee, which is shortly to be constituted.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arrangements for the administration of Part I. of the Insurance Act in Lancashire are in a very backward state, and that in no single district has a meeting yet been held?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My impression was that Lancashire was one of the most forward of all the counties in dealing with Insurance. If there is any dissatisfaction with the work of this gentleman the new

    1175
    committee, which will be appointed in a very few weeks from now, can express their dissatisfaction by appointing someone else.
    Mr. A. SMITH: Can the right. hon. Gentleman say in what part of Lancashire a district meeting has been held?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Mr. POINTER: Are we to assume that this position is a sinecure, seeing that the gentleman who is to have it can do so many other things at the same time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: So far as I am concerned the gentleman who is to have the position appears to regard it as anything but a sinecure, judging from the number of times he has appeared before the Insurance Commissioners.

    MEDICAL TICKETS.
    Major HOPEasked whether, owing to the statement on the medical tickets and accompanying leaflets issued in December, 1912, that these tickets were only valid until 30th April, 1913, many insured persons were led to believe that their selection of a doctor by means of the medical ticket only held good till 30th April, 1913; whether these insured persons will be permitted to choose, if they wish, another doctor from the panel to attend them after 30th April; or whether they will only be permitted to make a change subject to the consent of the first doctor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Neither the medical tickets nor the accompanying leaflets contained any statement implying that the selection of a doctor at the beginning of the year only held good until the 30th April; but, as I have stated in reply to previous questions, insured persons may change their doctors within the year, either by consent of doctor and patient, or by decision of the insurance committee if the committee considers transference desirable on any question arising between an insured person and the doctor attending him.

    Additional Judge (Report of Royal Commission).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he has now had time to consider the Report of the Royal Commission recommending an additional judge; and whether he can arrange for the appointment to be made so that the new
    1176
    judge could begin work immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): A Motion for the appointment of an additional judge will be placed on the Paper to-night by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, and I trust it may be passed by general consent.

    Post Office Vote.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, for the reason that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill occupied two and three-quarter hours out of the time allotted for the Post Office Vote, so that no opportunity was afforded to many hon. Members who had matters to bring forward on behalf of their constituents, he will give another day for this Vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If a general desire of the House to this effect reaches me through the usual channels, I will see what arrangements can be made.

    Scott Antarctic Fund.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked who is responsible for the distribution of the money collected for the Scott Antarctic Fund; whether he is aware that Mrs. Evans, widow of the late Petty-officer Evans, is only receiving 13s. 6d. a week from the Admiralty for the support of herself and her three children; and whether he will take steps to see that the money subscribed by the public is now distributed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The control of this fund is vested in a body of trustees, including amongst others the Lord Mayor, Lord Curzon, and Sir Edgar Speyer. I understand that the fund has not yet been closed, but that this will be done within a few days, and an allocation will then be made as speedily as possible. In the meantime, every care has been taken, and will be taken to provide immediate assistance where required. As regards the specific case referred to the Noble Lord appears to have based his question on very imperfect information. Mrs. Evans has received (besides the balance of accrued pay, £52) sums amounting to £55 from the Expedition Committees and other funds, and I have no reason to think that her case has not been and is not being adequately treated.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Might I ask why the name of Captain Oates was not included in his letter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: For very obvious reasons. Captain Oates had no dependants. It was not from any lack of appreciation of Captain Oates' heroic conduct, because his efforts were just as much appreciated as the efforts of the others.

    Deepdene Estate.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the proposed sale of the Deepdene estate, of which Box Hill forms part; if he is aware that the reason assigned for this decision by Lord Francis Hope, the life tenant, is the fact that the Undeveloped Land Tax was imposed for the express purpose of compelling landowners to break up such estates as this; if claims for Undeveloped Land Duty have in fact been served on Lord Francis Hope; and, if so, whether, in view of the advantage derived by the public from the existence of such areas as Box Bill, he will introduce legislation to exempt them from the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George, for the Prime Minister): My attention has been called to this matter. No Undeveloped Land Duty has been charged in respect of Box Hill, which is exempt from that duty on account of the public access now allowed thereto. The claims that have been made on Lord Francis Hope have been in respect of other land owned by him.

    National Reservists (Government Employment).
    Major WHITEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that National Reservists and other old soldiers of the Brigade of Guards attending the review by His Majesty the King on 28th April, who are employed at the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and other Government offices, had their day's wage deducted; and whether, in view of the fact that the State should be a model employer, he will use his influence to secure that these old soldiers are not penalised for their loyalty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Any proposals which reach the Treasury in this sense will receive sympathetic consideration.

    Roman Remains (Caerwent).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether it is with his sanction and in accordance
    1178
    with the usual practice of the Inland Revenue authorities that the collection of exceptionally interesting Roman remains unearthed at Caerwent, in the county of Monmouth, with the approval and largely at the expense of the late Lord Tredegar, and left by him in a museum on the site of the excavations for the benefit of the local inhabitants and of antiquarian visitors, is now being assessed by the authorities for the purposes of Estate Duty payable upon his death; and whether, if this process is inevitable under the existing law, he will, in the public interest and to prevent the dissipation of such collections, amend the law in the Finance Bill of the current Session so as to exempt such articles from the payment of Death Duties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that there is no trace of any Death Duty assessment having been made as yet on the property in question. If the remains are shown to be of national or historic interest they would be entitled to exemption from Death Duties until they were sold, but up to the present no application for such exemption appears to have been made.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Sir J. D. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a company formed in Nottingham last year to introduce and work machines made only on the Continent purchased over an acre of land on a highly developed estate, built a factory and fitted it with machines, thereby bringing additional trade to the city, whereupon the company was served with notice of four assessments for Undeveloped Land Duty for 1909–10, 1910–11, 1911–12, and 1912–13, for £2 4s. 4d., in respect of each year, whereas the company was not even in existence in the first of such three years, and as soon as it acquired the land it began to develop; whether the delay in making the valuation was the fault of the Government officials concerned, although the Commissioners have decided that the company is responsible for the payment of the whole outstanding duty prior to the time when building began; and whether, in these circumstances, he will order that the assessment made shall be cancelled?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the past some delay in the valuation of undeveloped land has been unavoidable. The consequent postponement of assessment is contemplated by Section 19 of the Finance

    1179
    (1909–10) Act, 1910, under which the duty referred to by the hon. Member, as restricted to the period prior to the development of the land, is properly charged on the owner for the time being who acquired the land subject to its liabilities. I see no reason to cancel the assessment.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the work of the Land Valuation Department is being so conducted that assessments of Undeveloped Land Duty, accompanied by demands for payment, are being made twice over for the same duties on the same properties for the same financial years under different references, by which means landowners, unless carefully checking these demands for payment of duties, would be led to pay the same duties twice over; if not, will he investigate a particular case in the county of Monmouth, the Division of Newport, the parish of Maindee, in which two separate demands or notices to pay Undeveloped Land Duty, amounting to £20 4s. 8d., on the same property for the same years, have been served under two different references, one on 20th January, 1913, under the reference 66—72/5,557, and another on 31st March, 1913, under the reference 113 to 119/9,395; and will he take steps to prevent the multiplication of such incidents by allowing a fair and reasonable time for the work which has to be got through in the offices of the district valuers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Every reasonable precaution is taken to avoid mistakes of the description referred to by the hon. Member, but a few errors are inevitable in every undertaking of great magnitude. The duplicate demand in the case mentioned will be withdrawn.

    Motor Ambulance Wagons.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked whether, in view of the fact that motor ambulance wagons by their greater speed and comfort greatly mitigate the suffering of those afflicted by sickness or accident who have to be conveyed to hospital, and of the fact that they are mostly maintained by voluntary contribution and free to sufferers, he will encourage the displacement of horse-drawn ambulance wagons by exempting from duty petrol used in accident transport services in Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am hoping to deal with this matter in the forthcoming Revenue Bill.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has been informed of the number of schemes for providing cottages for agricultural labourers in Ireland which, though conforming in every respect with the requirements of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, have been held in suspense during the last two years for want of money on the same terms on which money is being advanced for land purchase; and, having regard to the necessity of labour for agriculture and to the urgency caused by the emigration of labourers for want of suitable homes, whether he will provide a loan for this purpose without further delay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative; the second does not therefore arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to make any provision for this important and urgent purpose?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My information does not coincide with that contained in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that quite a number of these schemes have been suspended for two years, and is not that a very serious matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the very question I have answered.

    Income Tax (Collection).
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that such small amounts as 2d. are now collected in the shape of Income Tax; and if he will consider as to limiting collection to cases in which the amount will show a surplus over the cost of labour, stationery, postage, and other incidental expenses?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is possible that cases may occur where items of tax as low as 2d. form part of a general demand rendered to a taxpayer, but instances of isolated charges for such a small sum are extremely rare, and are avoided wherever possible.

    Tea Duty.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the estimated revenue from Tea Duty for the present year is based on the assumption of an increased import of fourteen and a-half million pounds of tea; if the average annual increase for the past ten years has been about four and a-half million pounds; and what are the grounds for expecting such an exceptional increase in 1913–14?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Estimate of the receipts from the Tea Duty is framed on the expectation that the actual clearances (not imports) will in 1913–14 exceed by fourteen million three hundred and four thousand pounds the clearances in the previous year. This forecast is based (as already explained in this House) on the facts that consumption in 1912–13 suffered from the effects of the coal strike, and that there was a considerable withholding of clearances at the end of the year. It is computed that these withholdings amounted to four million eight hundred thousand pounds, representing £100,000 of duty. The average increase of clearances in the last ten financial years has been about five and a-half million pounds, but there were increases of twenty-three and a-half million pounds in 1903–4, thirteen and a-half million pounds in 1907–8, eleven and a-half million pounds in 1908–9, twelve million pounds in 1910–11, and over eleven million pounds in 1911–12.
    Sir J. D. REES: Was there not a reduction of the Tea Duty in 1910?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not in 1910.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where this tea is likely to come from; where we are likely to get this enormous increase in the revenue; and is it not a fact that there was no unusual holding back last year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member cannot have followed my answer.
    Mr. F. HALL: I endeavoured to do so.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If he refers to my answer he will see that I am drawing a distinction between imports and clearances. The tea is there, and it is a question of clearances and not of imports.

    Estate Duty.
    Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the delay in
    1182
    the assessing of Estate Duty in the case of the estate of Margaret Thompson, deceased; whether he is aware that the executor of this estate is unable to distribute it to the beneficiaries, many of whom are poor people, owing to the failure of the Valuation Department to report, and that in consequence the funds of this estate have been lying idle since December last; and what is the necessity for the Valuation Department to report when, as in this case, the entire property has been disposed of by public auction and the realised price entered as the value on which Estate Duty is payable?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the case referred to by the Noble Lord. I am informed that the duty was assessed on the 25th instant. With regard to the last part of the question, I have explained, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 6th August last, that the price obtained on a sale of real property is not necessarily identical with the market value.

    Development Fund.
    Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked what is the amount of money standing to the credit of the Development Commissioners at the present time?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The cash balance at the credit of the Development Fund is £279,104, and in addition there are invested funds to the amount of £2,500,000.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is going to happen to this invested sum of about £2,000,000? Is it only the interest that is going to be given for development purposes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not. The idea is that it will be used for schemes prepared by the Department with the approval of the Development Commission for afforestation and matters of that kind; but it is rather capital expenditure, and certainly it is not the interest.
    Mr. KING: Will this large sum be available if there is depression in trade and an increase of unemployment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is part of the proposal of the Bill that the money should be expended with a view to giving additional employment.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether any schemes have been prepared to meet that contingency?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know that afforestation schemes have been considered, but it is very desirable that we should proceed very carefully with regard to afforestation, and I think the hon. Gentleman, on going into the matter, will fully approve of that precaution. I know that they are going into it very carefully and preparing schemes.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Will the annual Grant remain the same, no matter how large the accumulations may be?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The annual Grant is a matter for the Estimates of the year. It is voted in each year.

    Income Tax (Miniature Rifle Ranges and Scouts' Halls).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the case of miniature rifle-ranges, scouts' halls, and similar buildings, Income Tax is chargeable on the assessable value so long as they are owned by private persons; whether, if such buildings are vested in trustees for the use of boy scouts, rifle clubs, etc., they would be assessable for Income Tax; and whether he will consider the advisability of exempting all such buildings, which do not bring any profit to the owner from Income Tax in future?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Miniature rifle ranges and scouts' halls are assessable to Income Tax whether vested in trustees or not. I do not see my way to acting on the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

    Agricultural Science (Research Scholarships).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in view of the official announcement that applicants for the new research scholarships in agricultural science must be graduates of a university or holders of a diploma of a university or college of university rank, he will state what existing colleges in Great Britain are deemed by the Board to be for this purpose colleges of university rank; and whether the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester and the South-Eastern Agricultural College at Wye come within this description?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The words quoted by the hon. Member are intended to describe in general terms the nature of the qualifications required in candidates for agricultural research scholarships. It would be undesirable to draw up an exclusive list of the institutions which would be considered to come within the category, as this might in some cases lead to the disqualification of candidates who, on their merits, might be selected for scholarships. I am not prepared to say that students of Wye or Cirencester could not be admitted as eligible for research scholarships.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable number of young gentlemen who have been educated at these various colleges, and are in doubt whether to apply, because they do not know whether they have the necessary qualification?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They need have no compunction about applying. Their cases will all be discussed on their merits.

    Tuberculosis Order, 1913.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that under the Dairy, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1885, compulsory veterinary inspection of cowsheds and notification of bovine tubercular disease is now required by those district sanitary authorities only which have adopted this Order and will continue to be required by them until uniformity of action is secured as the result of the passage into law of the Milk and Dairies Bill, but that under the Tuberculosis Order of 1913, which it is proposed to bring into operation to-morrow, such inspection and notification will be optional throughout the greater part of the country, he will, in order to facilitate local procedure and to secure simultaneous uniformity of tuberculosis administration, as contemplated in 1909, make the commencement of the operation of the Tuberculosis Order contemporaneous with that of the Milk and Dairies Bill?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but I see no good reason for postponing the operation of the Tuberculosis Order.
    Mr. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the chairmen or the clerks of the

    1185
    Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, and other county councils have already explained the paragraph dealing with salvage sales in the circular relating to the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 as meaning that the moneys produced thereby will be available to the county councils to help them to defray their administrative expenses; and whether, seeing that in fact the difference, if any, between the amount so produced and the assessed value of the diseased animal is, under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, payable to its owner, he will, in order to prevent any injustice to stock-owners resulting from similar interpretation of this ambiguous paragraph, acquaint local authorities without delay as to its true meaning?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was not aware until I saw this question on the Paper that the Board's circular letter of the 25th March had been interpreted by officers of county councils in a sense plainly contrary to Section 20 (3) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. By calling attention to it in this House the hon. Member has given the widest possible publicity to the mistake made by the county council officers, and I do not think it is necessary for me to take any further action.

    Irish Cattle (Detention in Port).
    Mr. DELANYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by an extensive dealer and exporter of cattle from Ireland to this country to the effect that, under the twelve hours' detention rule, through bookings have been discontinued by the railway companies; that cattle bought at Athlone intended for York market had first to be booked to Dublin, thence to Birkenhead, and after the detention period there they were sent by ferry boat to Liverpool, where they had again to be booked to their destination; that the absence of through booking in this case entailed an extra cost of 10s. per head on the cattle, exclusive of lairage charges; and whether he can say when this Order will be modified or revoked?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that in certain cases the rates charged for the conveyance of cattle from Ireland to markets in Great Britain have been raised. The circumstances contributing to account for the increase appear to be exceedingly complex, and are being investigated. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that efforts have recently been made by rail-
    1186
    way companies in many directions to increase their rates.
    Dr. ESMONDE: I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state the number of lambs exported to this country in the first four months of 1912 and 1913, respectively, and also the number last week and the number for the corresponding week in 1912?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The number of lambs exported from Ireland during the period from 1st January last to Saturday last, the 26th inst., inclusive, was 1,426. The number in the corresponding period of 1912 was 2,465. During the week ending Saturday last 778 lambs were shipped, as against 1,223 in the corresponding week of 1912.

    South Kensington Spirit Museum.
    Captain MURRAYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether building operations have yet been commenced in connection with the building for the extension of the South Kensington Spirit Museum; and, if so, what progress has been made with the work?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Progress with the building has been seriously delayed. The plans are, however, now ready. Tenders have been received, and are under consideration.
    Captain MURRAY: Is it not the case that water is springing up in the middle of the spot on which it is proposed to place the spirit?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, there have been difficulties.
    Captain MURRAY: Will not that involve a very large extra expenditure?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir, I do not think that it will involve additional expenditure. It may mean an alteration in the plans of the building.

    Ocean-going Ships (Crews' Hospitals).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade how many ocean-going cargo ships have been fitted up with crews' hospitals since the 30th April, 1912, in response to the Memorandum issued in January, 1912, by his Department; and

    1187
    whether he intends to issue instructions making the provision of ships' hospitals compulsory?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): According to reports received by the Board of Trade thirty-seven ocean-going cargo vessels have been fitted with hospitals for seamen since the 30th April, 1912. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Board of Trade have no statutory power to require hospitals to be fitted on cargo ships.

    District Railway Company (Overcrowding).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the 6.43 a.m. train from Plaistow is overcrowded in consequence of only having four carriages; and whether he will make a representation to the District Railway Company to put two more carriages on the train so as to prevent such overcrowding?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am asking for the observations of the railway company in this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend upon receipt of their reply.

    Labour Exchanges (Domestic Servants).
    Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Trade to which juvenile advisory committees of the Labour Exchanges permission has been given to supply resident domestic servants in private houses; and will he state, in each case, on what date such permission was given?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the committees in question and of the date referred to in each case. He will understand that the arrangements only apply to young persons below the age of seventeen. Similar arrangements have been made in certain cases with committees appointed under the Education (Choice of Employment) Act.

    "Time-Cribbing" (Lancashire).
    Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent increase in the offence against the Factory and Workshops Act known as "time-cribbing" in Lancashire cotton mills, and if he will send additional inspectors to that county to more effectively deal with the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have no information to show that there has been any increase recently in Lancashire as a whole. Seventeen firms only were proceeded against for this offence in 1912, as compared with thirty-nine in 1911, twenty-three in 1910, and twenty-nine in 1909. The need for continual supervision in regard to the matter is fully realised by the Department, and I may add that the question of reorganising and strengthening the staff in Lancashire with a view to increasing the efficiency of the inspection generally is now under consideration.
    Mr. MORRELL: Have the inspectors instructions to act without giving actual notice?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is part of their orders.
    Mr. GILLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the penalties imposed by benches of magistrates in Lancashire on firms convicted of breaches of the Factory Acts; and if he will issue a circular with a view to more severe penalties being imposed?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has been good enough to send me particulars of a recent case in which proceedings against a firm on a charge of time-cribbing resulted only in an order being made for payment of costs. I observe, however, that the justices came to the conclusion that in that particular case the offence had been a technical one only; and the records of the Department do not show that the average penalty in Lancashire is lower than in the rest of the country. The amount of the penalty in each case is a matter for the discretion of the justices after hearing the evidence, and I do not think it would be advisable to issue a circular as suggested.

    Whist Drives (Prosecution).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Home Secretary whether, in the recent police prosecution of Mr. Burnett, a working mechanic, for organising a series of whist drives, at the Central Criminal Court, the prisoner put the same plea of defence to the police authorities as he did at the trial; if he was found not guilty; and as the case was a test one, as to the legality of such whist drives, will he, as an act of grace, help this quite poor man to meet the cost of defence, which was nearly £80, as was done

    1189
    in the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have had this case under my notice, but regret I have not been able to recommend any Grant towards the cost of the defence.
    Mr. CROOKS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say if this is not a case for consideration. This man is threatened with bankruptcy and it is pretty hard on him.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no fund out of which I can make a Grant.
    Mr. CROOKS: In what was the case of Mr. Bowles different from that of this poor mechanic? Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is a distinction to be drawn between the two cases.
    Mr. CROOKS: Of course, one has money and the other has none.

    Women Suffrage.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Sydney Harris was arrested by Police-constables 430 E and 431 E on Saturday afternoon last, in Bow Street, at about 5 p.m., because the man Harris was taking down the numbers of constables who were pushing people about outside the Police Court; if Mr. Harris swore on oath at the Bow Street Police Court on Monday last that Police-constable 430 E threatened him in various ways whilst in the police cell; if he will state the nature of the charge entered in the charge sheet at the Bow Street Police Station; if Mr. Harris was fined 20s. and costs on Monday, 28th April; and if he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry into this case, which was heard at great length, and find that the prisoner was charged with using insulting words and behaviour, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. The magistrate who heard the evidence was satisfied that it fully sustained the charge; that the prisoner was not arrested because he took the numbers of constables as alleged, and that the statement that he was threatened by Police Constable 430E was untrue. The prisoner was fined 20s., but there were no costs. I find no reason for further action on my part.
    Sir W. BYLESasked whether the Police Order prohibiting meetings in Hyde Park has had the result expected from it of preventing disturbance of the peace; and, if not, will the said Order be now withdrawn and the ancient freedom of public speech be restored?
    Mr. McKENNA: The result of police action in Hyde Park has been that no serious disturbance of the peace has taken place. It is not proposed to modify the instructions given to the police, which, as I have already pointed out, apply only to meetings promoted by members of organisations which are endeavouring to further their cause by criminal acts.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Sunday last a meeting of a Men's Political Union was broken up for lack of proper police protection?
    Mr. McKENNA: Police protection was given, but it was quite impossible—the crowd being of such a size last Sunday in the park—for the police to ensure the meeting being held.
    Sir W. BYLES: Were not the crowds last Sunday greater than ever? Is it not the fact that when meetings are prohibited the disturbance becomes greater, as used to be the case in Ireland? Would it not be better to restore the fashion of freedom of tongue as well as of pen.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is, I think, confusing two sets of circumstances. A meeting was held in Hyde Park and caused great disturbance, but other meetings were not allowed, and I believe there was less disturbance in consequence of their not being allowed.
    Mr. GINNELLasked what fees, in addition to salary, have been paid to each of the Law Officers in connection with the prosecution of suffragists; the dates upon which the Law Officers appeared in Court in that matter; and, if none, the occasions and nature of the work for which the payments have been made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The only fee paid to a Law Officer was £351 16s. 6d. to the Attorney-General in respect of the trial of Mrs. Pankhurst and others at the Central Criminal Court. The Attorney-General appeared in Court on six days.

    Employment of Children Bill.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Home Secretary whether he intends to take the Second

    1191
    Reading of the Employment of Children Bill before Whitsuntide; and, if so, on which day?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it will be possible to find time for the Second Reading before Whitsuntide.

    Metropolitan Police Stations (Telephones).
    Mr. MORTONasked whether the Metropolitan police stations are all now connected with the general telephone system?
    Mr. McKENNA: 180 out of 194 Metropolitan police stations are on the public telephone system. The remaining fourteen stations are of minor importance.

    Sir Stuart Samuel.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if any public expense has been incurred in connection with the retention of his seat in this House by Sir Stuart Samuel; and will he say at whose instance, how much, and to whom paid?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. About £150 was expended on shorthand writing and printing for the Select Committee. In connection with the proceedings before the Privy Council, expenditure of £740 was incurred on the authority of the Treasury. This sum includes fees to counsel (Mr. J. R. Atkin, K.C., and Mr. A. Neilson), and the cost of the shorthand writing, printing, etc. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, who argued the case before the Privy Council at my request, has refused to accept any fees on the ground that he appeared in a sense for the House of Commons, and was performing a public duty. The Prime Minister has already expressed his appreciation of the services rendered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I have also thanked him. I am glad of this opportunity of informing the House of Commons of the action taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this matter.
    Mr. GINNELL: Was it on the advice and with the concurrence of the Law Officers that Sir Stuart Samuel followed the course he did?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the number of second division clerks promoted in each of the last five years and the number required to pass a test in scholastic subjects as a condition of promotion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of Civil Service certificates issued on each of the last five years to second-division clerks on promotion was as follows:—

    1908

    …

    …

    …

    …

    120

    1909

    …

    …

    …

    …

    69

    1910

    …

    …

    …

    …

    78

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    …

    39

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    250

    There would also be a certain number of promotions for which new certificates are not necessary. It is not the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners to require a further examination in the case of second-division clerks promoted under Clause 36 of the Order in Council.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked on what grounds, other than 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, assistant clerks recommended for promotion to the second division have been exempted from further examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In a very few cases the Civil Service Commissioners have exempted assistant clerks from examination on promotion to the second division in response to urgent representations from the authorities of the Departments making the promotion. In these cases the Departments proved that there were exceptional circumstances, and the candidates had been selected for promotion on account of special and expert knowledge.

    Customs and Excise.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the right hon. Gentleman the annual cost of the monthly supply of pocket journals which have to be kept by officers in the Customs branch of the Customs and Excise service; and whether, in view of the frequently expressed opinion of the service generally that these journals serve no good or useful purpose, he will cause them to be abolished?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Board of Customs and Excise are considering whether the pocket journal system requires any modification. The annual cost

    1193
    of the journals is too small to affect the question.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked what were the respective amounts of overtime paid by merchants in Customs ports and Excise collections to the Board of Customs and Excise; and what were the amounts of overtime paid by the Board of Customs and Excise to the officers in the Customs branch and to the officers in the Excise branch, respectively, of the amalgamated service during the twelve weeks ended 22nd February, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are not readily available and would in any case not be properly comparable, as the payments are on a different basis.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Is it not a fact that the amount of money received in payment for overtime is considerably more than that paid to the men who are working it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the right hon. Gentleman the compulsory age of retirement for officers of all grades in the Customs and Excise service, and when was the last examination held for the supervising grade; and whether, in order to ensure a healthy flow of promotion, he will take steps to treat officers of all grades alike in regard to the compulsory age of retirement?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The general age for retirement is sixty-one in the officer and surveyor grades and sixty-two in the controlling grade. No examination for promotion to the surveyor (the supervising) grade in the amalgamated service has yet been held, but it is expected that the first one will take place about the end of the present year. It is not at present proposed to reduce the retiring age in the controlling grade, and I may add that to do so would have very little effect on the flow of promotion.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain officers of Customs and Excise were induced in November, 1910, by the Board to volunteer for the position of assistant and second officer, with an assured allowance of £10 per annum; that had they not volunteered they would have, in the ordinary course, been promoted to the grade of examining
    1194
    officer, second class, between December, 1910, and April, 1911; that in the readjustment of salaries in December, 1911, the £10 per annum allowance was deducted from the amount of their back pay; that until the beginning of 1912 they received only the rates of overtime and subsistence, and were granted only the leave pertaining to the assistant grade; and, seeing that these officers have, as a result of volunteering, been penalised, will he state what compensation will be granted them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 20th May last on this subject.

    Willesden (Charter of Incorporation).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Willesden Urban District Council have applied for a charter of incorporation; if the request has been refused, and, if so, will he state the grounds for such refusal; what is the present population and the rateable value of Willesden; and what is the population and rateable value of the smallest area which has been incorporated with the sanction of the Local Government Board since 1906?
    Mr. McKENNA (for Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I understand from the Privy Council Office that a petition of certain inhabitant householders of the parish and urban district of Willesden for the grant of a municipal charter of incorporation was presented to the King in Council in March, 1909, and was refused on the ground that the evidence before the Committee of Council, to whom the matter was referred, did not show that a majority of the whole of the inhabitant householders of the parish and urban district was in favour of the grant. The present population of Willesden is 158,863, and the rateable value £893,725. The smallest area incorporated since 1906 is Wallasey, which had a population of 67,000 and a rateable value of £466,120 at the time of incorporation.

WOMEN SUFFRAGE.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have only been able to give him short notice, namely, whether he can give the House any information concerning the raid on the Women's Social and Political Union offices this morning; what number

1195
of arrests have been made; under which Act action was taken; and whether there are special reasons to account for this new development?
Mr. McKENNA: I understand that five arrests were made this morning by the police, who entered Lincoln's Inn House, which is the headquarters of the Women's Social and Political Union. The police so acted because that Union is an association of persons which is charged with conspiring to incite to commit criminal offences.

TRADE BOARDS ACT.
Mr. LEACH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has yet come to any decision with regard to the trades to be brought under the Trade Boards Act?
Mr. BUXTON: I have already stated that I propose to bring under the Trade Boards Act the trades of sugar confectionery and food preserving, shirt-making, hollow-ware, linen and cotton embroidery. I propose in addition to include the processes of calendering and machine ironing in the steam laundry trade. I am to-day giving notice of the introduction of a Provisional Order Bill extending the application of the Act to the five trades, of which a more detailed definition will be set out in the Schedules.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it intended to include agricultural labourers in the new Order?
Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire to ask after what hour to-night the Report of the Ways and Means Resolutions will be taken? We have had no answer to the case we brought forward in regard to the Budget affecting Ireland?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand it will not be taken to-night.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To make further provision for the protection of women and girls and with respect to prostitution and to certain premises; to consolidate and amend enactments relating thereto and to certain other offences; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Alden, and Mr. King; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 29th May, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
    POST OFFICE BILL.
    "To enable Newspapers published in British Possessions or Protectorates to be registered and be treated as registered newspapers under the Post Office Act, 1908." Presented by Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL; supported by Captain Norton; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
    POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
    "To enable the Postmaster-General to construct, for the purposes of the Post Office, certain underground railways and other works in London, and for purposes in connection with such railways and works." Presented by Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL; supported by Captain Norton; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To enable the provision of medical treatment for children attending schools in Scotland." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEY: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make provision for the reduction of the output of smoke from fires and furnaces other than the domestic hearth."
  I do not propose to detain the House by any arguments by means of which I should induce the House to accept the main object and proposal of this Bill. I think everyone is agreed as to the desirability of the abatement of the great nuisance of black smoke. In our manufacturing districts the nuisance is of a most intolerable kind. There is the destruction of sunlight, there-by leading of necessity to the destruction of health. Vegetation is choked and killed; the homes of the people are filled with dirt, which cannot be adequately prevented even by the incessant toil of the hard-working women who keep the houses. There is loss of health; there is loss of much pleasure and much refinement; there is great loss of temper and there is loss of self respect, because people cannot possibly keep either their persons or their clothes in a cleanly condition. Not only is this the case in the industrial districts, but the countryside is beginning to suffer as well. It has been ascertained that the heavy fumes of black smoke travel no less a distance than 15 miles in certain conditions, and there are very few places in this country so remote from some chimney or furnace or other, and in the coming years, unless there is a check put upon the output of black smoke the country districts will suffer more than hitherto, because there is a growing tendency to take large manufacturing works away from great centres, where the rent and rates are high, into country places. This, of course, is a tendency which has much to commend it, but I appeal to dwellers in country places to remember that, unless the black smoke nuisance can be checked, it will be very harmful to many portions of the country which do not feel the inconvenience at present. If anyone hints at the necessity of interfering with a polluted atmosphere he is almost sure to be accused of harassing or interfering with trade. Dividends and clouds of smoke seem to hang together in many people's minds, and even with regard to the artisans themselves, I fancy that they look upon a smoky chimney very often as identical with wages, and a clear atmosphere as identical with short time and lack of employment. I am the last man to desire to embarrass trade. I

  1215
  am myself a manufacturer and I am in part, at any rate, responsible for the good behaviour or otherwise of five or six factory chimneys, and I am convinced, through long experience and experiment, that in most cases where proper appliances have been provided the smoke can be entirely abolished, and that at a profit to the owner of the works. There are cases, of course, of old and crowded works, which are now raising steam beyond the capacity originally intended, where the case is difficult, and where some patience, no doubt, will have to be exercised. It has hitherto been thought an essential equipment of a factory or workshop that a great high chimney, costing anything up to £1,000 is necessary. But even the day of that is past. High chimneys will soon, if scientific appliances are put in, be things of the past.
  Let me describe the provisions of the Bill. It proposes to deal with fireplaces and furnaces other than the domestic hearth, and those fireplaces and furnaces are to be provided with means of consuming the smoke produced in the process of combustion. Metallurgical and pottery furnaces may be exempted after an inquiry by the Local Government Board. The emission of black or other smoke—and I lay some stress on the word "other"—in quantities such as to be a nuisance may be punished by a fine levied on an ascending scale if the offence is repeated. The Bill proposes the creation of Joint Boards somewhat on the plan of a Rivers Board. These are to be formed to carry out the Act and are to consist of members of adjoining local government authorities grouped together under a scheme to be drawn up by the Local Government Board, and these Boards are to have qualified inspectors. I regard the provision of these Boards as of very great importance. At present every little local authority acts alone in this matter, and with regard to the smaller ones, such as the urban district councils, they are quite incapable of dealing with this difficulty in their own areas. In the first place, they cannot afford proper inspectors. In the second place, they are generally composed of people in somewhat humble life, small tradesmen and others, and unhappily, very often the offender in regard to the smoke nuisance is the most powerful and important person in the district. There is another reason for failure, and that is that there is no uniformity of standard
  1216
  recognised, and one district which does its duty well may be punished by outpourings of black smoke from its neighbour on the windward side, which may undo all the good it has performed. So I believe that these Boards, by means of joint action, by means of their strength and authority and uniformity, will be able largely to mitigate this intolerable nuisance.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GORDON HARVEY, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Black, Mr. Manfield, Mr. Molteno, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Scott Dickson, and Sir John Tudor Walters. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

  HOPS.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg to move, "That leave he given to introduce a Bill to prohibit the use of hops substitutes and to provide for the marking of imported hops."
  4.0 P.M.
  This Bill is drafted to carry out two of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the hop industry which reported in 1908—I think the only two recommendations upon which the Committee was entirely agreed. The using of hop substitute has been the cause for a very long period of a popular demand for legislation. This demand, of course, is most noticeable in those districts in which hops are grown, and the motive, no doubt, in those places, was a desire to be protected against what was considered, and I think rightly considered, as illegitimate competition with a legitimate industry. But there were other motives besides that. Many people supported this demand on grounds of hygiene, and even on grounds of temperance, because it was considered, and I believe it is a scientific fact, that many of the chemical substances which are used—not, I am glad to say, in large quantities—in substitution of hops in brewing are not only unwholesome, but tend to promote thirst, and consequently intemperance. But be the motives what they may, in 1908 a Select Committee was appointed to consider these questions under the chairmanship of Sir William Collins. That Committee reported in favour of the total prohibition of hop substitutes by legislation, and of the

  1217
  compulsory marking of imported hops. In addition to that Report, two alternative draft Reports were submitted which were not adopted, but both contained the same recommendation on these two points. It is true to say that during the whole course of the proceedings before the Committee no substantial opposition was brought forward by any body of witnesses against these two proposals. I should like to read a few lines from the Report of the Select Committee. Perhaps the most important words dealing with the subject are these—
  "Growers and brewers appear to be generally agreed that hop substitutes can be safely dispensed with. They cannot in any true sense supply the peculiar properties of the hop, they introduce an unnecessary and a foreign element into the process of brewing, they may be the source of dangerous contamination, and, in the opinion of your Committee, their employment should be prohibited by the Legislature."
  I am glad to say that the quantities of hop substitutes are not now, and for a long period have not been, very great, but they include certain substitutes of which the use in even small quantities is eminently undesirable. In the list given by the Select Committee they mention quassia, chiretta, gentian, camomile, and a substitute known as "Hop Compo," which was found to contain large quantities of arsenic and antimony. It is not necessary to go through the whole list to make good one's case that substitutes of that kind should not be used. The quantities in use are believed to be small, but we have no very definite information. Although it appears in the brewing books kept by the Excise authorities that substitutes are used, there is no power to compel the disclosure of either the nature or the quantities of the substitutes. Still, so far as public information goes, the total quantity in 1911 was 4,900 lbs., a very small quantity, but the alarming fact is disclosed in a White Paper, which was laid upon the Table only a few days ago, that the figures in 1912 had increased to close upon 30,000 lbs.—an increase of 500 per cent. in a single year. If that increase is allowed to continue, it may easily become a very serious matter. I have no desire to interfere in the least with legitimate brewing. The fact that this Bill will not so interfere is proved, in the first place, by the extract from the Report which I have read, and, secondly, and even more forcibly, by the fact that, if I am allowed to introduce the measure, the names on the back of it will include those of the hon. Member for the Rutland Division (Mr. Gretton) and the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger), two of the best known
  1218
  representatives of the brewing industry in the country, while in an humbler capacity I am also a brewer.
  I turn now to the marking proposals. Here we find a public demand in the hop-growing districts. Here, again, we find a unanimous recommendation by the Select Committee, and we find also that there is no very substantial opposition from any source to these proposals. It is certain that to apply, so far as practicable, to imported hops similar regulations as to marking as are applied already to British grown hops must tend to the prevention of fraud. It may also tend to advertise good brands of imported hops. In the one case it will no doubt assist English growers, and in the other case it may to a certain extent do the reverse, but in any case, from the public point of view, it is desirable that buyers should know what they are buying, and that similar restrictions should be applied, so far as possible, to hops coming into our markets. In the first place both sets of proposals contained in the Bill are desired by the sections of the public which are mainly concerned; secondly, they are not subject to any substantial opposition from any section of the community; and, thirdly, they are supported by the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee, and it is on these grounds that I ask leave to introduce the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courthope, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Hewins, Colonel Warde, Captain Spender Clay, Mr. Ronald M'Neill, Captain Clive, Mr. William Horne, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Wheler, Mr. Wright, and Sir George Younger. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

  PREVENTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to establish a Minister of Labour, to make provision for the prevention of Unemployment, to provide for the proper treatment of unemployed persons, and for other purposes connected therewith."
  The Bill is divided into two parts. The first seeks to create a Minister of Labour, and to co-ordinate under him many of the functions now performed by various Government Departments. The Home Office,

  1219
  the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board, all at the present time exercise powers in connection with the administration of the Factory Acts, the Mines Acts, the Shops Acts, the Care of Able-Bodied Poor, Labour Exchanges, the Unemployed Workmen Act, the National Insurance Act, and the like, which it is proposed under this Bill to commit to one officer, the Minister of Labour. Then it is proposed to endeavour to mitigate the hardships arising from unemployment during the time of bad trade by so arranging that all public work which is not presently urgent, whether for local authorities or for the State, shall be put in hand and carried through during times of bad trade, so as to ensure that the national aggregate demand for labour of all kinds shall be maintained at an approximately uniform level. We submit that it is entirely a matter for arrangement. There is no reason why unemployment should commit such terrible havoc during bad trade if only a little business capacity and a little common sense are brought into the placing of Government orders. We ask that this Bill be considered now when trade is good and booming. The treatment of the unemployed hitherto has been haphazard, spasmodic, costly, and ineffective. We desire that that state of things should be removed, and that a systematic and business-like method should be substituted to make provision against unemployment.
  The proposals in the Bill are that every local authority, rural and urban, with a population of over 20,000 shall be constituted an authority for dealing with unemployment. It will have an unemployed committee with power to co-opt outsiders, both employers and employed, in equal numbers. It shall be obligatory upon local authorities to provide either work or maintenance for the genuinely unemployed. Where work cannot be provided, the authority will be under obligation to maintain such unemployed person and his dependants in a state of physical efficiency. The cost is to be distributed between the local authority and the State—the local authority to be responsible for all expenditure in carrying out this Act up to the limit of a penny per £ on the rateable value of the area. Everything beyond that is to be borne by the State. Such are the main provisions of the Bill. It makes someone definitely responsible for the care of the unemployed, and it imposes upon
  1220
  the State the responsibility of providing either work or maintenance for every genuinely unemployed person. This Bill will not produce the Millennium, but it will tend to mitigate somewhat the hardship and demoralisation which periods of unemployment always bring in their train.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Crooks, and Mr. William Thorne. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th June, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon the point as to whether the contents of this Bill do not go beyond the Title of the Bill? You will remember that on 8th April leave was given to introduce the Bill in these words: "to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election." The title of the Bill repeats those words, but when one comes to look at the Bill itself, at Clause 1, Sub-Clause (1), one finds that it imposes a penalty upon a person who votes or asks for a Parliamentary paper for that purpose in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election. I need not argue that the words "person" and "elector" are in a sense very widely different. "Person" must have a much wider application; for that reason alone I submit that the Bill goes beyond the scope of the measure for which leave was given, but if one refers to the Plural Voting Bill, introduced into this House in 1906 by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harcourt), one finds that in that Bill as amended the first sentence runs, "Persons registered as Parliamentary electors," and so on. The qualifying words are "registered as Parliamentary Electors." If these words were in this Bill after the word "person," of course I should not wish to ask your ruling upon this matter, but, as the Bill is, I submit that the absence of those qualifying words gives

  1221
  the contents a much wider applicaton than was intended when leave was given to introduce the Bill. There is only this other point, that "a person," whether an elector or not, can vote or can ask for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting, but of course he is liable, if not an elector, to penalties for personation, but at the same "a person" can do that, and it is introducing to my mind words altogether outside the scope of the Bill and beyond its Title.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member suggests that the words "a person" are not the same as "an elector." On that ground, he asks me to rule that the Bill cannot proceed any further. But it appears to me that even if he is right in supposing that the intention of the promoters of this Bill in introducing the word "person" was to extend it, it would still be open in Committee to insert the words "qualified to vote as an elector" or to omit the word "person" and insert "elector," and therefore it would be perfectly easy, by making a small correction, to bring it into accord with the measure for the introduction of which leave was given. I do not know what the views of the promoters are with regard to this, but I certainly do not understand that this Bill proposes to deal with personation at all. I do not know how that may be. It occurs to me that probably the words "a person" were really intended by the draftsman to mean "a person who thinks that he is qualified to vote, and therefore asks for a paper in order to vote." Of course if this Bill was intended to deal with personation, then I think that it would be creating a fresh offence, and I think that it would be going beyond the Title. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say upon that which will clear the matter up.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): This Bill in no way deals with personation, and the offence for which the penalty is proposed is a corrupt practice other than personation.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I submit that the mere ipse dixit of what a Minister think a Bill means or does not mean has nothing to do with the matter? You have to take the Bill on the face of it, and it is for you to decide what the Bill, as introduced, means.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to consider what the intention of the promoters of the Bill is.
  1222
  My supposition was that it was not intended by these words to refer to personation at all. I am confirmed in that by what has fallen from the President of the Board of Education, and, if that is so, then it is open to the Committee, as I have said, to amend those words, and to bring them into accord with the leave which was given. At all events, I should be prepared to say that the difference is so small between the two points that it would not justify me in holding that the whole Bill should not proceed on that ground.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to raise another point of Order with regard to this Bill. The Title of this Bill is "to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election." I venture to submit that Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 goes beyond the Title, because Sub-section (2) says that if any person acts in contravention of Sub-section (1)—that is to say, votes or asks for a ballot paper—he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice, and I venture to submit that that is going beyond imposing a penalty upon a person who does vote at more than one election, because the effect of that might be to void the election, and if it was done by one who was an agent of the candidate it might not only void the election, but prevent the candidate from sitting in Parliament for the next seven years. It would impose a penalty not merely upon the elector, but also upon the candidate. On these grounds I beg to submit that Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 goes beyond the Title of the Bill, and that therefore the Bill ought not to be proceeded with.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member argues that if the agent of the candidate is found guilty of a corrupt practice, the constituency or the candidate may be punished as well as the "elector." That is possibly a remote contingency, but the initial penalty is imposed on the person. The penalty would be imposed upon him for his wrongdoing. It may be that there is some further result of his wrongdoing. That generally happens. If a person does wrong the punishment is not confined to him, but falls upon others. The suggestion of the hon. Member is a somewhat remote one, because he has to assume that the judges would necessarily report that this was a corrupt practice of such a character as to invalidate the election, and we should have to assume that that would necessarily happen. That would depend

  1223
  upon the decision of the two judges who tried the petition. In any event, that also would be open to correction by means of a proviso to the effect that if this corrupt practice is proved against an agent of the candidate it does not necessarily invalidate the election.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The point I wish to submit is that it goes beyond the title of the Bill, which is merely to impose a penalty on an elector. You admit that it might impose a penalty on the constituency and on the candidate; you admit that that is a possible consequence. If that is so, I venture to submit that it is outside the Title of the Bill, and that therefore the Bill ought not to be proceeded with.
  Mr. SPEAKER: You cannot put the whole Bill into the Title. The Title, after all, is only a rough summary, though as accurate a summary as possible, of the contents of the Bill, and in order to bring the Title into accord with what the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would have to be "a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector, provided that this penalty shall not be imposed on a candidate or his agent in such a way as to invalidate the election in the case of an elector who votes in more than one constituency." Really, if you ask for that extreme amount of accuracy in the Title, it reduces the Title of a Bill to an absurdity. The Title is only a general statement, roughly accurate as far as it goes, of what the contents of the Bill are.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words, "this House is not prepared to accept a Bill which professes to remove one only of the anomalies affecting electoral law."
  Whatever merits or demerits the Bill possesses, it is at least an extremely short one. The House was good enough recently to listen to me when I made some general observations upon the Bill on the occasion of its introduction under the Ten Minutes' Rule, and I do not propose to make any considerable demand upon the patience of this House in the observations with which I shall ask leave to submit what I attempted to say on that occasion. The Amendment which I propose commits us to the proposition that, accepting the view put forward by the promoters of this Bill that the system of plural voting of which they complain is an anomaly, there are
  1224
  other and graver anomalies which require to be treated at least as seriously as the so-called anomaly with which the present proposals are concerned. I may summarise the position in this way. The whole subject of our electoral and registration law is tangled and complicated, and is by universal admission in need of of early legislative correction. I do not think that that statement will be controverted by any of the different parties in this House, and no one made that more clear than the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education, in the speech to which I have already directed the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out then, very clearly—I think his illustrations were as good ones as could have been selected—that, in the first place, the intricacy of our franchise laws, taking them as a whole, is without parallel in the history of the civilised world. He pointed out an illustration of this, what was said by the late Sir Charles Dilke, a most accomplished master of this recondite subject, in our discussions in 1906, that there were eleven different and separate Parliamentary franchises with at least nineteen variations of them, every one of which would require individual attention if the complete treatment of the subject were attempted, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in these days of great and growing labour unrest there ought to be no doubt as to the truly representative character of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman gave a further illustration. He pointed out that a person may be resident in the same house, in the same constituency, for two and a half years without qualifying for a vote.
  But no one will dispute that the statement made was a perfectly accurate one. The right hon. Gentleman disclosed a state of things which is scandalous, which ought to be altered without any avoidable delay, and which certainly contains a degree of anomaly which so far is not exceeded by any other anomaly in the present system. The right hon. Gentleman informed us a year ago that the programme of the Government was a very comprehensive one, and that the Bill which he then recommended to the House was to be followed thereafter by Redistribution. The programme was perfectly clear. The Bill produced last year purported to correct a great many remediable anomalies, and it was to be followed at some period, not clearly specified by the

  1225
  right hon. Gentleman, by Redistribution proposals. The right hon. Gentleman was extremely explicit. He said:—
  "We think that, before Redistribution, it is necessary to pass a Bill reforming our franchise and reforming our registration laws. We think it essential that this Bill should pass first."
  In other words, the programme a year ago was that there was to be Redistribution, but that the Redistribution was to be preceded by a measure reforming our franchise and reforming our registration laws. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who I understand will follow in this Debate, whether he still adheres to that statement, made so clearly—whether he still adheres to the promise that before Redistribution it is essential that a measure reforming our registration laws should be carried into law? A year ago we were told it was essential. A change of programme has taken place to-day, and we are now informed that the only Bill which is to be proceeded with is a Plural Voting Bill, and that that Bill, in its turn, is to be followed by a Registration Bill, which, according to the statement of a year ago, was a necessary condition precedent. I do not know what the whole story is of the abandonment of the Bill introduced a year ago, but I strongly suspect that its abandonment was not altogether unconnected with the difficulty in which the Government found themselves in relation to their pledges to the women suffragists. Their position a year ago was a very curious one. The Prime Minister and the Government had given a pledge that if the comprehensive Bill of a year ago reached Third Reading in this House, and, at the period of its Third Reading, an Amendment had been adopted in it in the House of Commons which gave women votes, the Government would make themselves responsible for the measure, and carry it as a Government proposal containing the women's Amendment to the House of Lords, and to be supported in its later stages by the whole weight of the Government.
  I have always taken the view that this was a pledge which never ought to have been made, and which never could have been carried out if such an Amendment had been put into the Bill. But it produced this consequence, that there were many Members of the House who were not prepared to support a Bill which made changes so comprehensive in our electoral system, and which purported to remedy so many anomalies, if, when it left this House on its Third Reading stage, it did not con-
  1226
  tain the proposal to enfranchise women. Certain Members of the Labour party intimated in the clearest manner possible on the Third Reading of the Bill they would vote against it if it did not contain that proposal. I strongly suspect that one of the reasons which led to the substitution of the present Bill for the comprehensive Bill of last year is the desire of the Government to escape from the dilemma in which in my view they so unnecessarily involved themselves a year ago. The point I desire to make is a very clear one. From the point of view of some of the supporters of the Government I cannot conceive a greater degree of provocation than is given by, first of all, offering to bring in a Bill with this Amendment added to it, and then withdrawing that Bill for reasons wholly irrelevant to the pledge they had given, and now substituting a Bill which deals with only one anomaly in the whole system. I submit that no greater provocation could be conceived than that of the Government substituting this Bill for their wider proposal. I need hardly point out that there are anomalies just as grievous as the one proposed to be dealt with, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt a year ago. First of all there is a very real hardship that soldiers and sailors undergo. It is really hardly an exaggeration to say that, if you take soldiers and sailors, and sailors of the Navy, as well as those engaged in fishing and coasting industries, there are large numbers of them to-day practically disfranchised. In Liverpool we are especially familiar with this matter. In that city there is a large seafaring population, and I say that the Bill at any rate ought to have dealt with this, which is one of the most crying anomalies of our existing system.
  There are others with which the House is very familiar, and which have frequently been made the subject of complaint here. There is one which is not the subject of any party controversy, so far as I am aware—I refer to the case of the growing amount of the returning officer's charges. I have not heard anyone in the House who does not take the view that these returning officers' charges ought to be paid by the State as part of the contribution to the election. This is really a serious anomaly, which is felt by everyone, and very strongly indeed by poorer Members of the House, and any Bill which is introduced to deal with existing anomalies undoubtedly ought to have dealt with this

  1227
  one. The most obvious anomaly which requires to be dealt with is the question of Redistribution, which is not dealt with in this Bill. On that we have the statement of the Government that they propose in some Session not specified to deal with the question of Redistribution. The Government are allowing the Sessions to go by one by one in which their pledges, repeatedly made, might be carried out; but they are postponing the fulfilment of every one of those solemn and important commitments until the period of time in which universal experience shows that the strength of the Government wanes, and when it will be impossible to carry out such pledges. That applies not merely to the question of Redistribution, but to every other question which is within the recollection of the House. From the statement of the intention of the Government in introducing this Bill, we now know that they attach more importance to this proposal, and they leave Redistribution to a remote and uncertain future, while making sure of this Bill in the immediate present. The question of Redistribution was dealt with in terms—frequently quoted—used by the late Mr. Bright. I recommend what he said to the Members of the party of which he was such a distinguished ornament. Mr. Bright said in January of 1859:—
  "Repudiate, without mercy, any Bill that any Government whatever may introduce, whatever its seeming concessions may be, if it does not redistribute the seats that are obtained from the extinction of small boroughs amongst the large towns."
  I do not say that this was an unfair way of putting it, but I submit that the only justification for giving priority to the Plural Voting Bill over all others would be that it could be truthfully said that plural voting was a greater anomaly than any other, judged not by any party standard, but judged by the other anomalies of which complaint is made. The right hon. Gentleman opposite on the First Reading of the Bill said the object was to make the House of Commons truly representative of the country. I accept that, because no one can dispute that that is the real object of the representative system. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Which of the two anomalies does more to prevent the actual realisation of the ideal the right hon. Gentleman stated—the existence of plural voting, or the anomalies of distribution? There can be no hesitation in saying that plural voting is an anomaly which, by
  1228
  universal admission, does far less damage to the ideal which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, than the other anomalies which it was promised would be dealt with. It is sometimes stated that the representation of Ireland by 100 Members was an essential term of the Act of Union. I know there are some who take that view. I have never been able to discover upon what doctrine either of law or constitutional practice that contention is based. If the Act of Union is a sacrosanct thing I suppose the conclusion that we are prevented from dealing with it applies to all its parts. But the House of Commons found no difficulty at all in dealing with the union of the English and Irish churches, which was certainly one of the most essential terms of the Act, into which we are now told it is impossible to introduce anything at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was by consent of both parties."] The hon. Member says it was by consent of both parties. If the hon. Member means that there was a general measure of consent to that proposal there undoubtedly was not, and he is as well aware as I am that it met with very considerable resistance. If he means that we are to take the parties to it as the English people in the one case and the Irish people in the other, then he is treating the parties to that Act in the same way as if they were two independent sovereignties. I entirely dispute that this is the proper method of considering this or any other Act of a similar character. Mr. Pitt, in speaking of this very question, based himself only on the compact. He said with regard to the then population of Ireland that it was far from determining the proper number of Members to be returned to this House. He said:—
  "I really think the precise number is not a matter of great importance. Nevertheless, you must try to find some principle. A proper one seems to be that adopted by the Irish Parliament, a reference to the supposed population of the two countries, and to the proposed rate of contribution. These two taken together make a better (but not a perfect) criterion, than either separately. Population is about 2½ or 3 to 1, and contribution 7½ to 1, which in combination make over 5 to 1; and this is roughly represented by the proposed proportion of Members."
  But it is said, on what ground is it suggested that a compact had been entered into for all time, and that the representation of Ireland was to remain steady? On the basis put forward at that time, as fixed by the Irish Parliament, Ireland is now only entitled to fifty-one Members.
  Let me take one illustration, which will be quite sufficient for my purpose. The Member for Romford sits for a consti-

  1229
  tuency which is exactly, I think, thirty-four times larger than the constituency of the Member for Kilkenny, so that on a fair basis the Member for Romford should vote thirty-four times when the Member for Kilkenny votes once, if the thing was to be made on a mathematical basis. Can anyone pretend, in view of facts like those, that the Government are not leaving far more serious anomalies uncorrected in order to deal with the less serious anomaly. I think it is not irrelevant to point out, even accepting the proposal which they bring forward, they have adopted as thoroughly illogical a method of dealing with the problem as I imagine could be conceived. It is to apply to General Elections, but it is not to apply to by-elections. Anyone, I imagine, who remembers the perplexity in which the then Government became involved when in the year 1906 they tried to deal with this problem will find no particular difficulty in understanding why they have adopted simply the line of least resistance in dealing with the present proposal. It is necessary to point out that either this is a matter of principle or it is not. I suppose it is claimed it is a matter of principle. Somebody said on the First Reading that it was a case of unloading the dice against hon. Gentlemen opposite, but could anything be more grotesquely absurd than that this is to be allowed to continue in every by-election. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if we are successful in a by-election, will successfully retort that is no criterion of what people are thinking, because "you still retain your plural voting." It is to continue at by-elections, and this is to be done in deference to some unexplained difficulty. Is the joint intelligence of the Government and their draftsmen really unable to put before the House of Commons proposals that would correct the matter? There is no principle whatever in the business in any sense of the term. There was a principle involved, whether it was a good one or a bad one, in the old arrangement which determined that in this country, basing itself on the unbroken practice of centuries, votes were given in reference to the locality, and in reference to the stake which the individual claiming the vote possessed in that particular locality.
  That may have been a good principle or a bad principle, but it was a universal one, and it was one on which we relied for many centuries. It was regularly understood, and I would point
  1230
  out further that, besides being not inconvenient and susceptible of defence on other grounds, it dealt with a position familiar to everybody. There are many private Bill subjects which engage the attention of the House of Commons, and particularly nowadays, which are not less important than some of those large party controversies on which we spend so much time and eloquence. The system to which I am referring, at least secured that when you were dealing with a question affecting a locality in any private Bill legislation, those persons who, from the nature of the case, were interested in that locality, should enjoy the advantage of being represented in this House by the Member elected by the vote of those persons who were in that locality. As showing how far the principle was carried, may I remind the House in the old days when Members of this House were remunerated on a different system and paid by their constituents, and when the obligation of supporting them in Parliament fell on all those who paid taxes in the locality, consistently and harmoniously with that practice, was accepted as a constitutional principle that all those who so paid and were so interested in any locality, had the right of being represented by a Member of Parliament. As I have said, whether it was right, or whether it was wrong, that at least was an intelligible principle. Upon what principle do those rely who are seeking to destroy it, and those who never tire of pouring ridicule on that principle? The President of the Board of Education a year ago informed us that according to the best information at his disposal, and I readily admit that on such a point admirable information is at his disposal, that at least four to one of the plural voters were Members of the Unionist party. I would like to ask a very simple question. Does anyone in this House suppose, if the proportion were reversed and if there were four Liberals to one Unionist amongst the plural voters—is anybody so simple as to believe that the Government would be hustling in this Session with this Bill in this way?
  Even the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech on the First Reading of the Bill, if he will allow me to say so, added considerably to his reputation as a Parliamentary humorist, even that right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for this Bill, will not, I think, exhibit the courage of informing us that the Government would

  1231
  adopt this course if the two cases were reversed. It becomes necessary to ask, Does this Bill proceed upon any principles? And applying the best understanding that I can to the proposals of the Government, and to the arguments by which those proposals have been recommended, both on the platform and in the country, I gather the statement to be this, that voting power ought to be exactly even in the case of every individual citizen, and that under no circumstances ought the State to draw any distinction between different classes of citizens. That is a principle, I suppose, which again would lead to the conclusion that if you are going to deal with these things as matters of dogma, which is a very dangerous proceeding at any time—that is to say, in matters which are proper subjects for demonstration and for argument—then it becomes necessary to ask what is the basis upon which you decide en the extent which an individual citizen should be able by his vote to influence the government of the country. I suppose, if you were to view that on general grounds, you would say that a man's share in the government of the country ought to be determined by the probability that his contribution would be a valuable and useful one, and that his advice would be the advice of a man qualified to give advice. That is, I suppose, a general principle with which no one will be disposed to quarrel.
  The statement is also put forward that the opinion of one man is as good as the opinion of another man, and that there is no exception. That is the case which is put forward openly in defence of this proposal. I can only say, while it may be a true and right principle, it would certainly appear not to be a proper subject for dogma. It is not certainly as clearly established as those who assume it is established are accustomed to suppose. Many political philosophers in very different stages of civilisation in different countries and in different developments and different stages of democracy have taken quite a different view. Let me take an illustration. Take the case of a man who, springing from a very humble position, has reached a very successful and responsible position in the industrial world, and, by the sheer power of brain, character, and enterprise, from nothing has built up a great business, giving employment to many persons who, but for his activity and his enterprise and business ability, would not have obtained work in this country.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: He does not get a vote now!
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I thought we bad heard that, in nine cases out of ten, such a man would have two votes, namely, one in the place in which he carries on his business and one in the place in which he resides. I think I know what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and I will refer to it later on. Let me complete the contrast. I take the case of another man, and I am not in the least determining whose fault it is. It may be heredity or environment, but let me take the case of a man who has never been able to support his family, or to provide food for his wife and children, and who has had to come to the State periodically for help to do so. I think it is preposterous to say that in such a case the opinion of one man is as useful a guide as the opinion of the other, or that he is as competent to be as good a citizen as the other. You may point out, and it is not an unreasonable argument, that the existing system does not secure what logically would follow from my argument, and there is something to be said from that point of view. I was, however, attempting to discover on what principle this particular change, which is so insistently put forward, is based. The only principle is the one with which I have dealt, and I think I have demonstrated its complete unsuitability. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the circumstances under which you secure that such a man shall receive a somewhat higher degree of representation is not a logical one and is not a complete one, but it worked out without any pretence to logical completeness, and it does work out that, in the case which I put, the man would as a matter of course, in most cases, exercise more than one vote, and in the great majority of cases the anomaly would cease to exist, or, at any rate, not present such a serious aspect if it be borne in mind that in a large number of cases it can be defended on the lines I have attempted.
  I have paid the promoters of this Bill the compliment in the observations which I have made of assuming that it was their desire in introducing these proposals to the House of Commons to make a serious contribution to the removal of the anomalies of our electioneering system, and that it was their object to deal with this one because they thought this is the one of all others which, putting party grounds on one side, is the one which

  1233
  most imperatively demands to be dealt with. Let me, for a moment, deal very briefly with the other supposition. Suppose it be not the case that the Government is seriously of opinion that this is the greatest anomaly which demands to be treated, then in what kind of position are
  they coming to the House of Commons today and asking for leave to proceed with this Bill? They would be coming in the position of a Government which is dealing with the least of many anomalies, and which is only proposing to deal with this anomaly because they think they can extort some party advantage out of it, and they would he a Government which is utterly indifferent as to whether they will ever find themselves in the position to carry out a pledge, which I suppose would also be described as an obligation of honour, and a Government which, at this period in this Session, is hustling in order to obtain that one change in our electioneering law which they think would give the greatest chance of rehabilitating their shattered fortunes whenever they went to the country. The only appeal I would make on these lines to the President of the Board of Education, if he follows me, is this: I would ask him to deal perfectly candidly with the House of Commons. Let him not inform us that at some future time he hopes to introduce Redistribution proposals. Do not let him trouble to explain that when that happy moment arrives the Preamble to the Parliament Act will take priority over the Redistribution proposal, or that the Redistribution proposals will take priority over the Preamble to the Parliament Act, because we are not in the least impressed by those statements. We do not believe that either will take priority over the other, for reasons which are abundantly obvious. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman simply to say, and to say quite plainly, "I know that it is useless to go through a performance which imposes upon nobody; therefore I frankly say that the reason why we select this particular proposal is that we think we can gerrymander the constituencies in our interest. A year ago we were not wholly without hope that there might be other ways in which we could gerrymander the constituencies, but we found that there were some Members of the Labour party who would not stand it, because they were committed to the women on the question of Female Suffrage. Therefore, we had to jettison other
  1234
  prospects, some almost as fair as the abolition of plural voting, but we still stick to our proposal with regard to plural voting. That, at least, we are going to get rid of; we will suck, at any rate, some party advantage from that." Let the right hon. Gentleman make that speech, and he will sit down, if not with the reputation so, recently asserted for him of a Parliamentary diplomatist, at any rate with the reputation of having made one of the few honest speeches delivered from that bench in this Session.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I do not know whether I shall be able to impress right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with my honesty in connection with the proposals which I have already introduced to the House. At any rate, I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has moved his Amendment. Apart from sonic veiled criticism with regard to our motives, he has endeavoured to put forward the best case he could in support of the attitude which the Opposition have repeatedly taken up whenever these or similar proposals have been before the House. I can also congratulate the party opposite on the fact that since 1906 they have made some serious progress towards meeting us in connection with this measure. Seven years ago in their official Amendment they alluded to our proposals for the abolition of plural voting as a mere change of franchise; whereas they admit in the terms of their present Amendment that it is an anomaly to exercise the plural vote. But when a suppliant for bread and meat refuses a very useful slice of bread and a very good slice of meat with it, saying that, rather than have that sandwich, he will not be content without a joint and 4-lb. loaf, one is not surprised if the donor regards the individual who alleged that he was hungry with some scepticism and suspicion. The party opposite are only pursuing the same tactics that they always pursue when questions connected with franchise reform are before the House. They invariably find some excuse for resisting the proposals. This time it is that the Bill is not accompanied by other measures dealing with franchise reform, electoral reform, registration reform, and Redistribution. When the Insurance Bill was before the House, it was that we did not give enough time. They always find some excuse for opposing the measures of reform introduced from this side.

  1235
  What surprises me more is that two or three Members of the Labour party should venture to oppose these proposals. That two or three of them—I believe there are only two or three—should think it necessary to postpone the day upon which the wage-earner shall be placed on an equality with the multi-property owner seems to me to be an extraordinary proceeding. If there was anything upon which we could stand upon a common platform, I should have thought it was in advocating the principle of one man one vote. That is one thing I believe upon which democracy is absolutely united. No matter what arguments those two or three Labour Members may use to their constituents, I feel sure that the working-classes as a whole will not regard any opposition to this Bill as being to the interests of their class. The Government are no less anxious than any other Members to do their utmost to secure that the House of Commons shall truly represent and reflect the wishes of the country and the intelligent opinion of the nation. It is when we come to discuss with our opponents the definition of country and nation that we find where we differ. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the view that under our electoral system special interests should be represented, and that those who possess a special stake in the country should be allowed to exercise a greater voting power than those who possess a smaller stake. He also alluded to the necessity of localities being considered in this respect. We on this side believe that the cumulative view of the electors as ascertained by a majority, each elector voting once and once only, is the right way in which the citizens of this country should express the view of the nation. We desire that each elector should have facilities for recording his vote once, whilst Members on the other side are prepared, at any rate in regard to certain sections of the community, to allow the view of an individual who possesses more than one qualification to be recorded repeatedly.
  In advocating Redistribution their main contention used to be that Ireland was over-represented, and it was with a view to removing that anomaly that Redistribution in their opinion was so important. Our Home Rule Bill will remove that grievance, but I understand that the party opposite will still contend that Redistribution should be associated with any franchise reform, whether in restraint of the
  1236
  exercise of plural voting, or whether in connection with the abolition of the antiquated qualifications which now exist. In 1905 the Opposition had an opportunity of putting into force their own views with regard to Redistribution, and we had a fairly good insight into their idea of one vote one value. Their proposals then were that the old boroughs with a population of under 18,500 should be left with their existing Members, and it was only when they reached a population of 65,000 that large boroughs should be allowed to have representatives. That may be their idea, of one vote one value, but I can assure them that it is not ours. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to be quite frank with the House. I intend to be as frank as I can. No man can do more than that. I admit that the reasons why we are proceeding with this Bill this Session is that we believe that plural voting, if it is not the greatest, is at any rate one of the greatest anomalies. We believe that it is as urgent as the other anomalies to which reference has been made. We believe that it is possible this Session to deal with this question, whereas we see no possible chance, having regard to the opportunities afforded during the remainder of the Session, to deal with any other of the questions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It is impossible for us to deal with the whole subject of Redistribution, and electoral and franchise reform. We made a somewhat courageous attempt last Session to deal with franchise reform and registration. That Bill extended over a large number of pages, and was much more extensive than the simple measure which I introduced the other day. It is only because this is a very short Bill, and does not raise many points of criticism and controversy, that we can devote sufficient time this Session to passing it into law.
  Any Bill creating an autonomous registration system, based upon a short residential qualification, must necessarily contain many Clauses, and if we are to rise at the beginning of August, as we all hope we may, it is absolutely impossible for us to introduce such a measure as the right hon. Gentleman has outlined, dealing with the various anomalies which we on this side, just as much as he, admit to the full require redress at as early a date as possible. I admit that there are anomalies still unredressed even in connection with plural voting. I may use the illustration of by-elections to which the right hon. Gentle-

  1237
  man referred. After this Bill is passed into law, and if a Franchise Bill did not follow it before the next General Election, I admit that it would be absurd that at the General Election Members might be returned to this House by certain electorates, and then a fortnight afterwards, having taken office, they should have to appeal not to the same individuals who had previously returned them, but to a constituency in which at the by-election there might be 3,000 or 4,000 additional voters capable of voting. Again, it is absurd that an individual with several qualifications should be placed in a preferential position as compared with the poorer elector as to the constituency in which he should exercise his vote. I think these evils can be redressed before the next General Election by the passage of a Franchise Reform Bill somewhat similar to that which I introduced last Session.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Why, then, have you introduced this Bill?
  Mr. PEASE: Because we had an opportunity of dealing with one of the anomalies, and time does not permit us to deal with the others. We see no reason on this side of the House why, when we have an opportunity of dealing with one anomaly, we should not proceed with it. There are other anomalies. There is the question the right hon. Gentleman alluded to—the returning officer's expenses. I welcome cordially the general support which he has given to that proposal. If he can assure us that he and his Friends on that side of the House will welcome the proposal and will allow it to pass by the general consent of the House of Commons, I can assure him that it would not be very long before the Government will be prepared to introduce a measure so that it may be passed by general assent. There is the question of alternative voting, the question of holding all elections on one day, of the closing of public-houses, and of making the day of the General Election a general holiday. There is also the question of dealing with the Corrupt Practices Act, and the use, or rather the abuse, of conveyances at elections. There is the question of the extension of the hours of polling; so I might go on. All these matters are matters which the Government really regard as of importance. It is their intention to deal with these subjects in a Bill before the next General Election. If there are anomalies left in connection with plural voting, we believe
  1238
  that as soon as the franchise reform is introduced these anomalies to which my attention has been called by hon. Friends on this side of the House will disappear. Of course, if unforeseen circumstances did occur and this Bill was passed into law unaccompanied by Redistribution or franchise reform, I can at any rate point out that this Bill in no way aggravates the situation, and in no way creates a new position which would require to be remedied. It mitigates the evil if it does not absolutely abolish it.
  What it does do is that it will prevent about half a million votes being recorded at the next General Election, and we shall not see the wholesale inpouring of outsiders at election times which has been so much resented by every class of residential voter throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope the House will accept my word when I say it is our intention before the General Election to introduce a measure of this kind to deal with franchise reform. We intend to deal with that, and we also intend to deal with Redistribution upon a basis which I believe will command the general assent of the whole country. I will just for a moment or two—I think it is due to the House—explain so far as I have been able to obtain any figures, the effect of this Bill upon the register. May I first of all inform the House, although the figures are available in the White Paper No. 478, which was issued a few weeks ago, that the present electorate of England and Wales is 6,536,000; of Scotland, 820,000, and of Ireland 701,000, making a total number of voters on the register of 8,058,000. So far as I am able to obtain the information, I believe that there are at the present moment about 450,000 plural voters in England and Wales, 55,000 in Scotland, and about 20,000 in Ireland, making a total of 525,000 plural voters. Those figures include 51,123 university voters, nearly all of whom are plural voters, though they possess other qualifications. That is an average of one plural voter to every sixteen on the register. I admit many of the plural voters do not necessarily themselves possess ownership qualifications.
  To a very large extent the greatest grievance in connection with plural voting is found in constituencies just outride some of our larger cities and boroughs. I think the hon. Member for Stretford has the distinction of representing the largest number of plural voters, for I believe in his constituency there are something like

  1239
  4,000 freehold voters who reside in the city of Manchester, or have property in Manchester and Salford, and yet come to his Division to vote in Parliamentary elections. I believe the hon. Member behind me, who sits for the Pudsey Division of Yorks, probably possesses a greater proportion of plural voters, having regard to the total electorate in his constituency, than any other Member in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Six thousand."] Therefore this grievance is not one in which only one side of the House is concerned. I have given two illustrations of seats represented by Liberal Members, yet they contain the greatest number of plural votes. I have had figures in regard to those constituencies in which there are over 1,000 plural voters who come in at the time of a General Election. There are thirty-five of these constituencies. At the present time seventeen of them happen to be represented by Liberals, seventeen by Conservatives, and one by Labour. Of course, I admit that we believe, from a party point of view, the passage of this Bill would be an advantage to us: that there are many small constituencies in which, by the abolition of plural voting, we should secure a better majority for our candidates than we have at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member who cheers might not have been returned in 1906 if there had been no plural votes in his constituency. Still, I want to make this point—one which has been repeatedly made. Hon. Gentlemen opposite like to attribute motives to us—that we are promoting this Bill in order to promote party ends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, if you like to attribute motives to us, it is just as easy for us to say that the whole force of your opposition is in order to promote the interests of your party. Therefore, at any rate in connection with party warfare, I think we may claim quits.
  The real question is whether, in proposing this reform, we are proposing what is really fair between man and man in the constituencies. May I, as briefly as I can, just run through some of those objections which I believe have been and may be raised in connection with these proposals. Reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman of the penalties which we propose. We thought it fair and reasonable that a penalty ought to be a mean between the two other penalties which I mentioned on the First Reading as possible alterna-
  1240
  tives. If the penalty is inadequate, no doubt it will be easy for the plural vote to be exercised. On the other hand, if the penalty is excessive it will be very much more difficult to obtain a conviction. It is of the utmost importance that there should be a reasonable deterrent in regard to any attempt being made to exercise the plural vote in the event of the passage of this Bill. Some hon. Member said the Bill does not go far enough. My answer to that is that we have no time at present to introduce a larger measure. It is also suggested that the proposals in the Bill in themselves will add to the expense in the constituencies, especially of the various agents, and that it will produce increased trouble and uncertainty in regard to the election in which the agent takes an interest. I believe all those difficulties, which the agents of the various parties anticipate will disappear when the reform of the franchise, to which I have already alluded, is accomplished. There is the objection raised that we are changing our electoral methods—that the methods which we suggest under this Bill are opposed to historical precedents. I have to say in answer to that that times have changed, that the facilities for transit as well as the mobility of our working class population are greater than ever before. There have been great strides in educational progress, and we are fully justified in making a departure from the old historical precedents and in securing a system based upon the individual rather than upon interest or locality. We admit that the Opposition do rely more than they used to do upon population in connection with many of these matters.
  Their acceptance of the principle of the Referendum was the acceptance of the principle of individual responsibility rather than the interest of individuals in a locality or individuals in a class. We know how the Referendum was supported by Lord Lansdowne and others as a fair and advantageous way of securing the views of the country. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that our proposal violates the principle that taxation should be accompanied by representation. He alluded to the fact that there were about eleven different qualifications, with eighteen or nineteen variations. In those variations there is no foundation whatever to-day for the allegation that the votes of the men who vote on the register are there because of any contribution towards the taxation of the country. There are

  1241
  many classes of voters who need not pay any taxes whatsoever to the country at the present time. The franchises that exist to-day are not based upon taxation, but to a very large extent they are based upon privilege. Hon. Members opposite have once or twice appealed to us to maintain those privileges in which they have been brought up. Their appeals fall upon deaf ears so long as they are not based upon logic, equity, and justice. Then there is the allegation that under the provisions of this Bill we are going to destroy university representation. After all, those who represent university seats on the average only represent, I think, about 5,500 electors, and they are mostly external ones. These are really a survival of an ancient franchise, of what we term on this side of the House "fancy franchises," and we do not believe it is necessary any longer to continue any of those fancy franchises. But this Bill does not destroy university representation. If those who believe in university representation possess university votes and desire to exercise them, there is nothing to prevent them from preferring the university vote under the provisions of this Bill. The last great objection to this proposal which has been put forward by the Opposition is that the measure ought to be associated with a Redistribution Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) has admitted that if this Bill is passed into law he believes it will be accompanied by a Redistribution measure towards the end of this Parliament.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I never said that.
  Mr. PEASE: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH: It shows the danger of employing sarcasm.
  Mr. PEASE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman accepted the intention of the Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill?
  Mr. SMITH: No.
  Mr. PEASE: Did he not accept our word that we intended to do so?
  Mr. SMITH: I contrasted it with the Preamble.
  Mr. PEASE: He may accept our word or not with regard to our intentions, but there it is. I believe that we shall introduce a Redistribution Bill, and I believe
  1242
  the right time to introduce a Redistribution Bill is towards the end of the life of a Parliament and not before. I would venture to point out that no civilised nation adopts the system of plural voting in setting up a new Constitution. None of our Colonies has a system of plural voting, and the suggestion that it should be removed is one which, it seems to me, has the approval of all our Colonies whenever this point is put to them. There is no logic in a plurality of votes. Even under our present system wealth may purchase a certain number of faggot votes. An individual who likes to obtain faggot votes can do so by purchasing freehold property almost wherever he likes. If that individual has enjoyed that property for six months he is qualified to become a voter as owner, whilst for residential purposes the period is eighteen months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] An individual may become a voter, I speak under correction, after six months' possession of the property, but another voter must be in residence at least a year. There are so many anomalies that I can only give a few illustrations of what occurs or may occur under the present system. Let us take the case of a county area. One individual may own a whole county and receive perhaps a rental of £60,000 per year, but he is only entitled to one vote. Another individual happens to own a quarter of an acre at a point where three counties join, and to have one cottage in each, value £2, and he becomes a 40s. freeholder. In three constituencies for a rent of £6 he will have three votes. Take the case of a borough. A man may have a large freehold property in a borough, but that does not qualify him for a vote, while there may be twenty boroughs surrounding him and an individual who happens to have a shop in each of these boroughs may have twenty votes, whilst the individual with much greater property in one borough can only exercise one vote. Take the case of Tower Hamlets in London. A man may possess in each of the seven constituencies of Tower Hamlets a qualification for a vote and yet he can only exercise one, but if he happens to possess in the other boroughs outside of Tower Hamlets, say seven qualifications, he may vote for seven separate constituencies.
  The whole thing is absurd from beginning to end. Really the attempt of hon. Gentlemen to justify the exercise of plural voting, as the system is now in operation, seems to me to be absurd. We on this

  1243
  side of the House believe that the exercise of plural voting, as we said in 1884, hits the poor man, and that it puts the poor man in a very unfair position rather than doing justice to him. The words to which I refer have been so often quoted that I shall not venture to quote them. One other point has connection with an Amendment which has been suggested to me in this Bill. It is thought that voters should have the question directly put to them by the presiding officer when they go into the polling booth as to whether they had voted in any other constituency at this election. That is a Committee point. I am not prepared to commit myself one way or the other in connection with a proposal of that kind, bat I will say that the Government are quite prepared to entertain an Amendment of that kind if the House seriously thinks it would be an improvement in the Bill. The Bill has direct and indirect advantages. It not only deals with the existing anomaly and tends to greater fairness, but it stops the creation of new faggot votes. It will be a step towards adult suffrage, in which many Members believe; it will open the door to other reforms; and it would be a direct incentive to the passage of those other complementary measures which we feel are required to be carried into law in order to make this Bill workable in the best sense of the term. The democracy have long urged the passage of this Bill. It is founded upon justice; it is founded upon the equal right of qualified electors. Therefore it is with confidence that I commend it to the House.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: As one of those two or three Labour Members to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred who have dared to offer some resistance to the proposal of the Government, I desire to submit a few reasons why I support the Amendment which has been moved from the Front Bench opposite. I am not in the least concerned as to the motives which prompt the party opposite in submitting this Amendment. I shall not be at all afraid at the company in which I shall find myself in the Lobby when the vote for the Amendment is taken. As one who occupies a position which is somewhat detached from the two main parties in this House, I think that the two speeches which have already been contributed to this Debate have been extremely interesting. They have been a full recognition of the amomalies of our existing franchise
  1244
  and registration laws. I am innocent in those matters, and therefore I would like to ask, Whence came all those anomalies in our electoral and registration laws? Did they, like the Israelitish manna, drop down from heaven? Are they not all registered in Acts of Parliament which have been passed by one party or the other? I have never heard two speeches in this House which were such an indictment of both political parties as those which have just been delivered. All these anomalies are the creation of one party or the other. I am not opposed to the abolition of plural voting. When the Bill of 1906 was before this House I supported that measure in all its stages, but the circumstances of to-day and the circumstances of that time are very different, and it is because of these changed circumstances that I cannot support this very partial and ineffective proposal for dealing with grave electoral anomalies. It is quite true that long before 1906 the Liberal party were pledged in a general way to a comprehensive scheme of electoral reform, but there was no definite promise that the party would deal with it in such a way during the Parliament of 1906. The supporters of Women Suffrage in this House were still relying upon the chances of a private Member's Bill, but after the House of Lords threw out the Plural Voting Bill of 1906 no further attempt was made by the Government up till now to deal with the question of plural voting apart from the general question of electoral reform. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) asked the House to believe that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question of electoral and registration reform during the lifetime of the present Parliament. There is a very old and familiar ring about that statement. I have often heard it, almost in the exact words, and may I ask the House to listen to two or three similar declarations which have been made at one time or another by the Prime Minister upon this question? Speaking five years ago to a deputation of Liberal Members who waited upon him upon this question of Women Suffrage, the Prime Minister said:—
  "He regarded it as the duty of the Government to introduce before the end of this Parliament an effective scheme of electoral reform."
  The very words we have heard repeated from the Treasury Bench this afternoon! And then the Prime Minister went on to make the oft-repeated declaration which

  1245
  he made in regard to Women Suffrage that the comprehensive measure of electoral reform would be so drafted as to permit the House of Commons, if it so desired, to include a Women's Suffrage Amendment. I do not blame the Government for not having redeemed that promise of the Prime Minister during the 1906 Parliament. The throwing out of the Budget of 1909 by the House of Lords precipitated a General Election, and, I admit, made it impossible for the Prime Minister during that Parliament to redeem that pledge. But the point I want to emphasise is this, that in 1908 the Government, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, said they felt in duty bound in that Parliament within the next two or three years to introduce, in his own words, "an effective scheme of electoral reform." That was not accomplished in the Parliament of 1906, and I repeat that in the circumstances I do not blame the Government. I now want to call attention to a repetition of that declaration which was made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the General Election, January, 1910. He said:—
  "Nearly two years ago I declared on behalf of the present Government that in the event we contemplate of bringing in a reform Bill, we should make the insertion of Woman's Suffrage an open question."
  The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the declaration he made eighteen months before still stood, and that no party would be in a worse position on account of the unfortunate events which had happened. I do not blame the Government for not having introduced a comprehensive electoral measure in 1910, because that was a very short Parliament, and we were all looking forward to the passing of the Parliament Act, and to the liberation of Liberal efforts in political and social reform which had been hampered for half a century by the Veto of the House of Lords. The Parliament Act became the law of the land. We had another General Election, and the Government promise to deal with this question by a comprehensive scheme of electoral reform still held good. Immediately the new Parliament met the Prime Minister announced that it was the intention of the Government when the way was clear to carry out what they felt to be their duty four years before, and on the 18th November, the Prime Minister, speaking to a deputation in regard to the Reform Bill, said:—
  "I am asked is it the intention of the Government that the Bill should go through all its stages in 1912? Certainly it is our intention, and we hope to carry it through in that year."
  1246
  That was in 1911. I come now to the point where I offer a serious criticism of the action of the Government in regard to this question of electoral reform. They introduced last year a Franchise Bill, which from a democratic point of view, contained a good many admirable proposals. The Bill proposed to establish manhood suffrage, to simplify the registration laws, to abolish university representation and plural voting. Apart from its omission to deal with the question of Redistribution and the enfranchisement of women, it was a Bill which we are entitled to call a fairly comprehensive scheme of electoral reform. Then there came the ruling of Mr. Speaker, and I can not blame the Government for that. I do not think that at that late time of the Session it would have been possible to have introduced another Franchise Bill of such a comprehensive character. I do not think the Government knew that such a ruling as that which was ultimately given, was likely to be given, and I do not think the Government are so foolish as to proceed in such a way as that. What I complain of is that they have not accepted the position as it was left by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, at the end of last Session, and instead of reintroducing a Franchise Bill, which would have been a comprehensive scheme of electoral reform, that would have fulfilled the Prime Minister's repeated declaration that if the House so desired, Women Suffrage would be made part of the Reform Bill, instead of doing that, the Government have postponed to an indefinite day the question of an effective scheme of electoral reform, and from the wreckage of the Reform Bill, they have selected one item, and from the point of view of importance and urgency, the least important of all, the items in the Franchise Bill of last Session.
  The right hon. Gentleman, who moved the Amendment, suggested some reasons which might have induced the Government to adopt this course of action. May I, at any rate, be a little more charitable and take the reasonable excuse which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that there is no time now to deal with such a measure as that which was introduced last year. Let us examine this argument. We are giving two days to the Second Reading of this Bill. I suppose the Government, even in these days, will give at least one or two days to the Committee, and that is four days for the Committee stage and the Second Reading. Then we

  1247
  are going to have another question dealing with the franchise laws raised in the House of Commons next week. Two days have to be given next week to the Second Reading of the Women's Franchise Bill, and if that Bill should pass the Second Reading, those responsible for it have the promise of the Government of as much time as is necessary for all the remaining stages of that Bill. If that Bill is adopted on its Second Reading, it will require, on a very moderate estimate, a week of Parliamentary time this Session. What did the Government propose for the Committee stage of the Franchise Bill last year. They proposed eight days. Therefore, the amount of time that will be taken up in dealing with only two of the points that arose out of the Franchise Bill of last Session will be twice as much as the total time which the Government proposed to give to the Committee stage of the Franchise Bill last year, and therefore, their contention that this is a matter of time, falls entirely to the ground.
  I come now to the Bill itself. The Bill professes to deal with plural voting, but it does no such thing. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said much that I should have said in regard to the anomaly of plural voting, and the present need for a redistribution of seats. The greatest plural voters to-day are not the half-million of men to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred who have votes in more than one constituency; the greatest plural voters are those who vote in small constituencies. I happen to be a registered elector in a Division in the county of Middlesex. In that Division there are 35,000 electors registered, whilst in another part of this county where a by-election is now taking place there are only 4,000 registered electors, so that every voter in Whitechapel is a plural voter nine times over, compared with the voters in the constituency in which I reside. Let me give one more illustration. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) takes an important and valuable part in the debates of this House. May I point out that he was returned by a number of votes hardly enough to return a member to a respectable parish council, and he polled only one-tenth of the number of votes polled by one of my hon. Friends who represents the city of Newcastle. The first time I stood as a Parliamentary candidate in 1900 I was not elected, but there
  1248
  were not twenty out of the 670 Members who were returned at that General Election who polled as many votes as I did, although I was not a successful candidate.
  Who can defend a system like that. These are the real plural voters, and the right hon. Gentleman's Bill is going to do nothing to touch this, which is one of the greatest anomalies in our electoral system. Take the question of registration. Quoting from Sir Charles Dilke, the right hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out that it is possible for a man to live in the same house for two and a half years and still not be entitled to vote at the Parliamentary election. Do hon. Members realise that that actually happened in hundreds of thousands of cases at the last General Election? No elector could vote at the last General Election unless he had been qualified for a vote for a period of two and a half years before the election. Those of us who are in close touch with the working-class electors know that at every election from 20 to 25 per cent. of the electors remove, and in my Constituency there were no less than 8,000 removals. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill does nothing to deal with this anomaly. Surely this is closely connected with the question of plural voting. If you have 25 per cent. of the working classes who ought to have the vote and who are unable to exercise it, that increases proportionately the plurality of those who are able to exercise it.
  I cannot congratulate the President of the Board of Education upon the aptness of his illustration. He asked us to take this Bill like the hungry man, who would be wise to take half a loaf rather than no bread at all. I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman a much better illustration. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman owed me a sovereign. It was rightfully due, and suppose he offered me a sixpence in discharge of the debt, and I refused to have the sixpence. That is precisely what the Government are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and "It is on account."] It is not worth sixpence by comparison with the other anomalies. This Bill is just a specimen of the Liberal legislation which has been passed ever since I can remember. Who is responsible for plural voting as it exists to-day? Why, the Liberal party. If they did not establish it, at any rate they perpetuated it, and aggravated it enormously by the Franchise Act of 1884. Why, then, did they not deal with the question of plural voting? I think I can give the answer. They were then extending the

  1249
  franchise to a large number of working men, and they increased the power of plural voting in accordance with that principle of Liberalism described by Mr. Gladstone when he said:—
  "They were trusting the people, but their trust was qualified by prudence."
  6.0 P.M.
  The extension of the vote to the agricultural labourer was trusting the people, but the increase in the number of plural voters was the element of prudence which has always been so conspicuous in Liberal legislation. The Prime Minister, I submit, has not kept his word either in regard to the promise that he will introduce a comprehensive scheme of electoral reform or in regard to his promise to the women. Therefore, I shall vote against this Bill to-morrow, and I shall oppose it at every stage. I shall oppose the Bill because it does not conform to the oft-repeated pledge of the Prime Minister in regard to electoral reform and in regard to Women Suffrage. I shall oppose the Bill, too, because I believe it does not, indeed, abolish plural voting. It perpetuates plural voting in a new and irritating and mischievous way. I do not envy Liberal Members who have to go down to their constituencies and defend this Bill, and especially those who have to go down to a by-election where there are a large number of out-voters. This is simply another Cat-and-Mouse Bill. It is another in-and-out Bill. It takes in the plural voter and restrains him at the time of a General Election, and it lets him out on a free licence in the intervals between. I shall oppose the Bill, further, because I believe it will, if passed, indefinitely postpone a more comprehensive scheme, and I shall oppose it most of all because I believe it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to evade the very definite promise they have given to the women of the country in regard to Women Suffrage.
  Mr. CAVE: I do not think anybody, except the President of the Board of Education himself, thinks that the right hon. Gentleman has really dealt effectively with the main points which have been made against the Bill. Whilst professing a desire to equalise the value of votes and make every vote have an equal power, the Government are dealing only with one small part of the problem and that the least important. They are proposing a measure which, as is very frankly admitted by the party opposite, has the indirect effect that it is of real party advantage to
  1250
  them. The right hon. Gentleman very frankly and very honestly admitted that last statement. He said, "I admit quite freely that, in our opinion, the effect of this Bill, if passed, will be for the good of my party, but we have no time to deal with the whole question at once. We intend "—he asked us to believe that they intended—" to deal with Redistribution later on." Time is not saved, but lost, by attempting to deal with this kind of problem partially and unfairly. A proposal made in good faith by the Government for dealing not only with what they consider the anomaly of plural voting but with the redistribution of seats, and with those anomalies in the registration law to which we, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), attach very great importance indeed, would have, I think, in all parts of the House a more sympathetic reception than that which this Bill is likely to have. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Believe us, we mean to deal with Redistribution; we mean to deal with it before this Bill comes into effect." If that is so, will he accept an Amendment in Committee, making this Bill conditional on the passing of a Redistribution Bill? It is useless to expect the House of Commons to rely only on the intentions, however sincere they may be, of the Government, because we know very well that the passing of a Bill does not depend wholly upon intentions. Other matters which they consider of more importance may come in the way of the intentions they have expressed to the House. If the Government will say, "We are so sincere in our declarations that we will accept a condition that this Bill shall not operate unless the seats are redistributed," then we shall have ground for believing in the real operative nature of the views which they express.
  This Bill not only does not cure the anomalies of distribution, but it makes them worse than they are now. The anomalies are admitted. Some seats have few electors, and others have more, but it happens that the plural voters are mainly found in the larger constituencies. I think that hon. Members will find a great many of them in those great seats in the neighbourhood of London and our great cities which are under-represented. There are many in the Home Counties and in places round the great cities of the country, and, roughly and partially I admit, but to some extent the anomalies caused by the unfair distribution of seats are compensated by

  1251
  the fact that some voters in the great divisions have also votes in other divisions. By putting an end to that and by reducing every voter to one vote only you do take away that amount of compensation such as it is, and you do increase the admitted evils caused by under-representation. It is needless for anyone to insist, on the present anomalies in the distribution of seats. The system is wholly indefensible, and it is undefended. No one dreams of saying that places like Romford, Walthamstow, and Wandsworth can fairly be represented by one Member, while Kilkenny and Galway, and others, with an electorate of one-ninth or one-eighth of the number of the others, are also fairly represented by one Member. No one defends it. I think the Prime Minister has frankly admitted that that anomaly is greater than the anomaly of plural voting. It is a more important question, and I do not think we have had an answer yet to the proposition that you cannot, if you are sincere, undertake to deal with only a small part of this question while leaving the more important question untouched.
  Many of us remember the discussion on the Bill of 1910. The proposal of that Bill, roughly, was that no one should be registered in more than one constituency. This Bill takes a different form. The proposal now, for the first time, is to make it an offence, to make it a crime for a man who is registered for more than one constituency to exercise all his votes. If he has votes in two constituencies, then to vote in both of them is, under this Bill, made a corrupt practice, and subjects him to a year's imprisonment with hard labour. It is difficult to understand why that is so. If I live in the country and carry on my business in the town, I have an interest in both places. My opinion is part of the opinion of each of those places. I am connected with the local life, and I know something of the local conditions. My opinion is one which has been taken into account, and I should have thought that it ought fairly to be taken into account at an election. The position of a man who has two occupation votes in that way, a residential vote and a business vote, is different from that of a man who has a number of ownership votes in different parts of the country, and I do not think a Bill which makes the exercise of two votes of that kind a crime will have much sympathy throughout the country.
  1252
  More than that, you are dealing, I agree indirectly, in this Bill with the university vote. I quite admit that you do not abolish it, but you do that which is just as effective. You, to use a phrase which has been used before, bleed the universities white; you drain them of the greater part of their voters. The university vote has been defended in this House by Members on both sides. Great Liberals have defended it, and indeed have recommended it as perhaps the most logical vote which you can have. It is a vote dependent upon an educational qualification. You are going to destroy it. You are going to vote for giving a man two votes because he is a married man, but you will not give him two votes because he is an educated man. I say that you are going to do away with it for this reason. If this Bill passes, the university electorate will depend entirely upon dance. It will consist wholly of those who by reason of not having votes elsewhere, or by reason of having votes in constituencies which are reckoned safe seats, choose to vote for the university. It will not be composed even of the resident members, because many of them may elect to vote in the town in which the university is situated. It will be a mere chance electorate, bound together by no real bond. Therefore, for all practical purposes you do intend to destroy that which has been a feature of our electoral system, namely, the university vote. The same observation applies with a good deal of force to the City of London and other great cities, where the electorate will no longer be composed of all those who have some interest in the city, but simply of those who by some chance or for some reason or other elect to give their votes to the City.
  The indirect effect of this measure, therefore, will be serious, apart from its being partial. It is a disfranchising measure. You are taking away votes. Are you going to follow it by a Dissolution? You are altering the electorate of the country, the electorate that sent this House here, and I think the tradition has been that when that is done Dissolution follows. If this Bill passes it will no longer represent the voting power of the country. I have not heard any suggestion that this measure shall be followed by a Dissolution.
  Let me say a word on the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), namely, the fact

  1253
  that this proposal is confined to a General Election. Is not that perfectly absurd? You may have two by-elections, at which one man may vote on successive days; but at a General Election that man can only have one vote. A Minister may be elected at a General Election. On appointment to office he vacates his seat, and he has to seek re-election. But if this Bill passes he will appeal to a totally different constituency to that which chose him at the General Election, and while he may have won at the General Election he may be turned out a week afterwards because he has accepted office. Where is the sense of that? Why is it wrong in principle to have two votes at a General Election, and yet in the next week be able to vote at two by-elections? I understand the reason why that proposal is made. When it was sought in 1903 to limit registration to one Division the difficulties were found to be so great that the Bill ultimately lapsed. It is to get round those difficulties that this expedient has been adopted. While I understand the motive, I think the anomaly produced by it is even greater than that which now exists. These are points which will have to be considered. I have only put them shortly. The main objection to the Bill, which I believe is felt in every part of the House, is that it does not fairly and squarely meet the difficulty of the situation. My right hon. Friend, on the question whether votes should be equal, did, I think, arrest the attention of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with him; they may see nothing in it. But, if you deal with the electorate at all, you must deal with it from some logical point of view. Hon. Members say votes should be equal, but the effect of this Bill is not by any means to do that. It will redress what we consider a small inequality, but it will leave greater inequalities where they are. In their view the part which they attack will be attacked for their benefit, and I do not think they can wonder when, without unduly attributing motives, we call upon them, as fair-minded men, to deal, not with a part only, but with the whole question.
  Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Member who has just spoken repeated a phrase we are likely to hear a great deal more of. He asks why we should deal with this one anomaly when there are so many others existing, many of which are far more serious. The reason seems to me a very sensible one. The party opposite has
  1254
  shown lately a very enthusiastic desire for electoral reform; they seem to be prepared with many schemes of franchise reform and Redistribution, but the one particular branch of the subject which they show a great disposition to resist is this particular question of plural voting. We find it will take us some time to pass a Plural Voting Bill. We have got to use the Parliament Act; it will take two years at least, and, whereas, in the last Session of this Parliament, with the enthusiastic help of hon. Members opposite, the franchise could be extended and Redistribution could be passed—there would be no difficulty in that because we should have their support—in this particular they are opposed to us, and we have to take it first in order to pass it within the lifetime of this Parliament and under the Parliament Act. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the idea of the representation of localities, and suggested it would disappear under this proposal. I cannot say I have ever understood the idea of locality. We do not represent streets and houses, shops and business places, and fields; we represent human beings. That is really the only basis on which you can carve out and distribute representation. Take my own case: I represent five different towns in three different counties, not remotely connected one with the other. You may see on what principle the grouping is done in the case of boroughs all over the country, but you cannot conceive any basis on which to defend it as a locality. You can however regard a constituency as a unit consisting of individuals that is divided according to certain localities.
  I want now to deal with the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite for Redistribution. We receive from time to time remarkable charts, maps, and diagrams carefully and ingeniously produced by the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton (Major Morrison-Bell). He has not discovered this great electoral anomaly, but he has described it very effectively. We have an instance which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, showing how the party opposite dealt with this question of Redistribution not very long ago. Only eight years since, in 1905, the Conservative Government introduced a scheme of Redistribution, and it is well worth a glance in order to see what were the views of hon. Members opposite with regard to one vote one value. In their scheme they left twenty-three boroughs with an

  1255
  electorate of less than 5,000—boroughs such as Salisbury, Taunton, and Hereford—with one Member apiece. I need not say that a great majority of the boroughs were represented by Conservative Members in this House. They left St. Andrews District, with a population of 19,311, with one Member; they left White haven, with a population of 19,334, with one Member, and at the same time they left Lewisham, with a population of 127,490, and Woolwich, with a population of 117,000 each with one Member. That is to say, one vote at St. Andrews was equal to seven in Lewisham and six in Woolwich. That is the idea that hon. Members opposite have of one vote one value. It shows what their enthusiasm for Redistribution is worth. They have an idea that they can redistribute the country, and they will do it in such a way as will favour their own party. The scheme in 1905 failed because it was absolutely grotesque. It was merely introduced in order to reduce Irish representation. That attempt to establish one vote one value is in itself sufficient to show what the sincerity of hon. Members opposite on the subject of Redistribution is worth. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment now before the House said that one man's opinions need not be as good as those of another. I agree I do not pretend that the electorate should be so established as to insist on the fact that one man's opinion is as good as another's. The point is that there is no authority; no mortal man who is able really to lay down whose opinion is better than any other. No man who is able to distinguish between what is fit and unfit, what is reputable and what disreputable.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: How about education?
  Mr. PONSONBY: There are a good many educated people to whom I would not entrust the vote, and there are a good many people so-called uneducated to whom I would entrust it. No distinction can be made; no authority can be set up which can select one class of vote more than any other, and therefore the only fair and equitable basis is to establish one man one vote, with, I hope, an extension to all men and all women who are outside the walls of a prison or lunatic asylum. I want to deal with another point which has been brought forward. We
  1256
  are told by hon. Members opposite that we are introducing this Bill for party purposes, because we know it will favour our party. It may be true, and it is equally true, as my right hon. Friend said, that the reason why hon. Members opposite oppose it is because they are aware that the present state of affairs favours their party. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I would ask the House to note this: That a system which gives an unfair advantage to a certain class of the electorate, which weighs down the balance on one side, which gives privileges to a certain class, favours the Tory party, whereas a system that does away with these anomalies, that establishes an equal balance between man and man, and a just and equitable system in which there is equality all round, favours the Liberal party. That only requires to be stated in order to show that we are basing our claim on perfectly equitable grounds. If it favours our party, so much the better. Hon. Members opposite are opposing our claim and are maintaining a system which is perfectly indefensible simply because it favours their party.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down of being the solitary exception on his side of the House, where there is a seeming desire to pass this Bill sub silentio. I am not surprised at that. I do not know whether it is due to shame or to expediency. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), in the admirable speech to which the House has just listened with so much attention, showed us, with merciless lucidity, the tactical insincerities of the Government with respect to Women Suffrage. He dealt with other anomalies which made this Bill particularly grievous to the working classes for which he speaks. May I point out that there is no class in the country that has so vital an interest in the plain and clear administration of justice as those who form the poorer part of the community? In this Bill you are going to destroy the very principle of justice by making it an offence to do at one time what it is an absolutely innocent and proper thing to do at another time. That has already been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) to a certain extent. May I emphasise the point in another way? While you are making it a crime to give two votes at a general Parliamentary election, it is perfectly possible that at two by-

  1257
  elections, going on at the same time, an elector may vote twice, and yet not be committing any offence at all. The whole difference between right and wrong is inextricably confused in that process. I venture to say that there is no class which has so much to lose by that confusion as those for whom the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) speaks. The only thing I regret is that, while we all respect him for his integrity and independence, he seems to sit and stand alone on those benches. I do not gather that he is speaking for the Labour party, of which he is one of the respected leaders. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are only two others."] If so, that shows that in his independence and in what he has pointed out to the House, speaking as a working-class representative, he stands alone.
  I hardly think it is necessary for the President of the Board of Education to tell us that this Bill was brought in to satisfy the Gargantuan appetite of the party opposite for large slices of meat and large slices of bread. The metaphor was a very peculiar one. It was one of his inimitable strokes of humour. The Bill is brought forward to enable them still to sit at the well-filled board where they have been for the last eight years. The right hon. Gentleman said he would be frank with the House. He was frank, but certainly he was not fair to the party on this side. He stated that we have always found some excuse for opposing any measure of electoral reform. He knows very well that in the last crucial instance, in 1884, the leaders of the Liberal party thanked the Opposition for the manner in which they had assisted to make that great measure of reform real and complete. When Mr. Gladstone pronounced his benediction on that Bill he said that a great deal was owing to the manner in which the Conservative leaders, notably at that time Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, had assisted him in making that Bill worthy of its purpose. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill, he pleaded for it as a pigmy Bill. A pigmy Bill it may be, but it is clearly shaped and coloured by the mere interests of the wire-pullers. This is a Bill which ought at least to have had the decent apron of a Preamble. I admit it might have been a little difficult to suggest the right Preamble, but if it had been in the sense that "whereas it is expedient by all means whatsoever to retain a majority of votes at the next Parliamentary General Election to certain Parliamentary candi-
  1258
  dates," it would have fairly expressed the real purpose of the Bill. It is almost an irony that it should have been introduced by the President of the Board of Education, who has under him a vast staff of teachers who are now ordered to instruct the youth of the nation in what is called civic virtue. One of the first things they are told is to urge upon them that private morality and public morality should be on the same footing. The right hon. Gentleman has clearly abandoned that by the very frankness with which he has explained that while there are anomalies even grosser—and he dealt with them at some length—than those dealt with in the Bill, if you grant plural voting to be an anomaly at all, it will undoubtedly benefit his own party. Let me ask him this question. There is no doubt that the sole reason the Bill is being pressed forward this Session is to bring it within the four corners of the Parliament Act. He knows very well that if there had been a fair measure of registration reform, accompanied by Redistribution, there is little likelihood that the machinery of the Parliament Act would have had to be brought into play. The House of Lords in 1884 and 1885 accepted a settlement on a broad basis, as I am perfectly certain they would accept it now. The whole object of bringing in this gerrymandering Bill now is because in its present form no revising Chamber—I do not care what its composition or constitution—would ever be likely to accept it. I myself, am not ashamed to defend the existence of plural voting. By this Bill you are destroying the very basis of our constitutional development. The principle of the growth and efficiency of Parliament has been the representation of communities as such. The whole basis has been local in its character rather than personal. It is just the representation of communities that you are going to destroy by this measure. May I quote to the House the opinion of one of the greatest authorities on the British Constitution, additionally impartial because not an Englishman? He wrote:—
  "In name at least there certainly still exists a House of Commons, but there are no longer any communitates, no longer any of those old-fashioned associations bound together by a sense of duty, which in the old communitates moderated individual interests by a constant consideration for the requirements of moral and legal order."
  You are, in this Bill, destroying the last vestige of the representation of what he calls "communitates." You are severing the connection between the individual voter

  1259
  and the constituency, and in doing so you are carrying through a work of destruction far larger than at first sight appears in the provisions of the Bill. That, of course, is an historical argument, but it is worth consideration. What is more important is that you are divorcing power and responsibility in the case of those electors whose opinion, after all, in the long run counts for most. The President of the Board of Education is very fond of bringing forward extreme examples of those who, having little real stake or interest in the country, possess a great many votes. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Lancashire, who is a great expert on this subject, on the introduction of the Bill last year, spoke of the
  "disturbance of public feeling in the constituencies caused by the wholesale importation of voters."
  That is not the real case. Hard cases make bad law, and exceptional cases make bad law. The ordinary case is that of the employer of labour who, living in one constituency, exercises his influence in another. I say it is a bad thing for the community when you take away from that man the political responsibility he now has in the particular area where he exercises his power and where he employs his men. You are striking at social and industrial solidarity by this Bill, and you are putting the employer in a position of inferiority to his own workmen, which certainly does not lead to better feeling between them, and which creates a sense of injustice and creates mischief all round. That is the ordinary and normal case. The faggot voter suggested by the President of the Board of Education is of rare occurrence. I doubt whether even he suggests the wholesale creation of faggot voters at this time of day. He knows very well, whatever may have been the case in past years, that that is not the present condition of things, and that as a rule if men have more than one vote, it is because they have a diversity of interests. It is better that they should have the opportunity of attaching or keeping political power as part of that interest rather than that they should only be given a vote and a voice in a particular locality, in which, very likely, they have least interest and the least to say. But my main charge against the Bill is that it is going to increase the value of political machinery as such far more than any measure we have had to consider. This Bill is called a democratic Bill. It is not a democratic Bill, because the democracy has found its master in the
  1260
  caucus. You are going to increase the value of the political expert and the electioneering expert more by the provisions of this Bill than in any other way you can conceive. There is no greater tyrant than the political machine. What will be the result of this Bill? It will be the object so to manipulate the votes as to bring the maximum amount of influence to bear in the particular constituency where it is most wanted. There will be a great clearing house set up, and in the long run it will be the object so exactly to apportion political power as to obtain the greatest amount of advantage for the party for which these hired experts work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is a desirable consummation? In the United States of America at this very moment every effort is being made to shake off the fetters of the caucus, and the President who has just been elected has refused to take the orders of the caucus in making fresh appointments. Yet in this Bill you are doing your best to exalt and magnify the political machine. It shows what a gulf there is between the political pretext upon which the Bill is brought in, and the certain effect it will have in our political life. Nobody can say that this Bill has any national demand behind it. When other Bills dealing with the franchise have been brought in their promoters have always been able to say that outside there is a great and growing volume of opinion in their favour. The right hon. Gentleman last year said:—
  "We cannot work so whole heartedly in the interests of our constituents if we do not retain their confidence."
  There is no particular sign that the right hon. Gentleman does retain their confidence at this moment, but whether that is so or not, at least there has been no such expression of opinion upon a national scale as affords any real case for the Bill before the House. I believe that in some ways it is without precedent. In the whole history of Parliament I do not believe that any measure of disfranchisement, pure and simple, has ever been brought forward. This is a measure of disfranchisement without any compensating advantages, except those indirect advantages of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, the principal one being the fact that there is to be a certain accession of strength to the Radical side. You are going to disfranchise by this Bill property in the first place. That is always supposed to be a democratic measure. I do not hesitate to say that in disfranchising property you are also going to disfranchise the trained

  1261
  capacity of this country so far as you can. It is a Bill that can do no good. The hon. Member for Blackburn has pointed out in what way the interests of the working classes will be injured. It sins against every principle of fair play, and, although I do not expect for one moment that the block vote opposite, which, I suppose, is going to be very silent during this Debate, is likely to consider the arguments we advance, I hope that we may have an election once more without its vitiating effects being felt, and that when a reform of the register, accompanied by Redistribution of seats, is brought forward, it will be on the lines approved in 1884–5, when both parties combined to place upon the Statute Book a settled and considered law, which was approved by the country, and has, on the whole, as we know, worked since with very great efficiency and fairness.
  Mr. LEACH: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) was much more subdued and logical than he used to be before he sat behind the Front Bench. He and I approach this matter from entirely different points of view. I do not like this Bill, but I think he wishes to destroy it while I rather wish to amend and enlarge it. I think he approaches it as an enemy of the Government, and I ant a most earnest supporter of the Government, and I regret very much that the Government I support so heartily and so regularly should have brought in a Bill of this character to destroy plural voting at General Elections and leave it in operation at by-elections. It seems to me that it is at by-elections when the plural voter is most dangerous to any party to which he may happen to belong. We have come to give an exaggerated importance to them. We regard them as a kind of political thermometer that indicates the state of the country, and if at several by-elections they should happen to run in one direction we conclude that they indicate that the Government of the day, if the elections are against them, have lost the confidence of the country. I do not, however, think that that is always so. In many cases by-elections are won or lost by the number of men who come in from outside to vote at them, and sometimes by the larger number of vehicles which either party can call into use. This Bill takes from me the extra votes which I happen to possess, for I am one of those wicked men, a pluralist, and I am anxious to be robbed of every vote except one, if it is to be done all round. This Bill takes from
  1262
  me the right to vote more than once at a General Election, and gives me the power to vote at a place where I do not live when there happens to be a by-election in that particular district.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Or two by-elections.
  Mr. LEACH: Or three, if there happen to be three. If it be right to deprive me of my right to vote at a General Election, why is not that rule applied at a by-election? If the property vote can be used at a by-election, on what ground can it be justified to destroy the property vote at a General Election? I, of course, want to see the property vote destroyed at by-elections, and the proper thing is that we should destroy every vote except one for the place where the owner resides. It is late in the day to defend property voting at all. It is time to make manhood, and not what a man possesses, the basis for the right to vote, and the Liberal party above all others should not preserve class voting. This is a democratic Government, and I think it should manifest true democratic principles in this Bill or in any Bill proposed in this House to deal with the franchise. Why these half measures? A good deal of mischief, from my point of view, has resulted from half measures, hesitating measures, introduced by the party to which I belong. We were told this Bill was introduced in this form in the hope that this might go through much more readily than a larger Bill would, but I think the Government is mistaken in that notion. As far as I can judge, every means will be used to oppose the Bill, small as it may seem to be. I think the Opposition will fight it to the very last. What I desire is not to destroy the Bill, but to enlarge its scope so that it should include every elector of a Parliamentary candidate. Therefore the Government had far better set itself to abolish all plural voting. It is the settled policy of the Liberal party in the country to have one man one vote, and I think this Bill will cause—indeed, has caused already—a great, deal of disappointment to the warm and earnest friends of the Government, and if the managers of the Government will consult the party managers in the country they will find strong opposition to it in many districts. I have received several resolutions against it, urging me to protest against it as earnestly as I can. I will suggest to the Government that it would be better to

  1263
  enlarge the scope of this Bill, to do away entirely with all property qualifications of every kind, to destroy for ever qualifications of that character, and make manhood and not property the basis of the vote. Let every man, and I say every woman, of full age—twenty-five years of age—have a vote and one vote only. These being my views, I could not but express them when the opportunity was given to me, and whilst I most heartily support the Government on all occasions and shall support them on this, I should very much more readily and cheerfully support them if the Bill were made to destroy plural voting of every character.
  Mr. SANDYS: From the point of view of the hon. Member I dare say there was a good deal to be said for the arguments which he suggested and for the dissatisfaction which he has expressed to the measure, and I hope that the representations which he intends to make to the managers of the Government whoever those interesting individuals may be, will be successful and that they will be able to induce the right hon. Gentleman to enlarge the scope of the Bill. He will have some difficulty in doing so, owing to the extremely limited phraseology of the title, and consequently most of the Amendments having for their object any enlargement of the Bill, would, I think, be ruled out of order. In considering the Bill we are entitled also to remark upon the somewhat peculiar circumstances under which this new Bill has been introduced to the consideration of the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself is really only just recovering from the bereavement which overtook him in connection with the death of his first born. Unfortunately the constitution of this child was not, as it turned out, sufficiently robust to meet all the vicissitudes which it had to undergo, and consequently this unfortunate infant perished from what I may call a system of forcible feeding, and an attempt to over load its constitution with more legislative nourishment than it was actually able to assimilate. Now after a decent interval the right hon. Gentleman comes before us with another legislative offspring which he commends to our sanction and approval. He has admitted, in somewhat similar terms to those he used in the case of the other Bill, that this proposal is going to be of advantage to the party of which he is so distinguished a Member. Consequently, as that is the admitted view
  1264
  of the Liberal party, I am not at all surprised to find that all these improvements in registration, all the simplification of methods of obtaining the vote to which so much importance was attached when the other Bill was under consideration, have now been completely thrown overboard, and there only remains what was the principal object of the first Bill, namely, the abolition of plural voting, which of course is regarded as essential to the security of the Liberal party at the next General Election.
  The plural voter has been the subject of attack, both in this House and on the public platform, on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite for a good many years past. In 1884, when the Representation of the People Bill was under consideration, an Amendment for the abolition of plural voting was brought forward by a Liberal Member, but it was ultimately withdrawn at the express desire of Mr. Gladstone himself. In 1892 legislation was introduced, and in 1906 the then Colonial Secretary was successful in passing a Bill with this object through all its stages in this House, but, owing to circumstances over which the right hon. Gentleman had no control, the Bill did not ultimately become law. If the Government in 1906, with the enormous majority which they then possessed in this House, were anxious to disfranchise a large class of their political opponents, I am certain, of course, that the reasons are very much stronger now, when their majority has been seriously diminished as the result of the two elections in 1910, and when they are aware that on the next appeal to the country they will be saddled with the responsibility of the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and other transactions of a minor character which have not improved their political reputation. Under these circumstances their anxiety to disfranchise a clearly defined class of political opponents is by no means unnatural. But apart from the constitutional aspect of the question, this new franchise proposal is extremely important from the point of view of numbers alone. The effect of this short, sharp Act, as I suppose Lord Haldane would probably describe it, is to disfranchise away 500,000 voters—to disfranchise more voters than were actually placed on the register as the result of the great Reform Bill of 1832.
  But far more important, in my opinion, than any question of numbers is the constitutional question which is involved in this

  1265
  proposal. The electoral system of this country, hitherto at any rate, has been based upon the theory of local representation. Collectively we sit in this House as the representatives of the nation. Individually we are representatives of particular constituencies and particular localities. Every emphasis surely is laid upon this constitutional fact. The writs which are issued for the return of Members to Parliament are issued for the return of a Member for a particular place. In this House itself we are referred to not by our own name, but by the names of the localities which we represent, and so long as the principle of the representation of localities remains as the basis of our Constitution it is surely obvious that every person who has an interest in any particular locality, who has a proper qualification, independently of any interest which he may possess elsewhere, is entitled to have a voice and a vote in the choice of a Member for that particular place. If this proposal is, in effect, to change the constitutional theory, and if the theory of local representation is now going to be abandoned, and Members are no longer to sit here as the representatives of particular localities, the result will be that we shall not in future fully represent the interests of those localities for which we are supposed to sit; whilst, on the other hand, with respect to such of our constituents as happen to have interests in other districts, our responsibilities will be widely extended beyond the territorial limits of our own divisions. What logically follows? If the ancient theory of local representation is going to be abandoned, surely we must provide at the same time for the numerical equalisation of constituencies, and for the periodical revision of the numbers of the population in the constituencies, which ought, in my opinion, to be of an automatic character. Therefore, before this change is carried into effect, I say we are entitled to know whether it is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, or whether in order to remove one anomaly an anomaly of an even more serious character is going to be created. In 1592 an Amendment was moved to the Plural Voting Abolition Bill in terms which exactly and concisely express the argument I am now stating to the House. It was in the following ternas:—
  7.0 P.M.
  "That it would not be just or expedient to carry out the principle of
  1266
  'One Man One Vote,' embodied in this Bill, unless the number of representatives allotted to England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, were previously settled in proportion to the population of each of those parts of the United Kingdom, and the principle of equality in voting thus secured."
  That Amendment was moved in 1892, in a speech of great force and eloquence, by the right hon. Gentleman who now represents the Irish Agricultural Department (Mr. T. W. Russell). Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may have changed his views in face of the fact that the Irish elector is, as I understand, to be a consistent plural voter. Under the Home Rule Bill proposals the elector in Ireland will always have one vote for the Imperial Parliament and one vote for the new Irish Parliament in Dublin. If the right hon. Gentleman holds the opinion he held in 1892 I hope he will ask his colleagues to consider this question, which he raised with so much effect on that occasion. There would be an excellent precedent for following this course. In 1884 there was, as hon. Members must be aware, a great controversy in this House and in the country over the Representation of the People Bill, which was then under consideration. In order to settle that controversy, Mr. Gladstone agreed that the broad outlines of the then scheme of Redistribution should be communicated to the Leaders of the party opposite, and what actually happened was that the details were examined, and a mutual basis of agreement was arrived at. Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote, by invitation, attended meetings of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, where all those questions were discussed, and where ultimately an arrangement was come to. I think that was an exceedingly satisfactory way of settling what must be a very thorny question, namely, how to arrive at a just system of Redistribution. I cannot help thinking that, if it is the intention of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as they say—I fully accept their statement—of ultimately accompanying this scheme by a new Redistribution plan, they should adopt this principle, which worked in such an eminently satisfactory way under Mr. Gladstone.
  The peculiarities of this Bill have already been alluded to. One of these is that it only applies to a General Election, which, in my opinion, shows that the right hon. Gentleman has not drawn up the Bill on

  1267
  any broad principles, but has merely selected the most convenient way of obtaining the object he had in view, namely, the success of the Liberal party at the next election. The penalties provided under the Bill are very severe. Two years' hard labour, I think, is the maximum, or a fine of £200. Personally, I do not complain much of that. The majority of plural voters are well-educated people, and if this Bill is passed, I think attempts to evade the law should be very severely punished. I think the drafting, of the Bill is extremely unsatisfactory It is a short Bill indeed, and, therefore, we are entitled to have it put in the clearest possible language. A severe penal measure of this character should, I think, have been drawn with the greatest possible accuracy, instead of in a hurried way as apparently the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with it. Under the Bill two new offences are created. First of all, the Bill imposes a penalty on an elector, according to the strict terms of the title, who votes in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election; but it also imposes an equal penalty upon a person who asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting in more than one constituency. I think this has been so carelessly drafted that it might lead to cases of great hardship indeed. I do not know what the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was. Take the case of a man who thinks he is entitled to vote in two constituencies. He goes to a polling booth, say, in the constituency in which he resides, and asks for a ballot paper. He is told, for some reason or other, that his name is not on the register, and that consequently he cannot have a ballot paper because he is not entitled to to vote. That man goes away, and next day an election is taking place in another constituency in which he also believes he is entitled to vote as an elector. He goes to a polling booth in that constituency and asks for a ballot paper. He is on the register, he records his vote, and he at once becomes liable to this severe penalty under the Bill. For voting in one constituency and asking for a ballot paper in another he is liable to two years' hard labour, or a fine of £200. I think that is a hard penalty for a man who has, after all, only exercised his vote in one constituency. Owing to the careless way the Bill has been drafted, he renders himself liable to this very severe penalty.
  1268
  I am not sure whether that was the right hon. Gentleman's intention, but I think if he reads the Sub-section through carefully, he will admit that its grammatical construction is very faulty indeed. I am sorry to make this very severe charge against the President of the Board of Education, because we should have expected the purity of his English, to attain, at any rate, the standard of Cæsar's wife. I think it is inexcusable that such a short Bill as this, to which the Liberal party attach so much importance, should be so carelessly, hastily, and imperfectly drafted. There is another point which I know, will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in his particular capacity. Even if it was thought desirable to make the constitutional changes which are involved in this proposal, I think the Government have chosen an extremely unfortunate moment in view of the fact that just recently prominent Members of their party, and especially the Lord Chancellor, have admitted that even after seven years of benevolent and beneficent Radical administration the education system of the country is wholly unsatisfactory. At a meeting of the Manchester Reform Club on 10th January last, Lord Haldane said:
  "Another great social problem was now upon them, Hitherto the Liberal party had done nothing publicly for the coming generation, and yet the coming generation was in some respects the most important of all. In what he was going to say he was not speaking casually, or with any light sense of responsibility, but, after consulting with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Pease, they had decided that this question was the next and the most urgent of the great social problems they had to take up. Of course, it was education. The state of education in this country, elementary, secondary and higher, was chaotic. …"
  I do not wish to dispute the accuracy or the very damaging criticism which the Lord Chancellor directed towards his right hon. Friend's Department, but I think it is very regrettable that the Government did not find out this state of affairs before. It is unfortunate that, instead of devoting themselves to great constitutional changes which are of doubtful benefit to the country, they did not give some attention to the important question of education. Even the most ardent supporters of the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that there is a distinct connection between education and the exercise of the franchise. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind them of the very strong views which John Stuart Mill held on this question. He was an advocate of plural voting, because he believed, and rightly believed, the property owner was, as a rule, a person of higher intelligence and better education. Consequently, I think

  1269
  it is extremely unfortunate that just at this time, when the Radical Government has discovered that the education of this country is so wholly unsatisfactory and so completely chaotic, they should have selected this opportunity for disfranchising a class of men whose qualifications are admittedly above the standard of the average elector. I have no wish to deny that in past years the legislation of this country has perhaps been too exclusively concerned, or too largely concerned, with the protection of the rights and privileges of property. I am perfectly ready to admit that it is our first care and our primary duty to direct our attention towards improving the conditions of the great masses of the people who are admittedly ill-educated and unable to protect themselves; but I do not believe that we shall achieve any real or permanent improvement in their circumstances by advancing any proposals which are going to interfere with the stability and security of the country as a whole.
  I have no wish that there should be any unfair representation of the more prosperous classes of the community in this House, but I strongly believe that it is our duty to see that persons who happen to be in a numerical minority should have their interests properly represented and protected. That minorities must suffer was an obiter dictum once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is a dangerous and disastrous principle in my opinion, and I am sorry to see that the Government appear to be adopting it as their maxim for every-day conduct. That minorities must suffer is a complete negation of civilisation. It is a return to the methods of barbarism. Civilised government means the protection of the rights of minorities. It must be remembered that from the class against whom these proposals are directed a very large proportion of the national revenue is derived. It must be remembered that this class is subjected to special forms of taxation, from which the vast mass of the people are exempted, and therefore, while I am not in any way desirous that any body of persons in the State should possess privileges to which they are not justly entitled, I am strongly opposed to disfranchisement of this class of elector, because I believe that the fundamental alteration in the constitutional theory of representation, which is involved in this proposal, is unnecessary, undesirable, and unjustifiable. I also oppose it because I regard this proposal, not as an honest effort to improve our electoral
  1270
  system, but as a dishonest attempt to gain a party advantage for the Radical party at the polls.
  Mr. MUNRO: I do not propose to follow in detail the arguments of the hon. Member who has just sat down, to whose speech I listened with close attention. I do not propose to discuss the rights of minorities. I am afraid that I do not quite appreciate the bearing of the topic on the discussion in which we are engaged. Neither do I propose to criticise the grammar or the draftsmanship of the Clauses of this Bill, because, if there is anything faulty in either, I have no doubt that it can be put right during the Committee stage. The hon. Member did make one reference to which I will allude. He said that Mr. Gladstone in 1884 had suggested the withdrawal of an Amendment to a Bill then before the House, an Amendment dealing with plural voting. I do not know whether the hon. Member meant to suggest by that that Mr. Gladstone had any doubt or difficulty about the disadvantages of plural voting. If I am not very much mistaken, in 1881, three years before the date to which the hon. Member referred, Mr. Gladstone in this House supported a Motion for the abolition of plural voting moved by Mr. Stansfeld and referred incidentally to "plural voting by lottery." There is another reference of the hon. Member to which I desire to allude. He repeatedly referred to this as a disfranchising measure. I venture, with the greatest submission, to dispute that suggestion. I regard it as an equalising measure. He might just as well say that by prohibiting a man from having more than one wife you prevent him from marrying, as say that this measure, which takes away a surplus number of votes which many enjoy, is a disfranchising measure, seeing that they are at any rate left with one vote when the process is completed. Speaking as a Scottish Liberal Member, I welcome this Bill, and I know that it will be welcomed in Scotland. There was a reference made on the other side of the House, in the course of the Debate, to the fact that there was not a national demand for this Bill. All I can say to the hon. Member who said that is that if he will come up to Scotland—I do not Presume to speak on behalf of England, but I do speak about Scotland which I know—he will find that there is no measure which has been looked forward to with more eager anticipation in every part of Scotland than this measure, that there

  1271
  is no article of the Liberal creed to which Scotland has yielded more unfailing allegiance than this, and that there is no event to which Scotch Liberal electors look forward with more lively satisfaction than watching the exit of the plural voter as he goes to his long home.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Have the Conservative party got fair representation in Scotland at the present moment?
  Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member raises the subject of Redistribution, to which I propose to allude. If he will allow me I will deal with that point later. But what I was saying at the moment was that this feeling which is entertained in Scotland at the Present time is no new feeling. It is not of to-day or yesterday, nor even of last year. This is a reform which has been pressed for, day in and day out, year in and year out, for many years. I am quite sure that I voice the sentiments of Liberal Scotland—and I do not profess to speak for any other—when I say that the intensity of the demand has rather grown than diminished in recent years. There is a very good reason for this. I do not think that there is any part of the United Kingdom which, in proportion to its size, has been a greater sufferer than Scotland at the hands of the plural voter. There is no part of the United Kingdom where the voice of the resident voter has been more frequently adulterated and obliterated by the fugitive visitor than in Scotland, and no place where the stage army of plural voters has been more proudly paraded than in my native country. In these circumstances it is not surprising that Scotland has always taken a very prominent part in this agitation. The average elector there is quite unable to appreciate why one man should have one vote and many others should have five or six votes. He has never been able to appreciate why the right to have more than one vote should depend on whether a man has property in one county or in more than one county, or why this right, which is almost exclusively the privilege of the monied classes, and is denied to the working classes should continue to have legislative sanction. Holding these views, it is not surprising that the voter in Scotland should regard the present situation with a feeling of very considerable satisfaction.
  The present situation is that now, for the first time in the history of the Liberal party, they not only have the will, but
  1272
  they have the power to carry this reform into law. They are no longer engaged in the somewhat futile occupation of ploughing the sands. They are now engaged in the much more fruitful avocation of tilling fertile soil and looking forward with certainty to the harvest which will ensue. In other words, what Parliament in 1906, with the great Liberal majority which then existed, was quite unable to accomplish the Parliament of 1913, assisted by the leverage of the Parliament Act, can and will achieve. Accordingly, the present situation is regarded not only with equanimity, but with satisfaction, on the other side of the Border. I am not going to weary the House by arguing the case against plural voting in detail. It has been done to-day and many times, and the subject is very familiar to every Member of the House. Those of us who sit on this side think that the arguments which have been put forward have not been answered. Some of us think that they are not capable of being answered. In this matter we can point to precedent. We point to the fact that this reform is an accomplished fact in France, the United States, and many of our Colonies. But, looking nearer home, we find that in every public body in the country, the county councils, the district councils, the town councils, and the parish councils, the principle for which we contend universally obtains. If precedent be not sufficient then one is entitled also to appeal to principle for which we contend universally as logically claim to have several votes, say, in one large county, as to claim to have one vote in several counties; and that the measure is an equalising one and not a disfranchising one in this respect, that it abolishes a system under which the power of the wealthy classes is maximised and the power of the poorer classes is minimised.
  Look at the case made against the Bill. When a legislative reform is proposed it may be objected to on one of two grounds—as being bad per se or as being inopportune. I gather from the speeches to which I have listened this afternoon that the opposition to this particular Bill rather falls within the latter category than the former. In other words, the argument against it is not so much an argument on the merits as a dilatory plea, which I shall examine for a moment. I do not think it possible for hon. Members on the other side to argue against the proposal on its merits, when one remembers that the right

  1273
  hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said in 1891:—
  "I am pledged to the view that plural voting is inconsistent with the principle of our present suffrage. I believe that plural voting is doomed, and that sooner or later we must have uniformity of franchise."
  And the Noble Lord, the Member for Hitchin, speaking at Glasgow so recently as 15th December, 1911, as reported, said this:—
  "By all means let them have one man one vote. No Unionist objected, but they must have the complementary reform of one vote one man."
  I think that I have met Unionists who do object to the reform per se. But the argument to-day has rather taken the other shape, namely, that this reform should be delayed until coupled with another reform to which reference has been made. I do not need to remind the House that plural voting was banned in 1888, when the party opposite passed the Local Government Act of that year, and the system for which we contend was blessed as recently as 1911 both by Lord Lansdowne and the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) in connection with the Referendum, which was then proposed, to the considerable embarrassment no doubt of some of their own supporters at that time. And when we turn to the official Amendment now upon the Paper we find that the plural voter is referred to as an anomaly. Accordingly, I do not think that I need labour the point that objection is not taken to this reform upon its merits. It is rather the dilatory plea which is urged, namely, that the Bill is inopportune. It is objected to not because of what it contains, but because of what it does not contain. That is a purely debating point with no real substance in it. Some Bills are always inopportune. A Bill of this character has always been regarded as inopportune by the Opposition, and they always say we should wait for a more convenient season. Of Felix of old I think we read that the convenient season to which he looked forward never arrived, and I do not think that the convenient season for dealing with this particular topic would ever arrive either. Primâ facie it is not a good objection to reform which is suggested that we have one grievance which we propose to remove, but that you have another grievance which we do not at the same time propose to remove.
  It is surely not a good objection to say that one anomaly shall not be removed because at the same moment you do not propose to remove another anomaly, or that you shall not remove one anomaly
  1274
  because you do not remove all other anomalies at the same time. Surely that primâ facie, is not a forcible argument. The argument presented on the other side was that this reform should not be dealt with until Redistribution is also dealt with. Redistribution is a very big question, and is not nearly so simple a reform as this with which we are dealing, which is quite unconnected in many of its aspects with Redistribution. Why should we delay this Ruform Bill while we tackle that thorny question? Why entangle this reform with it? The truth is that this proposal is a necessary preliminary to Redistribution, because it will result not in making small constituencies smaller, but in bringing more nearly to an average size the larger constituencies, so approximating to that system of equality which hon. Members on the other side refer to. We are told by the other side that we expect from this proposal to secure some party advantage. The right hon. and learned Member who moved the official Amendment asked whether, if there were four Liberals to one Conservative affected by the Bill instead of the other way about, we would propose it. I venture to put another question to the hon. Member. Supposing there were four Conservatives to one Liberal, would he then oppose the Bill? I think that is an argument which cuts both ways, and is capable of a very easy and effective reply on the lines to which I have alluded. We are confident that the resistance to this proposal which has so often succeeded will on this occasion fail, and that a reform which has been long desired, and which has also been long delayed, will at last reach the Statute book.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Munro) put the case on behalf of Scottish Liberals; I speak as a Scottish Unionist Member. The situation in which we Unionists in Scotland find ourselves is one which makes us look pretty closely to this question. The hon. Gentleman complained that we on this side of the House have advanced what he calls a purely debating point in advancing the fact that we cannot willingly consent to lose the plural vote unless accompanied by Redistribution. There is no part of the country in which the present anomalous condition of our whole representative system tells with more grotesque results than in Scotland. It is the fact—known to hon. Gentlemen opposite, though they naturally do not quote it—

  1275
  that, if you take the whole of Scotland, each Unionist sitting in this House represents some 25,000 votes, and each Liberal in this House stands for about 6,000 votes. The right hon. Gentleman to whom falls what I think the rather ungrateful task of defending this Bill, when driven into his last ditch, used the argument that, even if this Bill be not followed by the fulfilment of the promise which has been made, that even if circumstances should prevent that promise from being fulfilled, this Bill would in no way aggravate the anomalies that would he left. I want to traverse that statement in connection with Scotland. We Unionists in Scotland owe the small representation which we have, to some extent at any rate, to the existence of countervailing anomalies. If you remove one set of anomalies and not the other set, obviously you upset the balance between the two sets of anomalies. We owe what Unionist representation we have in part to the existence of anomalies.
  Our condition is bad enough as it is. We represent 25,000 electors each as against 6,000 for each Radical Member, but the effect of this Bill in all probability will be considerably to reduce the representation which the Unionists have in Scotland at the present time. How is that? In the first place, it so happens that a part of the miserable representation which the Unionists of Scotland have in this House is due to the two university seats. As soon as this Bill is passed, machinery will come into existence for the purpose of manipulating the university vote, so that there may be just sufficient Liberal votes left to carry the university seats. Unionists, who are in a minority, naturally require every vote they can get in other constituencies, and there will be a far greater demand for the Unionist voter than there will be for the Liberal voter in the university, and the whole matter will be reduced to the most careful calculation of probabilities. There will be an organisation in Glasgow and an organisation in Edinburgh for the purpose, if possible, of carrying the university seats. Let us consider the direct action of this Bill. There may be three seats in Scotland which at the present moment fall to the Unionists by virtue of the plural vote. I do not for one moment believe that the plural vote, the property vote in Scotland, is quite so Unionist as is commonly represented, but accepting the calculation that I see put forward frequently
  1276
  on the other side, that it is dominantly Unionist—and the hon. Gentleman complained of the way in which the external vote had been given, and therefore showed his belief that the greater proportion of the out-vote is Unionist—accepting that position, then it is quite likely that three more seats may go because of the removal of the plural vote; that is to say, that out of the miserable representation due to the existence of these anomalies, five seats may go owing to the action, direct or indirect, of this Bill.
  There are other anomalies which hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to get rid of. They would like to get rid of the triangular or, as in my own case, the quadrangular election. We owe those seats to the existence of these anomalies to which I have referred, and the clear fact, to my mind, is that, if it were not for these anomalies countervailing the single-Member constituencies with a bare majority carrying the whole representation, the Unionists in Scotland, nearly one-half of the country, would have a representation in this House equivalent not to one Member for every 25,000 votes, but more like one Member for every 40,000 votes. I traverse the position put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, that the carrying of this Bill, even if it were not followed by the fulfilment of the promise which he has perfectly honestly put forward, and which he admits may not be possible of fulfilment, that the remaining anomalies would not be aggravated. I contend that the position will be aggravated; it is bad enough as it is, but I think it will become worse. That is why Unionists in Scotland intensely object to the removal of one set of anomalies without the removal of all of them. Our representative system at present is a bundle of accidents, and by an accident it happens that in Scotland we have countervailing anomalies which give us some compensation for the injustice done to us at the present time. I know that this point has relation to the large question of Redistribution, and also to the question of whether we should have proportional representation or not. I submit that no broad reconsideration of our electoral system can give you the proper results, unless in some way or other you enfranchise the great evenly distributed minority, which is the minority in the greater number of constituencies. The Unionist Party, in various parts of the country, differs in its characteristics; the Unionists of the north are not always

  1277
  similar to the Unionists of the south, and the result is that you get an antagonism which is wholly false. Unionists in the south and in the Metropolitan area are not always similar to the Unionists in the north of England, or the Unionists in Scotland, so that parties become something which is not national, but local, and we have an antagonism between parties based on local differences and not on great national differences in the consideration of national affairs. For that reason we believe that the effect of dealing with this one anomaly will be to very considerably aggravate the injustice which results in Scotland to one great party of the State.
  I recognise that at this time of day we shall probably progress to the position where every man has one vote; but it is not a fair way of criticising our party to say that we defend the plural vote, and to reply to us, "What we want to have represented is the manhood of the nation, and not what a man possesses." A similar idea has been put forward by different Members. What is represented, I would point out, is not property, the house and so forth, but an organised and running business. The claim we put forward for business men is not as to ownership, but as to their stake in the country as a going concern. The new theory of counting mere heads is something totally different from what the whole of our Constitution is based on. Our Constitution is based upon our having representatives from different parts of the country to give their advice to the Executive. At one time you paid them to induce them to come. The whole thing has now changed, and it becomes a question of a claim to equal representation because you claim an equal right to divide all the spoil that is going. I know that is the fashionable view. But you are getting into a very dangerous condition. You have no longer got the idea that you should contribute advice and help to the State, but that a man is to get what he can out of the State. If you take that view, I agree that you must give all men equality of weight, but if you hold the view that it is for every citizen to take his part in maintaining the fabric of the State in competition with the other great States of the world, then those who have the greatest experience and the greatest stake in the nation and its business, in competition with the trade of other nations, should have a considerable and more than average voice in the
  1278
  management of the country. They have the responsibility, they would suffer the first loss, and would carry down with them a considerable number of those who are defenceless. There is not merely the question of a great employer of labour having his property represented, but also having his responsibility represented. That employer of labour if, owing to any turn in foreign affairs or any turn in national finance, his business goes down, carries down with him in his failure a great number of those whom he employs, and carries them down helpless to defend themselves. I agree with the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Surrey in his statement that the true distinction between the two votes possessed by the employer, in respect of his place of residence and in respect of his works, and the mere faggot votes of those who sought to accumulate votes by a £2 rent in a variety of constituencies, is the principle of responsibility. The man ought, in order to carry out his responsibility to those whom he employs, to have a weight in the management of the affairs of the State, because, after all, management of the affairs of the State is management of the whole bundle of businesses which give employment and find the living wage that is asked for for the masses of the people of the country.
  Going on the principle of dividing the booty leads you to the idea that all heads are to count equally. The principle of responsibility leads you to the idea that those who have the greatest responsibility should have the greatest weight, as they carry the greater number of lives dependent on them. We are not merely arguing for party advantage, and it is very unfair to throw upon us a criticism in that form, because plural voting is capable of defence—I do not say with all its anomalies, and with its occasional faggot votes, but in its essence as representing a man's stake in the place where his works are situated it is capable of defence, and in a way that I believe will be urged in future far more than it is at present. The tendency at the present moment is to give power in the State to those who have everything to gain by leaning upon the State. That was the principle known in the old times as Bread and the Circus, which brought down the Roman Empire. You had a certain number of men responsible, and in order to carry the masses with them they had to throw to them what were in fact bribes.

  1279
  We are very nearly reaching that position at the present time. You are getting to the position very nearly when those responsible for the conduct of the business of the State must through the Government of the country bribe the masses of the people, who have no immediate responsibility. I know that for the time being the forces of democracy are making in that direction. I quite realise we shall come to the condition of one man one vote, and I hope of one vote one value. But in the future I venture to think we shall return to the idea of service to the State and power to those who are responsible, and not merely power to those who have everything to gain immediately but no interest in the ultimate good finances of the country. Therefore I protest against the arguments which have been put forward on our behalf but not by us in regard to plural voting. I protest on behalf of the Unionists of Scotland against the abolition of only one anomaly the effect of which will be to aggravate the condition in which we stand at present, because that anomaly helps us to some nominal representation in this House of what is nearly half the Scottish nation.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Before I pass to that part of his argument more strictly germane to the Bill before us I should like to deal for a moment with the question he raised at the end. He sets up as the standard for electoral rights a sense of responsibility. I should like to ask him how does he propose to achieve a sense of responsibility in the populace at large unless he associates them, and willingly associates them, with the mass of others, and with what we may call the leading spirits, in the work of government as a whole? I should have thought if he had taken the trouble to get alongside many of those whom he represents in this House, and he represents a great industrial constituency in Glasgow, he would have found that, proportionately speaking at all events, the sense of responsibility and the extent of political education in those whom he represents has developed to a very remarkable degree. I think on second thoughts, when he reflects, he will not find that the parallel which he drew between ourselves and the latter days of the Roman Empire is quite so true in all its details as he suggested. It is after all a little far-fetched to say that we are
  1280
  getting back to the days of the bread in the circus. He may complain that modern industrial unrest has in it elements of cupidity, and he may regret that those who exercise the franchise to-day are in any degree motived or moved by any sense of cupidity. But, I think, it can be equally strongly held, and equally soundly held, that cupidity is undoubtedly an erroneous word to apply, and that the further we dig into the roots of industrial unrest, the more certainly do we see that there are just and ascertainable reasons why industrial unrest exists and that they do not merely spring from the desire to get even with one's betters.
  Let me come to the question of plural voting more directly. I noted at the outset with some interest the admission of the hon. Gentleman that the abolition of plural voting would weaken the strength of the Unionist representation in Scotland. That I believe is perfectly true, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to single out Scotland, and to say, "Look at us poor Scottish Unionists, we are about a baker's dozen against some sixty of the opposite side, and if you deprive us of the plural vote we will be even less than we are to-day." Let me take the country as a whole and put myself in the position of that very rara avis a Liberal Member sitting for a suburban constituency, and let me ask in the area between the North Foreland and Southampton how many Liberals are represented by the very few Liberals who are returned. Are we not justified in saying that what he calls the over representation of Liberalism in Scotland is at least balanced by the under representation of Liberalism, broadly speaking, in the southern counties of England. As long as the party division holds I do not think his argument can be accepted as quite sound. He suggests and brings forward an artificial distinction, but, broadly speaking, there is a line of antagonism almost as clearly drawn between Liberalism and Conservatism in the southern counties as between Liberalism and Conservatism in Scotland. Therefore, I think I am entitled to remind him in a question of this kind he must take the area of the country as a whole, and he will find that the gains in one place are balanced by losses in another.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I pointed that out.
  Mr. WHYTE: If the hon. Member did, I do not quite see why he pursued that argument. Let me refer to his contention that Redistribution should accompany a

  1281
  proposal of one man one vote. I, for one, have never been able to understand why the Conservative party supposed that it stood to gain by Redistribution. Take Scotland. What would be the result of Redistribution in Scotland? It would be additional representation in this House to the industrial areas. The proportion of Unionist representation in the industrial areas in Scotland is very much what the proportion of Unionist representation is to the whole representation of Scotland. Therefore, the position would be very much in future what it is now, and, even if you had complete redistribution of seats, you would have certain small areas disappearing probably into their respective counties, and you would have an increase in the representation of those areas which have shown quite unmistakably in the main that they are of Radical opinion. Therefore I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman finds a basis for that part of his argument. It is not strictly germane to the present subject, though the argument advanced from the other side has always run on that line, namely, that the one reform must necessarily be accompanied by the other, whereas in truth I believe the sounder view to be that expressed by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs, namely, that the abolition of plural voting is the proper precursor of a system of redistribution of seats.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: An hon. Member opposite challenged us to criticise this Bill on the merits of plural voting. I am old-fashioned enough to try to do so now. We were challenged to say, supposing the boot was on the other leg, and that the Unionist party would very largely benefit by such a Bill, whether we should then oppose it. I say most unhesitatingly I would do so, because I believe in the principle of there being a stake in th country for those who direct its affairs. I believe, either in one shape or another, that the man who has the largest stake in the country should have a larger voice in the governing of the country than the person who has not that interest. Rome has been referred to once or twice to-night, and that reminds me of a classical writer who said that the largest mob was not necessarily the wisest. That is exactly the principle which moves me in criticising this Bill. If the plutocrats on the other side really believed in the principle of this Bill, then, supposing they have any shares in a company, say ten or twenty thousand, while another man has only two or three, they would say that all
  1282
  shareholders should have equal votes, irrespective of their holding. If they do that and go back conscientiously to the constituencies and say that they are going to apply the principle of this Bill to their own affairs, and that they are going to rearrange their private companies on that basis, then I will believe in them, but if they do not then I do not believe that the principle of this Bill is anything but that of a gerrymandering measure.
  8.0 P.M.
  Whilst I say that the man who has the greatest share in the country should have more than one vote, I am also of opinion, supposing a measure of this kind were passed, that there should be more than one vote given to certain persons if they held certain qualifications. For instance, I believe in the Belgian principle, and I certainly think, supposing you had one man one vote, that there again plural voting ought to come in in the shape of having an educational qualification. I think that the educational qualification should naturally be low. There again, however, the principle of plural voting comes in. I think also that the man who has more than three children should have a plural vote. To condemn, as I have heard condemned for the last four hours, the principle of plural voting is, I think, entirely unsound. I do not call it an anomaly or anything of the kind; I boldly stand up for the plural vote, which is one of those things which has helped to put England in the position in which she is at the present time, and I think it would be a disastrous thing if the vote were given broadcast to every one of the people of this country. I have been abroad and seen how it acts in other countries. I recollect a case where manhood suffrage had a most disastrous effect in New Zealand. A late Prime Minister out there, a very strong man who was accustomed to carry his way, was very anxious indeed to win an election in a particular constituency. What did he do? He arranged that a railway which was to be built should be immediately proceeded with, and he carted 5,000 labourers from one part of the country to another, so that they would be able to vote in that particular constituency at the time of the election. Therefore, you see that gerrymandering could go on very easily even under a system of manhood suffrage. I am very sorry that the Government could not see their way to grant the detailed return in regard to plural voters for which I asked. The

  1283
  President of the Board of Education evidently had a great many figures before him. He mentioned 500,000 as the probable number. There are many more detailed figures than that which I am certain he could have given us. He could have given us the number of plural voters in the boroughs, even if he could not in the counties. His well-managed party office would doubtless have those figures, and they would be very useful to the House. The right hon. Gentleman contradicted me when in an interruption I said that a freeholder is not able to vote within six months. It is quite true that a freeholder can be put on the register after a period of six months, but it does not necessarily follow that he can then vote. If a man buys a house in December, I admit that he can get on the register on the 1st July; but that register does not come into operation until the 1st January of the following year. Therefore, it takes at least a year, and if an election did not take place until the end of the year it might easily follow that a freeholder could not vote until two years after the time when he first obtained his qualification.
  Mr. KING: I wish to show how this Bill will actually operate. I must confess that I am disappointed with the Bill. I intend to vote for it, not because I think it is a great measure, but because it will at once put every citizen on an equality at a General Election. I consider that at a General Election we want something in the nature of a Referendum on the basis of one man one vote, and until we get some measure of this kind we cannot attain that end. I have taken the trouble to ascertain how this Bill, if it becomes law, will act in my own Constituency and in the constituencies immediately adjoining. In my Constituency there are about 15,500 electors, of whom 925 reside outside the division. There are also about fifty persons, mostly farmers, whose farms or places of business are not only in my division, but also in adjoining divisions. They form a different class from those usually known as out-voters. In most cases they are freehold voters with a freehold qualification in a division in which they do not reside. A Bill which would enable a constituency to be represented by the electors in the constituency is what we want. This Bill does not secure that. It will only prevent a man from voting more than once. It will not give to a constituency the right to be represented as the majortiy of the
  1284
  electors in the constituency desire. Adjoining my Constituency is the Division of South Bristol, in which there is a very small Liberal majority. A large number of persons dwelling in my Constituency are voters in that division because they have places of business in the city. I estimate that there are 500 or 600 such persons. It is obvious, therefore, that with a small majority in the South Bristol Division, the result of an election there can be determined by people living in my Constituency. Hence, when it comes to an election, it will be a question with at least 500 voters in my division whether they shall try to turn out me or my colleague the Member for South Bristol. As I have a fairly big majority, they will very likely not trouble about me, but will concentrate upon my neighbour. That is very satisfactory to me, but very unsatisfactory to him.
  It is also unsatisfactory from the point of view that what we really want to have is a constituency the representation of which is decided by the votes of those who live therein. The out-voter is, in electioneering, an unmitigated nuisance. He has to be canvassed at a distance; he has to be cajoled into voting by artifices and very often more or less specious representations that his vote is highly valued and may just turn the scale. But what will it be at a General Election if we have persons who are plural voters in a number of divisions being canvassed from all parts of the country to give their vote in this or that particular constituency and not elsewhere? I have six or seven votes, but would be very well content with one. I am dealing with the position on the assumption that this Bill becomes law, and no other change in the electoral law is made. I shall be canvassed by a number of constituencies to give my vote there and nowhere else, and I shall find it extremely hard to decide how to give that single vote. Further, this Bill, if carried into law, will make electioneering much more expensive, and on that ground I very much object to it. The expense of electioneering at the present time is a great deal too high. When we have two General Elections in one year it is almost as bad as putting a Super-tax on incomes of £500 a year. This point of view ought not to escape the attention of hon. Members opposite. The Bill is so incomplete and so unsatisfactory that I regard it only as a lever for getting something more. I hope that the Government will give a pledge, which they will endeavour to carry out as far as any

  1285
  political pledge can be carried out, to introduce a Redistribution Bill next Session. It may not be necessary to pass it through all its stages; possibly the year after will be time enough for that. I hope, however, to extract from the Government before the Session closes a promise that something more than this Bill will he given us before the next General Election. A lever to extract a better measure is good, but the better measure is what we want, and that is what I am looking forward to.
  Another point which ought to be considered is the bearing of this Bill on Redistribution. Redistribution is, in my opinion, very necessary. I want to see all constituencies as nearly as possible equal in population. If that were brought about we should certainly have some approach to one vote one value. In order to secure that we first require the principle of one man one vote to be clearly set forth. Unless the House adopts the principle of one man one vote, as it will do by this Bill, I do not see how we shall ever agree upon a system of Redistribution at all. There are some matters in electoral law upon which it is very difficult to get men equally democratic and equally members of the Liberal party to agree. No doubt, when we come to settle them, it will be very difficult to agree upon the principles of Redistribution. But I want to put it to hon. Members opposite that there is one principle which we might all accept, the principle of a common and equal citizenship, that as far as possible each man should have one vote and no more than one. If we secured the acceptance of that principle, I believe that we should be able, by mutual concessions and a sort of logical process, to strike out some system which would be accepted by all parties. I look upon it as a very unfortunate thing that we cannot have an electoral system in which the two sides can equally agree.
  It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
  Colonel CHALONER: I beg to move, "That every effort should be made to bring the administration of Part I. of the National Insurance Act into harmony with the speeches made upon the subject by
  1286
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of His Majesty's Government before the Act became law."
  In moving the Resolution which stands in my name I do not so much desire to call attention to and to criticise what may be described as the wild statements that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various of his supporters, but to claim that which the right hon. Gentleman himself has claimed, that the insured persons who come under the Act should have mere justice—in other words, that they shall have the advantages and benefits which the Act is supposed to give them and which Parliament, when it passed the. Act, intended that they should have. The Act, I venture to say, has not produced this result. It is not a question, I admit, of individual cases so much as the general effect of the Act. One could quote many individual cases. I know of one myself, where in the case of an old man who was so old when the contributions first became compulsory that it was impossible for him to obtain any advantage under the Act. Application was made that he should be exempted from the Act, and that neither he nor his employer should contribute. This application was refused, and the old man and his employer were forced to contribute under the Act towards benefits which personally he could never and never has obtained. That is only one case. But, after all, the real object of the Act was surely to benefit the working classes, to make things smoother for them, to smooth their path in times of sickness or unemployment. We find that that has not been done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he has had ample notice of this Debate, does not consider it worth his while to be present after full notice that his Act would be challenged in this way.
  He has received a series of letters, and he has entered into correspondence with what is known as the Scottish Clerks' Association, an association banded together so far back as 1886, with the object of obtaining for its members various benefits. It must be remembered that clerks are people who are rather above the average class of employed persons; they are very much dependent upon the terms of their engagements, and they run considerable risks in many cases. They banded themselves in this instance into an association which at first did not give them all they wanted. With great trouble and

  1287
  difficulty they worked this matter out themselves until they had so far improved their rules that they were able to get all they could receive in the way of medical aid of various kinds. By a fixed payment they were to have medical aid, and have it in such a way that each and every one of them, if he so chose, could have the services of his own individual doctor. Their case was represented very strongly through various channels, and they were given distinctly to understand that if they met certain conditions under the Act they would be accepted as an approved society and would obtain Grants-in-Aid, so to speak, which would enable them, under the Insurance Act, to obtain the benefits they were granting to their members previous to the passing of the Act. Under these conditions they withdrew all opposition in this House to the Insurance Act. They followed that up by applying to be accepted as an approved society. To make a long story short, their application was refused, and this after they had obtained a large number of members on the strength that they had been told that they would be accepted as an approved society, and that as an approved society they would be able to grant to their members the same benefits as they were receiving previous to the Act. As soon as the Bill became law they were told they could not be accepted as an approved society unless they altered their scheme altogether, and reduced the benefits. That is only one of the many cases which one might quote if one had time to do so.
  Since my name was mentioned as bringing this Motion forward I have been simply inundated with letters, not only from societies such as that to which I have referred, but from individuals all over the country; some of them in my own Constituency, and some in other constituencies, but all of them calling my attention to the way in which the administration of this Act has absolutely failed. I should like to come more closely home and refer to the actual promises that were made. We may say that chiefly what the Government did undertake, that insured persons should receive, was medical attendance and sanatoriam benefit. As regards medical attendance, I think that anybody will agree—I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if present, would agree—that one thing you want when you are considering
  1288
  who is to treat you when you are ill is the doctor of your own choice, and that somebody else's doctor in no sense fills the vacancy. If there was any doubt on that point, I should like to quote from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in this very House, when the Act was in its Committee stage, said:—
  "After all confidence in your doctor is essential. No man who could afford to do otherwise would hare a doctor prescribed for him by any club or society. He wants his own doctor to doctor him: the doctor in whom he has confidence."
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "An elastic system of this kind (the power of the insured person to make his own arrangement for medical service with a doctor not on the panel) would meet that kind of case. It would enable the doctor to carry on his present practice, it would enable him to get his Bills paid, hecause there would be something to assist the workmen to pay and it would also enable the workmen to secure the services of his present medical adviser even though he refused to act on contract terms."
  Then we go further. This was not in the House of Commons, but this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was in the celebrated speech of the Chancellor in Whitefield's Tabernacle on 14th October, 1911:—
  "What a fine thing it is to get the doctor you want and to get someone else to pay for him. That is the Government Insurance Bill"
  I hope Members of the House will bear that in mind. Again, in the Opera House, 13th February, 1912, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Doctors who are not engaged in contract practice need not take it for the future. The only thing that will happen to them will be, that they will charge exactly what they charge now, and they can send in their bills just as they are sending them in now. The only difference will be that there will be a fnnd to help their patients to pay the bill."
  Again, in the same speech I have referred to at the Tabernacle, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Another thing established by this Bill is this: He (the workman) can have the doctor of his own choice. … So we say to him, 'Go to the doctor you believe in. … What a fine thing it is to get the doctor you want and to get someone else to pay for him.'"
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Faith is nine points of all healing. So we say, 'Go to the doctor you believe in.' The very sight of some doctors makes you ill. On the other hand, at the mere sight of some men—well, you feel better the moment they come into the room. That is the doctor for you and under the Insurance Act you get him."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear," but I hope they will wait until I finish. The Home Secretary, replying for the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division, said this:—
  "In making their own arrangements any person desiring to employ a duly quaified herbalist and the

  1289
  practitioners for whom the hon. Member speaks, will be entitled to receive precisely the same payment as any medical practitioner."
  So that not only is it promised that they shall have the choice of doctors, but he says that in a case where they do not want a regular practitioner they will be able to call in their own man and to avail of his services. Now what is the result? Here is one case—an insured person under the Act. He says:—
  "I have had my family doctor for the past ten years, who is perfectly willing, for a very nominal sum per annum, to give me the best possible attention. After having filled in numerous forms, and in one instance waited five or six weeks before receiving a reply, and then receiving another form to be filled in by a doctor and myself and returned within forty-eight hours; then another wait, and a curt printed form declining, but giving no reason fur so doing."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Where was that?
  Colonel CHALONER: It was the case of a Mr. Zammsky. [Laughter.] I quite understand hon. Members opposite laughing at a man because he has not got a British name, but some hon. Members opposite suffer from the same defect. He is a British elector and has a right to vote under an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, I consider he has a right to be heard. His address is 26, Norwood Road, Bolton, Seacombe, Cheshire. Let us take another case where a man made an application to be allowed to make his own arrangements with a doctor not upon the panel. He duly filled in a form, but he heard nothing about it until 19th February, when he wrote asking if it had received attention. He received a letter, and a few days later a curt refusal to allow him to have his own doctor. As he considered this was a great injustice he decided to put the matter before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he wrote him on 3rd April, when he received an acknowledgment to his letter, and finally he received a letter (No. 4) from the Insurance commissioners, which merely referred him back to the local committee, which they said had absolute power to decide the question upon its merits. In other words, he was distinctly refused what the Act of Parliament says is his right. So much for having the doctor of your own choice, which the right hon. Gentleman told us every insured person was to have. I have now shown, and I could give plenty more cases where those who are insured under the Act are not allowed to have their own doctors and have been actually refused. I should like to show the results that have
  1290
  accrued in the cases of those who have accepted the panel doctors, and I should think when the House hears them there will not be a feeling of much wonder that insured persons should wish to have what the Act says he should have, the service of a doctor. Here is a case I have seen only to-day from the county of Wiltshire, in which the writer noticed that this matter was going to be brought forward to-day. He writes:—
  "I am sorry to say I have a son eighteen years of age who has developed the disease of consumption. He is discharged from Salisbury Infirmary. Now where is the sanatorium which was promised us? I am sorry to say my son has been a Post Office contributor from the first day. Now after waiting and making all inquiries he has got a bounty of 5s. 2d., and he has been notified that that is the amount standing to his credit after paying the whole time and 7d. per week during the time he has been ill and unable to work. Hoping you will let these facts be known and find someone else to fill Lloyd George's place."
  An HON. MEMBER: That is what you want.
  Colonel CHALONER: That is what we will have before long. Now, I should like to give a case that happened in my own Constituency, showing the treatment so far as it is received that is meted out to insured persons by certain panel doctors. I do not say I am actually going to condemn the panel doctor. What has happened is merely that the results are bad because you are asking more than a human machine can possibly perform in many cases. Here is the case of Charles Henry Titherington:—
  "My son, a youth of twenty years of age residing with me, is an insured person. On Saturday afternoon last, the 29th March, the boy had been out in the rain and got wet. Later in the evening he developed a chill and was placed in bed. Early on the morning of the 30th (Sunday) he showed signs of getting worse. I came to the conclusion that pneumonia was developing and my wife immediately applied hot poultices to him. I dispatched toy son-in-law to Dr. Dunlop's house with the request to visit the boy. The doctor was not at home at the time, and my son-in-law wrote the name on the memorandum tablet and asked the servant to inform the doctor that the boy was spitting blood, and to request him to come at once. As the doctor did not arrive at tutor, I sent another person, a Miss Kelly. This young lady saw the doctor and informed him of the serious condition of the boy and asked him to come and see him. The doctor asked the young lady whether she was not aware that insured patients were not visited on Sundays."
  Are we to be told that if a workman's son is dying on a Sunday afternoon that, because it is Sunday, the doctor is not to come to see him? Yet, according to the actual accounts, that is the answer given that insured persons were not visited on Sunday:—
  "The doctor asked her whether she was aware that insured patients were not visited on a Sunday, and requested her to describe the case. She replied that she thought it was a case of pleurisy, and he then said

  1291
  he would go along and see the boy, but that if it turned out not to be a serious case he would report the matter to the committee. I waited until close on six o'clock for Dr. Dunlop to put in an appearance, and I then sent my two daughters to his house again to ask him to come round. They also saw Dr. Dunlop. He informed them that he had told the last messenger (Miss Kelly) that he was corning round to see the boy. One of my daughters then told the doctor that the boy was very bad indeed, and asked him whether he intended to come round or not; if not, it would be necessary to call in another doctor. He replied, 'I will not come round now; I will come when it suits me.' My daughter then said, 'Very well; we shall have to get someone else.' As a matter of fact, the doctor did not come, and I had to call in another doctor, who reported it was a case of pneumonia."
  These are serious facts. People are obliged to contribute under this Act for the services of a doctor, and when the man tries to call a doctor in the result is that the doctor declines to come. I could quote other cases where deaths have actually occurred, and I have even got a case where the death of a doctor has occurred because he was so overworked under the Act that it was quite impossible for him to fulfil the whole of his duties, and at last human nature gave way. I have here a letter from a doctor in Dorset, in which he gives examples of the way in which the Act has actually failed where people who have contributed moved from one district to another. Everybody knows the large number of people that come and go. They have been treated by one doctor in a particular district, and when they go into another nobody knows who is liable and nobody knows whether they are entitled to be treated or not. I will not occupy too much time by going into all these cases, as many of us want to speak, and I am particularly anxious not to take up too much time.
  I should like to point out that what I have quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a deliberate and distinct pledge and statement made at the time when by-elections were going on, when this Act was used as a means of obtaining votes in order to win elections. With that object in view, the right hon. Gentleman made the distinct pledge that this Bill was going to give to the insured person, the poor workman, palaces, hospitals, first-class hotels, sanatoria; and he was told that he would be able to choose his own doctor. All those pledges were made definitely and clearly with the distinct object of winning elections, and having made those promises not one of them has been fulfilled. I have proved that they have been broken, and I claim the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, not to con-
  1292
  demn the Minister or with a party object of proving the Minister was wrong—I could prove that not only on this subject, but on fifty or even five hundred subjects—but to demand for the insured persons, who are working men, and not rich men who can get doctors whenever they want them, who are bound by this Act to contribute to the insurance fund, and having contributed, are bound to accept the terms granted under that Act; I appeal to this House to support this Resolution, in order that we may obtain mere justice for the insured person, and obtain those benefits which were promised when the Bill was passed, which we were led to believe were contained within the four corners of the Bill; and we are now determined by public opinion to force the Government to grant to the insured persons the benefits which were promised when the Bill was passed.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should very much like to support the Motion which has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend. It is not so often we get an opportunity of discussing the Insurance Act in this House, and it is really important that the public should realise that a large number of the glib promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago have disappeared in smoke; in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a past master in the art of making promises, especially when a delicate situation has to be tided over. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about old age pensions?"] When the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes these promises one feels at the time almost a brute to doubt what he says. But what is happening? In many cases, in various directions, insured persons have been denied those benefits which, after all the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they have every right to demand as their due. I should like to give three instances of these broken pledges, one of which was dealt with by my hon. Friend. In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised the friendly societies and their members a huge release of reserves if his Bill passed into law. At Birmingham, in the year 1911, the right hon. Gentleman told his audience that if friendly society men had been in friendly societies for a period of years they had a credit to their account, and under the Bill he realised that credit and took over the whole burden of the State scheme. The right hon. Gen-

  1293
  tleman repeated that pledge several times, and he added:—
  "What I want to tell you is this. We are realising the credit which you have created by your thrift, industry, and foresight. We are giving you the full benefit of it, and we are adding something on the top of it."
  Stripped of its technicalities, that pledge means that if a man was voluntarily insured in a sound friendly society, and then became compulsorily insured, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the insured person would be able to claim a reduction of his voluntary contribution by the amount he would have to pay on the compulsory side of his insurance, and though the voluntary benefits would have to be reduced to the extent the State was taking them over, on the whole they would not be reduced to the whole of that extent, as there would be some benefits to spare on the voluntary side. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own words, the promise was:—
  "We are realising the credit mid adding something on the top of it."
  To put it more plainly, if the member's voluntary contribution was formerly 7d. a week, he would pay 3d. in the future, or 4d. less on the voluntary side of his friendly society, and he would get the full 3d. worth of voluntary benefit, and something added on the top of it on the voluntary side. There is no doubt about this, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Birmingham, quoted an exact instance, and I have here a copy of his speech published by the Liberal Publication Department. He took the instance of a man who had been in a friendly society for a good many years, and who had been paying 8¼d. a week, or 2s. 9d. for a month of four weeks, and he promised his audience that that same man, under the Bill, would only pay 4d. per week, or 1s. 4d. per month of four weeks towards the voluntary side of his insurance, or 4d. less than he had been paying before the Bill passed into law. Of all the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no promise facilitated the acceptance of this Bill by the friendly societies in this country more than this one. The friendly societies and their members believed him, and in nearly every case those friendly society men have been deceived. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The pledge was merely an emergency promise made in order to serve a temporary purpose, and it came to nothing. I have this on the authority of the greatest actuary I suppose in this country outside the official circle of
  1294
  actuaries dealing with the Act. In about 90 per cent. of the cases there has been no realisation of reserves at all. Contributions are being paid in full to the voluntary side of the friendly society as well as the compulsory side. I saw a list the other day of 480 friendly societies in a mining district. To take an instance, there was a large branch of the Manchester Unity with 1,700 members, and only two of those members had got reduced contributions and benefit contracts under the voluntary side of their friendly society. Therefore, out of 1,700 members, only two had released reserves.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: They were voluntarily paying the full rate of contributions.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: They were paying the full rate of contributions because they could not get the release of reserves promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This means that £10 of reserves were set free when releases of £8,500 were expected and promised on the basis of that pledge. Another friendly society, the Ancient Order of Gardeners, has a net deficiency of £353,000 and 44,000 members. If it had the release of reserve promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if every member had been able to reduce his contributions and benefit contract on the basis of that Birmingham speech, the deficiency would have been brought down to £140,000.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this is done from any other cause except voluntary agreement with the members themselves?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No. My argument is that this release of reserves was promised in the Birmingham speech to the friendly societies. The friendly society members have not been able to obtain those releases, and therefore they have practically had to go on paying the full rate of contributions to get their benefits. With regard to this society, practically none of the contracts have been reduced, and the deficiency will not be reduced at all. Consequently, all these members will be over insured.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask the hon. Member if he is calling the deficiency the reserve?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not at all. I am very glad that hon. Members opposite

  1295
  should ask these questions, because I want to make myself plain. If this release of reserve had been possible, as was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would have been possible to wipe out that deficiency.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has it got a balance to the good—a surplus—or has it got a deficiency? If you have got a deficiency, how can you release a surplus?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This society had a very large deficiency.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: £300,000.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I said s—£353,000. Under the Act a great release of reserve was to take place by the fact that the State was going to take over a large portion of the expense, but as this release of reserve has not taken place it has not been able to wipe out that deficiency. That deficiency, as a matter of fact, will not be reduced at all, and the members of that society consequently will be over-insured. In fact, in practice the friendly societies are not in a position to give their members the benefits categorically promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the event of this Bill passing into law. It is not even being done in perfectly sound societies. It cannot be done, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have known that. At any rate, he ought to have asked advice and found out about it, and he ought to have said it could not possibly be done in the vast majority of societies to-day. Indeed, in practice it is not done and cannot be done. Friendly societies are even now finding out that they are obliged to limit what reductions of contributions they can give on the voluntary side. They find they have got to limit those reductions to persons under seventy years of age, although the Registrar of Friendly Societies last year issued a table showing the provisional reductions of contributions that could be made without saying a single word about any limit in connection with these reductions. It is a great pity, to say the least of it, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out all these hopes. They were hopes which were engineered, somewhat callously I think, owing to his desire to obtain sufficient support for his Bill in the friendly society world when it was passing through the House of Commons. In the second place, a distinct breach of faith has taken place in regard to medical benefit.
  1296
  On 27th October, 1912, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "If the remuneration of the doctors is increased, then where necessary the practitioners should resort to those modern methods of exact diagnosis, the importance of which I am advised is increasingly recognised in the profession."
  It is perfectly well known in the medical world that these mean pathological and bacteriological investigation. What has happened? Since the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer these modern methods without any excuse or explanation have been cut out of medical benefit altogether, although insured persons as taxpayers and as members of friendly societies are paying additional remuneration to the doctors for the purpose. There is no doubt at all about this. On 28th November last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer forwarded a memorandum to the British Medical Association, and in it occurred this sentence:—
  "X-ray diagnosis and pathological or bacteriological investigation would not be services included in medical benefit."
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will remember that, answering a question, he made it quite clear that benefit was excluded. Therefore, a public pledge has again been broken, and insured persons are being deprived of a particular medical benefit, a most valuable and important one, for which they are paying both as taxpayers and insured persons under the Act.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I said that these modern methods would not be resorted to. I said that the obligation was not laid on the doctor, but that where they were available we expected they would use them.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that where necessary that benefit would be given to the insured person, and he sent a memorandum to the British Medical Association saying that it was not included in medical benefit. That is my point. After all, I do not think it can be too much emphasised that an exact diagnosis is a most vital part of all medical treatment. It lies, in fact, at the root of all medical treatment, as I believe any doctor will agree, and I should have thought that it was just as important for insured persons to have an exact diagnosis as for those richer members of the community who can afford to pay for it, but apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those hon. Members who support

  1297
  him seem to think otherwise. In my opinion the most unsatisfactory feature in the administration of the Insurance Act at the present moment is the refusal of free choice of doctor to the insured. It is another broken pledge, and to my mind a worse breach of faith even than the two others. The whole history of this question of free choice of doctor has been from beginning to end a flagrant piece of deception. Time after time in this House and in the country the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his pledged word that insured persons under the Act would get the doctor of their choice. At four or five great meetings in the country he made this promise without any reservation or limitation, and other Ministers in the country reiterated the promise on the platform. The classic instance is the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Whitefield's Tabernacle, quoted by my hon. Friend. There was not a single word of limitation in that speech at Whitefield's Tabernacle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say to his audience, "The doctor you want, Who has attended to you ever since you were born, and who may be in your sick room at the very time the Act comes into operation may not be on your panel, and in that case you may have to put up with a doctor you have never seen in your life. That is the Insurance Bill." He did not say that, he said exactly the contrary. I have a quotation here—I think it is the only quotation which has not already been made in this House—and it is what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Advisory Committee on the 23rd October last year. These were his words:—
  "If any workman does not care to be attended by the whole-time doctor appointed he may choose his own doctor under the Act, and a contribution may he made for the purpose of assisting him in paying his own doctor, so, to that extent, the free choice of a doctor will be safeguarded in the case of a national service."
  To my mind nothing could be clearer than that pledge. The right hon. Gentleman made the promise over and over again, and everyone knows that it was on the strength of that promise that vast numbers of the people of this country were induced to give their support to the Bill. What has happened in fact? In hardly any case in the country can an insured person get the doctor of his choice if that doctor does not happen to be on the panel. They are even refused permission to have the doctor of their choice if their circumstances are exceptional—if, for instance, they have been attended by the same doctor for a
  1298
  period of twenty or thirty years, or if they were actually ill at the time the Act came into operation, or at the time they made application to be allowed to choose their own doctor, or if they were actually being attended to by him at that time. I have some information which I have received during the last few hours which comes from different parts of the country, but I will deal with four districts only. They are Warwickshire, Durham, Chatteris and the county of London. In the case of the Warwickshire Insurance Committee, several hundreds of people asked for permission to have as their medical attendant Dr. Nason, of Nuneaton, who supported the request and who received a reply from the insurance committee to the effect it was the intention of the Act that this permission should only be given in exceptional circumstances. That is inaccurate to start with. The insurance committee also wrote to the applicants, stating that their application would be considered after a form of agreement had been signed by them, and the committee in sending the form of agreement added that it must be countersigned across a sixpenny postage stamp by the doctor they proposed to employ. About 250 of Dr. Nason's patients signed the agreement and affixed the stamp. Dr. Nason wrote to the insurance committee and this is what he said. It seems to be a very important factor in this case. His words were:—
  "I am willing, for the sake of my own patients and friends, to accept a strictly limited number, such number to be decided by myself, on the same terms and under the same conditions that apply to persons attended by doctors on the panel, but I am not prepared to join the panel."
  He ended the letter by asking the insurance committee why his patients should be penalised by having to put a sixpenny postage stamp on the form which they were asked to send in. The committee wrote back:—
  "As to your accepting a limited number of patients, the panels committee has recommended that, subject to provision being made for proper treatment of all insured persons and to the approval of practitioners on the county list, doctors shall, in special cases, be allowed to join the panel for a limited number of insured persons only."
  And they went on to add:—
  "They (the insured persons) will not receive any contributions unless the doctor complies with the terms of the undertaking—(that is agrees to go on the panel)."
  Further they say:—
  "It is better to spend sixpence, making sure of this beforehand"——

  1299
  The House will note that no intimation was given to these persons that they might be spending their sixpence for nothing—
  "than that they should incur expense only to find that on account of the refusal of the doctor to carry out the conditions the committee could make no contribution towards the cost."
  As if this was not enough, the Insurance Committee kept the applicants waiting nearly three months, and then sent them the following printed form, without the slightest inquiry into their condition, without any inquiry as to whether their circumstances were exceptional or not. The form was in these terms:—
  "Dear Sir or Madam,—I am directed to inform you that your application to make special arrangements for medical benefit has been considered and is refused. When a practitioner is willing to treat a number of insured persons (as is the doctor whom you wish to attend you) he should do so under the usual agreement with this committee."
  9.0 P.M.
  That means that he should go on the panel. The House, therefore, will see that, though these particular persons wanted a particular doctor as their medical attendant, and though they had paid 6d. in the first instance when they made application, yet after waiting a very long time they were curtly refused permission en bloc, without inquiry into their circumstances, although the circumstances of many of them were exceptional in the highest degree. Some of these persons had been attended by Dr. Nason ever since they were born, some were ill, and actually being attended by him when the Act came into operation, or when they made application to have him as their doctor. The cardinal crime was that Dr. Nason was not on the panel, although he agreed to treat these patients on the same terms and under the same conditions as applied to persons attended by doctors on the panel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did he not go on?"] I am not dealing with that; I am dealing with the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Secretary to the Treasury last Session hinted that doctors outside the panel were not so worthy the confidence of insured persons as doctors on the panel. I believe that to be wholly untrue. I say it is an unworthy insinuation. I may mention that Dr. Nason is a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery of Edinburgh; also surgeon to the Nuneaton General Hospital and medical officer to the Post Office—all evidence of his high standing in the medical profession and justifying his patients in wishing to have him as their medical attendant.
  1300
  I have another case from Durham, the case of Dr. Densham, of Stockton-on-Tees, a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery of Edinburgh and surgeon to the Stockton Hospital. It may surprise the Secretary to the Treasury to hear that, in spite of his medical qualifications, he does not want to go on the panel. His patients have applied to the Durham Insurance Committee for permission to choose him as their doctor, and have been curtly refused without any explanation whatsoever. I should like to ask hon. Members below the Gangway what they think of this case. No fewer than fourteen people have applied. I have their names and addresses here if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to look at them; they have been attended by Dr. Densham since birth in all their sicknesses, and five were actually ill and under treatment by him for critical disorders when the Insurance Act came into operation, and when they applied to have him as their doctor. Surely these cases constitute exceptional circumstances, and surely it is in the interests of the health of those insured persons that they should be able to retain the doctor of their choice. The case from Chatteris is on exactly the same lines. Dr. Nix is not on the panel; five of his patients were ill at the time when the Act came into operation, and were being attended by him when they applied for permission to choose him as their doctor. I have their names and addresses also. I may mention that Dr. Nix is a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery of Cambridge, medical officer of health to the Chatteris Urban District Council, and house physician to the Brompton Chest Hospital, one of the best known hospitals for consumption.
  The same thing is happening in the County of London, for which I will give only one instance. Russell Mott, a bank messenger, has been attended since his birth by the medical officer, Dr. Hildyard Rogers. Dr. Rogers is not on the panel. Although he is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of London, a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and late Assistant Surgeon to the London Ophthalmic Hospital, he has been refused permission to treat these patients under the Insurance Act by the County of London Insurance Committee. The hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Dawes), who is Chairman of the London Insurance Committee, has written to the secretary of the National Medical Guild to say that Mott's circumstances are not

  1301
  exceptional, although his doctor has attended him since he was born in all his sickness. A circular has also been sent out by the London Insurance Committee to all applicants for free choice in these words:—
  "Insured persons who have not elected their doctor——"
  that is their panel doctor—
  "by the 31st March, 1913, will be liable to distribution amongst doctors on the panel."
  I must apologise for having detained the House so long, but I have got a great many more instances here with which I am not going to deal. I have names and addresses from Stafford, Brixton, Wandsworth, Smethwick, and other places. It is the usual state of affairs practically all over the country. I am very glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at length put in an appearance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not want to say anything offensive or discourteous—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why mention it?"]—but I do feel that when my hon. Friend proposes a Motion of this sort, which is concerned with the pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he might have done my hon. Friend the courtesy of being present. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he really thinks constitutes exceptional circumstances, or is the term "exceptional circumstances" merely one other of those plausible pretexts invented to account for the complete disappearance of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge. As I have shown, many of these patients who have not been allowed to choose their own doctors have been attended by those doctors, ever since they were born, in all their sickness. In these cases it is perfectly evident that a new panel doctor cannot possibly know the peculiarities of their systems or their pathological records so well as the doctor who has always attended them. It is not merely a case of medical attainments and technical knowledge. It is also perfectly evident that the last thing which is good for the patient is that an untried doctor should be thrust upon him, whom he does not want, and whom, perhaps, he greatly dislikes and distrusts. Nothing is more likely to retard the convalescence of a patient and to destroy all confidence in his ultimate recovery. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own words, used at Whitefield's Tabernacle:—
  "Faith is nine points of all healing."
  It is nothing less than a cruel and harsh exercise of bureaucratic power to take
  1302
  away the doctor a man has always had, whom he trusts, and to foist upon him a stranger who may be antipathetic to him in every way. It would not be dreamt of, except in the case of the poorer classes, and I cannot understand how such a democrat as the right hon. Gentleman can lend himself to it. I have also shown that free choice of doctors is even refused to the insured person when he is actually ill and being attended by his own doctor when the Act came into operation, and when he made the application. Will the right hon. Gentleman maintain that it is wise suddenly to force a new doctor into the sick room, who must necessarily be unacquainted with the history of the disease and all the idiosyncrasies of the patient. These cases form exceptional circumstances, and if free choice is going to be refused generally, surely free choice ought to be allowed where the circumstances are exceptional, such as I have described. The result of refusing free choice of a doctor and of forcing patients upon doctors whom they do not want, is that a vast system of overwork is being established in our great centres of population. Dr. Madden, of 53, Devonshire Street, Islington, has 5,560 patients on his list. Dr. Salter, of Bermondsey, has over 6,000 patients on his list, and Dr. Ainsley Young of Stepney, has very nearly 7,000 persons on his list. How can any doctor possibly deal with such a list, and what can possibly be worse for the health of the community? It is nothing less than a scandal It is entirely due to the refusal to allow insured persons to make their own arrangements with medical practitioners outside the panels. I submit that under the Act, as it is being administered at the present moment in respect of medical benefit, an intolerable course of tyranny is being pursued, and that the promises and pledges made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been shamelessly thrown overboard. When he thought it necessary to gain public support for his Bill he was ready to see everybody and promise anything. In those days it was—
  "the doctor you believe in,"
  and—
  "what a fine thing it is to get the doctor you want, and get somebody else to pay for him."
  But now the Act is passed and public support is no longer required, he wipes his pledges off the slate, and looks on with a cynical indifference at the disappointment of those he has duped and deceived. I do

  1303
  hope it is not too late, even now, to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to return to his earlier manner, when he saw these things as clearly as anybody else. If the right hon. Gentleman would only believe it, the role of benefactor is much more becoming to him than that of Juggernaut. If, however, the Government refuse to remedy this defect, I believe that it will not only be detrimental to the health of those insured persons they profess to benefit, but that they will lay up against themselves at the next General Election a grievance, a smouldering sense of injustice and injury, that will not be forgotten when they can eventually summon up courage to appeal to the country. For these reasons I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. DAWES: My excuse for trespassing on the time of the House to-night is that I have a great deal to do in the administration of the Insurance Act in the County of London. Perhaps I may be allowed at once to deal with the point mentioned just now by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who mentioned certain names which appeared in a document marked "Private and confidential," which I have been assured this afternoon has been disclosed to no one, although the figures and nothing else have been given. How the hon. Member got the private and confidential document I do not know, but I will assume that he did not know and did not see that it was marked "Private and confidential" on the outside. I have the document here so marked. He has mentioned three cases. There is the case of Dr. Salter, who has 6,017 insured persons—not insured patients, as stated by the hon. Member—[An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know the difference"]—although that document gives the fact that Dr. Salter has four partners, all of whom are on the panel, and who, by arrangement, have no insured persons to their names, all being put to the name of Dr. Salter.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The numbers I gave are the numbers of the persons of patients on that doctor's own list, and the people who are working with them have separate lists.
  Mr. DAWES: No, they have not. I was saying, and I repeat, that these four doctors in partnership with Dr. Salter have not got one insured person to their name—any of them. May I say, further,
  1304
  that four out of these five doctors in that town are among the most highly qualified doctors in London, and four of them are doctors of medicine of the University of London, and it is almost the irony of fate that this gentleman's name should be mentioned, because a fortnight after the Act came into operation I myself asked Dr. Salter if he would take an insured person, and he said, No, his list was full and he and his partners only intended to take a limited number, and he would take no further cases. The inference, of course, is that this man is going on taking patients till he gets 10,000, 12,000, or 15,000. I hope that settles that case. In the case of Dr. W. Ainslie Young, who has got in his own name 6,929 insured persons, there are four partners, all highly qualified men, and, again, not one of those partners other than Dr. Young has got a single insured person in his name, although they are all on the panel. In the case of Dr. Madden, also mentioned by the hon. Member, 53, Devonshire Street, who has 5,560 insured persons, he also has a partner, Dr. Coomber, also on the panel, who has not got a single patient to his name, and the result is that these two gentlemen have about 2,800 insured persons apiece. Dr. Salter's firm works out at 1,204 insured persons per doctor, and Dr. Young's firm works out at 1,732 insured persons per doctor. I put it to the House as to whether it is a fair thing for either a newspaper or the hon. Member to drag respectable names into the House with the view of showing that they are having a great deal too many patients, without apparently taking the slightest trouble to investigate the facts at all and quoting from this private and confidential document.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not admit that the hon. Member's information is correct.
  Mr. DAWES: My information was obtained to-day from the clerk of the Insurance Committee, of which I am chairman, and it is official. Is that sufficient for the hon. Member or is it not? I shall be perfectly prepared to show the hon. Member at any time he likes to name, at 5, Chancery Lane, our records showing the figures. Now may I deal with an innuendo which has been put forward just lately by two hon. Members with regard to sanatorium benefit—the hon. Member (Mr. Touche) and the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees)? In each case, after asking questions, the hon. Members have asked if it is not a fact that

  1305
  sanatorium benefit is non-existent in the county of London? I wish to give the House a few facts. The insurance committees, of course, were constituted about the middle of July of last year, and we in the county of London at once set to work to provide sanatorium benefit for such persons as were entitled to it. Of course, you cannot do these things in a moment. We at once, within a fortnight, appointed an expert, Dr. Edward Squire, to advise us on the various cases, as to what they were suitable for and so on, and on 12th September we began to send cases to sanatoria, and between that time and 14th November we had 147 persons in sanatoria in different parts of the country. That is probably a record which, although I do not wish to make comparisons with any other county, compares favourably, at any rate, with sanatorium benefit as administered elsewhere within the country. I only mention this because it is said that sanatorium benefit does not exist in the county of London. Our difficulties on the London Insurance Committee began in the middle of November. Up to that time we had got sanatorium accommodation for approved applicants, but, unfortunately, on 5th October, the vice-chairman of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, Professor Smith, said:—
  "London had at its disposal, practically immediately, a thousand beds for the proper treatment of tuberculous cases in admirable institutions. Large numbers of persons were waiting to be treated, and although they had a thousand beds the Board were precluded from using them owing to the Clause as to the Poor Law authorities."
  At that time the London Insurance Committee had a very favourable offer of an admirable institution which they wanted. The Insurance Committee unluckily are not able to take institutions in their own name or expend any capital sum upon them. All they can do is to refer the matter to the county councils, or in the case of a borough to the town council. We requested the London County Council to take this matter into consideration. The county council said, "No. The Metropolitan Asylums Board say they can give you a thousand beds immediately. We will make arrangements with them as your agent and you must deal with them." Professor Smith having said they had a thousand beds at practically immediate notice, we were satisfied. In four and a half months the Metropolitan Asylums Board has only been able to provide us with 300 beds altogether. Although the negotiations were completed in the middle of December, we have only at this moment
  1306
  somewhere about 300 beds, and in the meantime the London County Council refused to move, although they passed some time ago a pious resolution to take over the care of all tuberculous persons within the county, and then the London Insurance Committee gets blamed for the delay. We have done our best, and the present position is this, that we now have under treatment 1,425 people. We have 557 cases in sanatoria, 113 cases in hospitals, 464 persons are receiving domiciliary treatment, 267 are receiving dispensary treatment, and twenty-four are attending hospitals as out-patients. With that I am prepared to leave it to the House to say whether or not sanatorium benefit is non-existent within the County of London.
  I wish now to deal with the subject of medical benefit. I have already referred to what the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) mentioned with regard to these three doctors. No doubt he originally got the statement, or part of it, from an article in the "Daily Mail" of last Monday, headed "Panel Scandal." "Medical benefit under the Insurance Act is to a large extent non-existent," and so On. That purports to be an interview with a member of the London Insurance Committee, and at subsequent meetings we asked that member to substantiate some of these charges. I must ask the House to remember that the number of insured persons in the county of London is 1,430,000—a very large number. The "Daily Mail" article states that large numbers of complaints are being received by the London Insurance Committee of inadequate medical benefit. The total number of complaints amounts to nineteen. The "Daily Mail" article went on to say that these complaints were almost exclusively in regard to doctors who had an excessive number of insured persons on their lists. The actual number of complaints against doctors with more than 2,000 persons on their lists is eight out of these nineteen. Several of these complaints were with respect to such things as declining to give certificates to friendly societies, and so on. I represent a purely industrial constituency with which I have been connected for many years. I have resided within a very short distance of it for twenty-three years. I am in very close touch with the constituency continually, and I have only had three complaints made to me since the medical benefit part of the Act came into operation. But I do not

  1307
  rely entirely on myself in this matter. In the neighbouring constituency of Lambeth there is a gentleman who has spent all his life practically in the place. He knows the whole life of the district, and I have from time to time, knowing that these visionary complaints were going about, asked him if he had heard any complaints. He has kept very careful watch, and he tells me that there are no more complaints now than there used to be before the Insurance Act came into operation. Bearing in mind that we have 1,430,000 insured persons, the wonder is not that there have been so many complaints, but that there have been so few.
  I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have ever claimed that the Act is absolutely perfect. I know very few Acts of Parliament that are perfect, but I say, having regard to the number of persons insured, the complaints are very few. In regard to the free choice of doctors, the "Daily Mail" article apparently desires to restrict the free choice. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool (Colonel Chaloner) was eloquent on that subject. The total number of applications for "own arrangements" in the county of London has been 2,900 in all, and of these 293 have been granted. May I say, in answer to the hon. Member for the Salisbury Division (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), that we have laid down the conditions under which we would grant exceptions? We will grant exception to persons the nature of whose occupation renders it impossible for them to secure the services of a particular doctor; persons who desire a special form of treatment, such as is given by homœopaths and herbalists; persons under treatment for special ailments, including all cases of tuberculosis; women who desire a woman doctor where there is none on the panel within a reasonable distance; and persons who suffer from heart complaints. In these cases we allow an insured person to make his or her own arrangements. A moving picture was put before the House as to those who are not allowed to have the doctors who have been attending to them for years. In the case referred to by the hon. Member, that of a man called Mott, there were no exceptional circumstances which justified the committee in granting an exception. The Secretary to the Treasury will no doubt reply as to the special circumstances in which an insured
  1308
  person's own doctor ought to be allowed to attend. We are told that there must be special circumstances, and it is in the interest of insured persons that they should have full value for their money, because the moment they contract out they render themselves liable to pay more than they would pay under the Act.
  Although it is no business of mine, I would point out that in the case of the 200 odd people referred to the remedy is very simple. Let the doctor come on the panel. Why should he not do so? We have tried to make things in the County of London as easy as possible for the doctor. For instance, the medical officers of hospitals, and so on, who wish to give their services for a limited number of patients are allowed to do so, provided they do not select the lives. I say the Insurance Committee will be taking a grave responsibility if they force on a doctor more patients than he desires to take. It seems to me that, unless there is an excellent reason for not doing so, a doctor should come on the panel. There is no disgrace in it surely. We have some of the most highly qualified men in London on the panel of 1,250. Doctors are coming in every day. We began with 760. May I say in justice to the doctors that they are doing their best to make the Act work in London, and I believe we shall have a considerable accession to the number on the panel. It is for the Secretary to the Treasury to defend the Government, but, speaking as one who has considerable knowledge of London, I can state that the Act is not unpopular. Considering the number of insured persons, the complaints have been infinitesimal, and although, as probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree, there are certain amendments required, the Act is working, in view of the novelty of the whole scheme, with extraordinary smoothness.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the attitude of the Government towards insured persons with respect to a doctor who is not upon the panel. How do the Government reconcile their attitude with the pledges which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when my hon. Friend read the pledges which he gave at Whitefield's Tabernacle. He said:—
  "He (the working man) can have the doctor of his own choice; so we say to him, 'Go to the doctor you

  1309
  believe in.' What a fine thing it is to get the doctor you want, and get somebody else to pay for him. That is the Government Insurance Bill."
  I had the privilege of hearing that speech. I believe I was the only Member of the Opposition who was present at that remarkable meeting, and a very remarkable spectacle it was. There was the right hon. Gentleman standing in a religious edifice with his eyes turned up to heaven, and in that religious edifice he poured forth a flood of violent abuse on the Tories, the rich, the doctors, and the other familiar objects of his platform slander. Certainly it was not an edifying or a Christian or a charitable spectacle, but I am sure that the House will agree that it would be made more uncharitable and more unchristian if the promises, then so solemnly given, are not made good to the insured persons to whom they were made. It is no part of my case to complain that the pledges were not fairly carried out so far as the words of the Act itself are concerned. As far as I have been able to understand the 3rd Sub-section of Section 15 of the Insurance Act, it does provide that insured persons may have a doctor of their own choice. The Sub-section lays down that the regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners shall authorise the insurance committee by which medical benefit is administered to require any insured person whose income exceeds a limit to be fixed by the committee, and to allow any other insured person, in lieu of receiving medical benefit under such agreement as aforesaid, to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment. There is nothing whatever in the words of the Sub-section about special or exceptional circumstances. It is an opportunity to be given to insured persons, and I submit that that is an opportunity which ought not to be unreasonably withheld. But apparently something has happened after the Act was passed to frustrate the insured person from getting the doctor he desires. I will only quote one case, a case which occurred a few days ago in my own Constituency, of a lady who has been for many years the patient of a doctor at Watford. That lady became an insured person, and the doctor did not go upon the panel. I have the correspondence here, which I will be glad to submit to the right hon. Gentleman or to show to any Member of the House. The lady desired to have the advantage of her old doctor's attendance, and wrote to the Hertfordshire insurance committee, asking them to make a contri-
  1310
  bution to her medical treatment, and received the following reply:—
  "I am directed by the Hertfordshire insurance committee to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 12th inst., and to state that the insurance committee are not prepared to sanction any arrangement for the medical treatment of insured persons which are alternative to the panel system. I am, therefore, to request that you will present your medical ticket, which is returned herewith, to one of the doctors on the Hertfordshire panel for acceptance."
  I do not want to criticise the Hertfordshire Insurance Committee in the slightest degree. I am sure it is not their fault; I am sure they have done their very best to administer the Act; but what I submit is that in view of the terms of the Statute they could not possibly have taken up this attitude of refusing to sanction any arrangement outside the panel unless very strong pressure was brought to bear on them by some superior authority. I would like some statement from the Government on that point, and I would like to know whether it is their policy that all arrangements outside the panel are to be absolutely taboo. The last point that I would wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer is as to what has been done towards providing sanatoria. I am not going into the full details of the sanatorium question, but I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the criticism which was passed the other day by Mr. Sidney Webb. In two sentences he summarises his view of the Government. Dealing with sanatoria, he states:
  "Unhappily the Government Departments were found unprepared, and their differences with each other, their delays, and their unresourcefulness, have been maddening. Even now of the £1,500,000 sterling which Parliament voted for the instant establishment of sanatoria in 1911, not a penny has yet been paid over. Up to 31st December last, more than a year after the House of Commons had made the money available, not a single proposal for a new sanatorium has been approved by the Local Government Board and the Treasury."
  In conclusion, I only desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those criticisms by that great economic authority are accurate, and if not accurate in what respect has he gone wrong, and if they are accurate what is the Government's explanation and what is their defence?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I think that every Member of this House will welcome the opportunity which we have of discussing this important question. Having listened carefully to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion I am bound to say that I approach the question from an entirely different standpoint, and I really believe that most of the difficulties that are now magnified arise because many Members of this House are entirely ignorant

  1311
  of the friendly societies and the trade union movement. I speak now as an officer of probably the largest trade union in the world, which at this moment has 100,000 approved members, and I say unhesitatingly that there is no one in connection with this great movement who did not expect many more difficulties than we are even now encountering. Just imagine what it meant for the first time to compel two-thirds of the working population of this country to contribute for insurance against sickness and medical attendance! But I do want to make one particular point with regard to the doctors. I have always felt, and my colleagues on these benches feel, that the Chancellor was too generous with the doctors, and the doctors to-day are taking advantage of it. The hon. Member who moved this Motion cited a case from Wiltshire. I will give a case from Wiltshire which happened this week, where an insured person, a railway man, had made our own society his approved society. He was also by compulsion a member of the railway company's society. The doctor signed a certificate for the approved section and charged him 3s. for signing the certificate for the other club—a most monstrous position, which is taking advantage of and prostituting the whole intention and spirit of the Act. When the hon. Member who moved this Motion talks of the promises of the Chancellor and other Members from this side and their deceit, I think he called it, during the by-elections, I think the least said about by-elections the better, because I am perfectly certain that, whatever Amendment to the Insurance Act may be made, or whatever may be done in substitutions for this Act, the policy that many hon. Gentlemen opposite have pursued, in opposing this Act, has led the workers to believe that they are in favour of a non-contributory scheme. Therefore, if that be the impression that you have conveyed to the minds of the working classes of this country, then we, on these benches, will certainly follow it up to see, if an alteration be made, that it will be one effected in that particular direction.
  With regard to the point raised in reference to the reserved values, the hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that the Chancellor's statement in regard to it was not only not true, but that it deceived the members of the friendly societies themselves. I will give you one
  1312
  illustration why that is so. The Chancellor and everyone else who knew the subject, in talking about reserved values, were assuming that they were talking about a value reserved, and not a deficit. The Great Western Railway Provident Society has a capital of £385,000, and the Company compel the whole of the railway employés to join that fund, and when this Insurance Act came into operation, they decided to make an approved section of that society. The ordinary man in the street and the hon. Member assumed that this £385,000 was then released. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That was what the hon. Gentleman actually told the House. There could be no other meaning. Let us be perfectly clear about these reserved values. The hon. Member said distinctly that the Chancellor promised that this reserved money should be set free for the benefit of members. If that was not the point, there was no other meaning in it. I want to point out that this £385,000, instead of being an asset to the society, was actually a liability, because what the Great Western Railway Company did was to immediately take advantage of the Insurance Act to reduce the benefit to the members. They could not have done that if the Insurance Act had not come into operation, and they got out of their liability on the back of the Insurance Act.
  We on these benches moved—and I was certainly under the impression that when the Act was passed every workman would be free to join any society—an Amendment which was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was embodied in the Bill, and which everyone thought had that effect. But what have the railway companies done? They have said, "Yes, we will make it a condition that no man must join our approved society, but our approved society will be independent of our other society, and we will make it a condition that they shall join that one." Therefore, the men are in the unfortunate position of either having to pay to two societies or compelled to pay to one they do not believe in. If there is to be any Amendment of this Act—and I hope there will be—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I trust, will take advantage of the opportunity, and give complete immunity, so far as these men are concerned, and say to them, "Although I am providing free choice for you, I will do it in such a way that your employer will not be able to take advantage of the situation." If I may be

  1313
  allowed to make a suggestion to the Chancellor, it would be that the approved societies certainly cannot go on with the 3s. 8d. allowance. It is perfectly certain that the administration allowance is not sufficient, and I believe that it could be very largely improved by having half-yearly cards instead of quarterly cards. I believe the half-yearly card would save a tremendous amount of expense. There would be no leakage as far as administering the Act was concerned; it would reduce by half the work now done by the approved society, and I believe that it would go a long way to make the 3s. 8d. meet the case so far as the administration of the Act is concerned.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What about a lost card?
  Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty of the lost card is helped by the suggestion, for the reason that at the present time no man can be paid any sick benefit unless his card is produced. It is quite immaterial whether the card is stamped for six months or for three months, the same point is met. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought certainly to consider whether the sending of the cards themselves should not be franked, and take this expense off the approved societies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did definitely promise democratic control. He said deliberately that the one object of this Act was to give approved members absolute control. That is not working out in practice, because the workmen who are members of the Insurance Committee elected by their fellows to take special care of their interests, find that the meetings are held in the day time, and they are obliged to lose time from their work; yet the insurance committee not only refuse to pay them for that lost time, but they have actually now said that they will not allow them to be paid out of the administration expenses. It is a most absurd position, and the result is that we have in our own society a number of railway men who have lost time during the past nine months to the amount of over £2 each. They have said: "Very well, we have tried to serve our fellow workmen; we have tried to do our duty; we were elected to the position because we believed in democratic control, but we cannot afford, as working men, to go on meeting this liability." I say that if the object is to keep the control in the hands of approved members, if the object is to allow the workmen to take fair share of respon-
  1314
  sibility and management under this Act, it is for the Chancellor to say as soon as possible that he will meet this legitimate expenditure, and see that the working men are not out of pocket as the result.
  I should also like to emphasise the point that the trade unions are handicapped unfairly as against all other societies in this respect, that, unless the Government are prepared to enforce the Fair-Wages Clause and to apply it to those societies as it applies it to contracts, trade unions which are approved societies, are compelled and are anxious to pay fair wages, while other insurance societies can take on young girls, as they are doing, at half the wages paid by the trade union for the same work. That is not calculated to encourage trade unions to work the Act. I take the advantage of this opportunity to say that there are many administrative improvements which can be made in the Act, and everyone knew perfectly well that they would be required. I say that instead of dealing with this Act in a carping spirit let us realise, instead of driving to the light the few cases of someone dying as the result of the neglect of the doctor, what that means. That is an admission that many thousands died before this Act came into operation without any notice being taken of them, and that fact affords the clearest possible proof that at least this is bringing to light the awful poverty and misery of the people. The Act will enable us for the first time to get the data and statistics to prove the real position of the working classes, and I believe that will enable all sections of the House to deal with the Insurance Act in a way that will be of lasting benefit to the working classes.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If every hon. Member who has spoken to-night had dealt with the Insurance Act and the possibilities of improvement in the same fashion as my hon. Friend who has just sat down, then I as one who is in part under my right hon. Friend responsible for the administration of the Act, would have congratulated the House of Commons to-night on two and a-half hours well spent work. My hon. Friend has given us suggestions all of which we will consider and some of which I greatly hope we may be able to embody in legislation, and especially the suggestion of the half-yearly card or any other suggestion reducing administrative expenditure, and the suggestion of in some way or other making it more easy and more practicable either by alteration of

  1315
  the time of meeting of insurance committees, or by some other arrangement to enable what we desired all through, the working men representatives of the approved societies to attend the insurance committees. But, I must confess, that the bulk of the Debate to-night has been to me a profound disappointment. I thought the time had gone by when we were going to have stuff of that sort. I ventured to appeal in the presence of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) at an insurance banquet a few weeks ago, whether it was not possible now to take the administration of the Insurance Act out of party controversy, and to judge it as we judge say, the Home Office, or one of the other offices, when the Estimates conic forward. Instead of that when we have had such curious statements as those given by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) and such distressing humour as that of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. A. Ward), I think I am all the more entitled to ask that this should be treated purely with criticism directed towards benefit, because nine out of ten of the statements made to-night, or the suggestions made to-night, were suggestions, not against my right hon. Friend, not against the Insurance Act, nor even against the action of the Commissioners, who are supposed to be a set of bureaucrats, but they were suggestions and attacks upon the insurance committees, using the discretion which the House gave them, and which committees are representative at least in three-fifths of their members, which is a majority of their members, of the insured persons themselves. The grotesque suggestion is made that the insurance committees, who are appointed from the insured persons and the representatives of the insured persons in this House, are comparatively indifferent to the welfare of the people they represent, and that therefore the only one who can voice the grievances under which insured persons are suffering are hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  10.0 P.M.
  Let me make one other general remark. I am astonished that anyone who has followed, as I know the hon. Member for Salisbury has followed, so closely the course of the history of this controversy through the autumn and the spring, should be found to be repeating to-night statements which I could quite understand made by those who have no knowledge of
  1316
  the controversy, such statements as that about the denial of a free choice of doctor to the insured persons. The hon. Member for Salisbury knows as well as we do what happened in the matter. He knows a definite attempt was made to destroy attendance on all insured persons practically except those certain doctors chose to attend. He knows that the only result of that would have been a great majority of the poorest insured persons, and those who most need attendance, would not have received attendance at all, and because we refused, and with the approbation of the House, to allow the breaking down of the very system the House had devised and said no, the only system that can be adopted is that by which every insured person will have the right to have the doctor attend upon him, the hon. Gentleman gets up and says that we are breaking through the letter and the spirit of the Act. Another point he mentioned was that over the great bulk of the country only very few doctors, and those the most obscure and least distinguished, were having anything to do with the Act, and that over the great bulk of the country there was no free choice of doctor—I think he practically said so—because the insured persons, instead of being able to obtain the doctors they wanted, were being shepherded in five or seven thousand into the pens of the inferior practitioners. Has he any knowledge of the actual facts as to the doctors that are going on the panel, and that are working on the panel? They are so willing to continue work on the panel that they re-signed all their contracts this April which they originally made in January, and they have increased their numbers very considerably since January, and are increasing them every day, and that practically now the only place in which any man is deprived of the free choice of doctor, except in those cases of discretion of the insurance committee in individual instances, are three or four obscure villages, or, rather—I must be careful in my language, since one of those towns is represented by an hon. Member on my own side—one town and three or four obscure villages, numbering a total of 27,000 insured persons, out of 14,000,000 insured persons, who are receiving medical attendance.
  The number of doctors on the panel on 15th January was 17,790, and on 14th April 18,584, which I have no hesitation in saying represents something between 80 and 90

  1317
  per cent. of the doctors who are engaged in industrial practice. Even among the total number of doctors, large numbers of whom have no industrial practice at all, fifty-seven insurance committees out of ninety-eight, out of all the practitioners in those districts, huge towns, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Somerset, Salisbury, over 80 per cent. of the practitioners are on the panel—practitioners who are attending, not only rich people, but poor people as well. In a large number of the big towns and counties of England more than 100 per cent. of the doctors are on the panel. I must explain that. That means that not only is every doctor in the town or district on the panel, but that the doctors in the immediate neighbourhood, desiring to obtain practice in those towns, and being so eager to get that practice, are also on the panel. In Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Blackburn, Bolton—these are simply some names I have chosen; there are many others—Bootle, Devonport, Dudley, well over 100 per cent. of all the registered practitioners are serving under the ordinary system devised by the Act. Every individual in all those great towns has the freest choice; he can choose any single doctor of all the doctors under the Medical Council. Considering that only three months ago the friendly societies and the Government together, had to fight an organised movement of the medical profession, who desired that the Act should be destroyed, and that not one single doctor should go on the panels, I think the House and all parties might well congratulate the Administration on the present state of affairs. The next point, which was very ably dealt with by the chairman of the London Insurance Committee, is that of overwork. As my hon. Friend said, the keeping down of the number of patients on the list of any one doctor is not always compatible with the free choice of doctor. As I said to the hon. Member for Dulwich—I notice that he has not taken up the challenge tonight—I know of no case in which a large number of persons have chosen one particular doctor because they had no choice of other doctors. The reason why these large numbers have been taken are the reasons given by the hon. Member for Walworth. Somewhat unfairly, as I think, names have been mentioned. I think it is most unfair that we should be discussing individual doctors.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I say that the names that I mentioned I was authorised to mention.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: By the doctors themselves?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot say that I actually saw the doctors, but the gentleman who gave me the names said that I was authorised to use them.
  Mr. THOMAS: Is that the case with regard to Dr. Salter?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was referring to the names that I use connection with the free choice.
  Mr. THOMAS: Dr. Salter was one of them.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As names have been mentioned, although the gentleman is a political opponent of our party, I think it is only fair to state the case in regard to Dr. Salter. Bermondsey has never had doctoring at all. It has never been able to afford it. Dr. Salter is perhaps the most popular doctor in any poor district in London. He and his partners have been turning away patients every day for years. I think I am right in saying that before the Act came into operation—that is, before 15th January—more than 5,000 persons in Bermondsey had applied to Dr. Salter and his partners to be placed on their list. There were other doctors around to whom they could have applied, but they desired a free choice of doctor and they got it. Dr. Salter immediately informed the London Insurance Committee that he could not take any more patients. Even now he and his firm, if they could take them, could probably have another 5,000 or 10,000 patients who are willing to take the choice of their services, although knowing the number of patients they already have. Hon. Members must realise this fact when they use these gigantic numbers of persons to frighten people outside. There is no definite number that the Insurance Commission or the Committee or any body in any country in the world, has been able to fix as the number of insured persons to which doctors ought normally to be limited. We found sonic very remarkable figures before the Act came into force when we investigated the question in such places as, for instance, Swindon. In Swindon we found an elaborate system dealing with the railway workers and their wives

  1319
  and children. There was no complaint. It was an efficient service, contributed to by the people as well as, I think, by the railway company, but of that I am not sure. In that town the average number of persons for each doctor was over 5,000. The system was working successfully, and as far as I know there were no complaints of overwork.
  The statistics that we have been able to work out with the friendly societies as to the number of persons converted into the number of patients show that for every thousand persons on a doctor's list, under normal conditions, the doctor would have to deal with eight cases in the surgery and four cases in visiting. That is a day's work. You can work that out in terms of medical work, or in terms of the conditions when the doctor is giving the whole of his time to insured persons, as some doctors are, or when he is taking other practice as well. I do not want to see too large a number of insured persons per doctor. I think it would be better if they were distributed. I cannot lay down a definite number, but I think that if a man was allotted to a doctor who had 5,000 persons on his list that ought to entitle him, if he wishes it, to be transferred to another doctor. But when the patients make no complaint, and are apparently willing to receive the services which these doctors can give, I certainly should not say that a doctor would not be able adequately to deal with 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 persons. These special cases largely occur owing to a fact which I shall ask to be allowed to point out before I sit clown. The Committee will be interested to hear that in twenty-five insurance committee areas the practitioners have, on the average, 500 or less insured persons; in fifty areas, they have between 500 and 700; in twenty-eight areas, between 700 and 1,000; in twelve areas, between 1,000 and 1,200; and in only five areas have they 1,200 and over. That shows the very large extent to which that which we desire beyond all things—a general distribution of patients among doctors under the conditions of private practice—has been carried out automatically by the Act and the Regulations. Why in certain cases is there such a temporary heaping up of patients? It is more or less necessary for reasons known to anyone like my hon. Friend the Member for Walworth or myself, who has lived for any long time in the particular labouring districts in which are congregated masses of the poor. It is because these poor have
  1320
  never received proper doctoring. They have never been able to pay for it. Good doctors who have gone down to these districts have never been able to make a decent living unless they took many more patients than they ought to have taken. The alternative was either for the medical man to have no decent living or the persons not to receive adequate treatment. Just compare two figures—not those given under the Insurance Act—but figures which existed when the Insurance Act came into force. In Shoreditch there were seven qualified medical men, one for every 5,500 persons, or one now for 1,850 insured persons. In Hampstead there was one doctor for every 400 persons. In Bermondsey there was one doctor for every 2,500 persons; in Paddington, one for every 612 persons. For the first time in history the poorer districts are given an equal chance with the richer. For the first time in history the unskilled labourer and the factory girl are able to pay for the doctor. The result will be, and ought to be—there is coming—a very great increase in the number of doctors in these poorer districts. It is a change that all the House should welcome! The best and youngest of our medical men as the best and youngest of our clergy, ought to be found in the East End and the South of London, and now for the first time that you give them a chance of making a living they will go there; and I have no doubt a good many of them will go, and their going will make far more for the good of these districts than the mere fact of the medical attendance of the insured persons. But such tremendous changes in social welfare cannot be accomplished in three months' administration, during part of which we have had to fight the organised medical profession of this country. I am glad to say that is over. But I do not think that we ought to have the criticism such as the Insurance Commissioners have received to-night. The next point raised—and I am very glad to have the opportunity of answering it—though I am surprised and amazed at the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury—is as to the administration of Clause 72. The hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised, if they wished it, that insured persons should have the accumulated reserve which was set free by the Act used for the reduction of their insurance subscriptions, and he said that is not being done. He seemed to suggest that the reserves which had been realised

  1321
  had been grabbed either by my right hon. Friend or by the Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I never said that.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: What actually has happened? The hon. Gentleman seemed to be not in the least degree clear that that money was now in the hands of the friendly societies, and is being used by the friendly societies to-day as they want the money to be used. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there was a check or hamper coming from a central authority to prevent them using the money as they wanted. What are the actual facts? Clause 72 gives the friendly societies a choice in the matter. It says: "You may use your reserves to reduce your contribution, or if you like you may use your reserves to keep up the same benefits which you have already given, just as if the Insurance Act had not passed, and also to get the benefits which the Insurance Act gives." While during the autumn hon. Members opposite poured their vials of wrath upon us for the passing of the Insurance Act, the whole of the insured persons themselves connected with the societies, not only got the insurance of the Insurance Act, but got more insurance still. The vast majority—and this is a remarkable fact—of the friendly societies and their branches, instead of choosing—and the choice was with them—to release the reserves in order to reduce their contribution, or the Government contribution, or both together, said: "No, we will go on paying our own contribution, and getting the same benefits that we have got, and add to it the equal contribution of the Government, and so get full benefits for our contributions." The hon. Member calls that over-insurance. The insured persons do not call it over-insurance; they call it business! And we should have been subject to the severest criticism if we were in any way to exercise any power we possessed in order to alter the very option of self-government we had given to the insurance societies to allow them to get more insurance if they wanted to, on the ground that they had to make one of the two choices freely open to them under the Act, and instead of keeping up their contributions reducing them in order to get less insurance than before. It is amazing the way the class of agricultural labourers whom we were told could not pay 4d.
  1322
  a week as well as their benefits, in meetings together decided that they would pay the old fourpence per week and the new fourpence to enable them to get the whole benefit, and to add disablement, maternity, and sick pay to that already received; and I am glad, because I think it is well that they should keep up the old elements of their old societies, and that they should join the new societies not merely as compulsory Governmental insured persons, but as voluntary members of the great self-governing friendly societies and trade unions. And that is what the hon. Member reproaches us for. I think I have now dealt with most of the points raised in the Debate, and I have only got to say this.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Walworth pointed out how the London insurance committees have interpreted in the widest possible fashion, as I think, the exceptional Clauses of contracting-out which were placed in the Act, and have made arrangements which prevent some doctors from going on to the ordinary panels and joining the great mass of their fellow practitioners by allowing them to come on if they like for a limited number of patients only. I believe every leader of the medical profession will agree with me when I state that the worst possible thing that could happen as a result of this warfare, which I hope is happily over, and which I believe is going to end in free and permanent amicable relationships between the medical men and the insured committee—I state it without fear of contradiction—would be to cleave that profession into halves, one on the panel and the other not, with competition and ostracism in every town between the one and the other, with poison in the minds of the insured persons against a certain class of practitioners, with the unedifying process of recrimination which some months ago was carried on in the public Press, and which I hope, and which the medical profession hope, never will occur again. If we fought for one thing more than another, we fought for unity. We gave the medical profession in the Act what they asked us to give, and in doing so we incurred the enmity of a large section of the insured persons.
  We were always willing to meet the medical profession, and there is no bitterness over the fight in the minds of the Insurance Commissioners and the insurance committees in connection with the medical profession. We have given them every

  1323
  opportunity to make every possible modification in connection with the Insurance Act, so long as the interest of the approved societies as a whole were preserved. The only reason why the choice of patients by any particular doctor has been refused is because the first obligation laid upon the insurance committees was to provide medical attendance for every insured person in their area, and it would be grotesquely unfair, and the system would break down, if a certain doctor in a small provincial town should be allowed to select a particuar class of lives, not caring in the least degree what medical attendance there was for those he did not select. We might then have given a free choice to thirty or forty persons, and we would be left with 200 or 300 with no ability to provide medical attendance for them at all. On the contrary, I would boldly proclaim to-night that the action of my right hon. Friend in the first place, and afterwards the administration of the Insurance Commissioners and the insurance committees has been more than vindicated by the result, and I thank the hon. Member who represent a big trade union for having said so. There is not the slightest reason why the few cases in which free choice of doctor has not been obtained—I doubt if it is a quarter per cent. of the whole population of insured persons—should not be remedied also. Over 99½ per cent. are now obtaining what they desire and what they never had before this Act came into force, because before the passing of the Act scarcely half of the 5,000,000 members of friendly societies had any free choice of doctor, and those 5,000,000 persons have now the free choice of at least twenty-nine out of the thirty doctors in the town, and I think that ought to satisfy them. I have heard practically no complaint against the Insurance Commissioners. The hon. Member opposite brought up a case of neglected treatment of an insured person. I wonder how many thousands of those cases could have been brought up before the Insurance Act was passed. How many thousands of those cases were there in the East End of London who have died without any medical attendance at all. I wonder how many thousands sent for attendance and could not obtain it because they had to pay the doctor before he would attend them. Of course there must be complaints, when half a million persons
  1324
  are receiving attendance every week from 17,000 doctors. The Act has provided an apparatus for dealing with those complaints, and it is the fullest that can possibly be devised. I do not think those complaints should be read out here as examples of what is going on all over the country when we know that is not the case. We know, from the knowledge obtained in our own constituencies, that medical benefit is being honestly and well administered by the panel doctors, and the complaints should not be brought to this House, but should be addressed to the insurance committees, who have all the machinery for remedying grievances and inquiring into complaints, and after investigation, if necessary, strike off the panel the doctor who does not adequately attend and carry out the contract he has entered into. We have had more doctoring and better doctoring. We have had every promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than adequately fulfilled. We have an Act which every week has shown greater efficiency in administration.
  Before I conclude I must pay a compliment to the Insurance Commissioners who have done the most remarkable administrative work which this country has seen for some time in launching a scheme which no other country launched in four times the period. The administration is getting more efficient every week, the insured persons are getting more conscious of the benefits of the Act, and the persons engaged in the administration of the great self-governing societies of this country are more and more finding that the Regulations are those which they can efficiently work under without losing any of their freedom. Every case brought before me by the hon. Member for Derby, and in a still better way in friendly consultation with the Insurance Commission, for loosening or adjusting certain portions of the Bill which can be met by loosening or adjusting, will be met this year by the amending Bill we propose to introduce. I ask once more why on earth, instead of continuing these dismal recriminations, should hon. Gentlemen opposite not take pride in a national achievement and give the talents they possess to making the Act work better, instead of continually attacking those whom they know are working the Act well?
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman—I am glad to see he is well enough to take part in the Debate to-night—concluded his interesting speech by

  1325
  suggesting that we should give up making these party attacks in connection with the Insurance Act, and devote ourselves to the improvement of the administration of that measure. That is exactly what we are doing to-night. My hon. friend who moved this Motion said that his reason for doing so was not to make an attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or on the Government, but to secure that the benefits which the Act gives should be brought to the doors of the insured people through the administration for which the Government was responsible. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury paid a well-deserved tribute to the insurance committee and their staff. He said that this colossal underaking had been launched by these gentlemen within an extraordinarily short space of time. I think that if they had been left a freer hand they would have earned what he has said of them even more fully than they have done. I regret the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I am bound to say that the speeches of both the Mover and Seconder of this Motion were quiet and restrained, and gave no excuse to the right hon. Gentleman for the heat he displayed. It appeared to me that both my hon. Friends stated their case with reserve and great clearness and lucidity. The right hon. gentleman tells us that the number of doctors on the panels is increasing with comparative rapidity, and that before long we may expect to find that nearly the whole of the medical professions will make a practice of industrial work and will serve on the panels. I am delighted to hear it. Everybody who takes the smallest interest in the administration of the Act, and everybody who has had anything to do with the shaping of any part of it must be glad that there is a prospect of the long and bitter strife between the Government and the doctors being brought to an end. We all rejoice that the number of doctors on the panels is increasing, and I hope that on that account alone it may be possible for the insurance committees, already authorised by the Insurance Commission, although forbidden by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to allow people to make their own arrangements with greater freedom than they do at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looks at me with wonder, as much as to say, "What on earth are you talking about?
  1326
  Where in the world did I forbid the insurance committee to allow people to make their own arrangements?" Has he forgotten the speech which he made to the Advisory Committee? Has he forgotten the promise which he gave to the chairman of the insurance committee? Does he not remember that he said, "Although the Act gives you the power, and although the Insurance Commissioners have given you the authority to allow these people to make their own arrangements, the Government will not allow it?" Those were the words reported in the "Times," "The Government will not allow it." The matter is impressed in my memory, because I wrote a letter to the "Times" the following day hoping that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take notice of it. He seems to have forgotten his speech.
  Mr. GLYN JONES: I was present at the meeting of the committee. May I say—
  Mr. FORSTER: I am quoting from the published report of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Advisory Committee. I was glad to hear the Secretary to the Treasury say it was desirable there should be some limit to the number of patients on a doctor's list. Considerable indignation has been evinced by the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Dawes), and shared by the Secretary to the Treasury, that it should be alleged that certain doctors on the London panel had an undue number of patients on their lists. The Member for Walworth gave what I agree was a very convincing answer when he pointed out that one of the doctors in question (Dr. Salter) has several partners. Surely it would have been very much better for the hon. Member for Walworth, when the question was raised before the London Insurance Committee, and the figures were asked for by a member of that committee, and were published in the proceedings—it would have been better and it would have saved a good deal of misunderstanding if he had said at the time—or if the clerk, who must have known the facts, had said at the time that Dr. Salter had a number of partners and that the insured persons wished to have the services of that doctor and his partners.
  Dr. ADDISON: The names of the partners were printed on the list—as partners.
  Mr. FORSTER: Then why did not the chairman of the London Insurance Committee point that fact out at the time?

  1327
  All this trouble might have been avoided if he had done so, and I cannot see how my hon. Friends exposed themselves in any way to the strictures passed upon them for drawing attention to a matter of this kind—a matter to which the Secretary to the Treasury himself says attention ought to be directed. Of course it may not be possible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to the number of patients to be attended by any one doctor, but it is very undesirable from every point of view that doctors should undertake to attend too many. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said he regarded it as a wonder that the Act was working so well, considering that at least two-thirds of the whole population were compelled to subscribe. But the fact that people are compelled to subscribe is really all the greater reason that we should do everything in our power to see that they are given the benefits provided to the fullest possible extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may not see it, but really the object of this Motion is to secure that the full benefits which he promised in his speeches are given. That is what we want. We are not taking this action for a joke, and we really hope that the discussion of this matter will induce both the Commissioners and the Government to take it to heart. I do not think I need say anything further with reference to the observations which have been made on the speeches of my hon. Friends. I come to give my own view of the meaning of this Motion, and the reason why it is moved, and to touch upon some of the defects in the administration of the Act under the ægis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will remember that he made many speeches while the Bill was going through the House of Commons, speeches on the platform, speeches to the various bodies who were affected, such as the medical profession, friendly societies, and others, speeches to deputations and speeches in the House of Commons. In all those speeches he was necessarily dealing with the benefits the Bill was going to give. He described the virtues of the Bill, and, no doubt, described them in a very favourable light. I remember that he used to be very angry with anybody who disagreed with the description he gave of the benefits of the Bill. Those speeches form the criterion by which we ought to measure the Act. They declared very fully and frankly what were
  1328
  the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bill was going through. We heard over and over again in this House some doubt as to the meaning cleared up by reference to statements that had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone knows that those speeches were widely read throughout the country, and that people formed their opinion of what the Bill was going to do from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that we ought to judge the benefits in relation to the promises or descriptions the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave before the Act came into force.
  My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion called attention to the case of the Scottish Clerks' Society, which was organised by the clerks in Scotland, and which has many members in England as well. I am sorry the Secretary to the Treasury did not touch upon that question in his answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here when my hon. Friend referred to this body and will forgive me if I refer to it briefly and remind him of the correspondence he had with the Scottish Clerks' Society, which arose upon the question of people being empowered to make their own arrangements with the doctors. They have a system by which the members pay a certain subscription and get payment of their doctor's bills. They allow 4s. a visit which is a higher benefit than anything given by the Act. When the Bill was going through, they tried to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and could not. They correspondend with him and they held from what he wrote that the method of providing benefits adopted by the association was fully conserved and they held and still believe that the Chancellor was also of that opinion, and on receiving his assurance to that effect, the association decided to apply for approval under the Act and the rules of the association were approved. Then they go on:—
  "The conditions laid down the restrictions imposed, and the methods adopted by the insurance committees in different parts of the country have made Sub-section (3) practically inoperative. There is no doubt that this association's successful medical scheme has been sacrificed, not because of the terms of the Act, but of subsequent arrangements and of the unintelligible jealousy with respect to the panel system."
  I have read that because it shows that the opinion which we hold very strongly, that the insurance committees have been to a certain extent coerced in this matter, is held by other people who have no party bias, and, for all I know, every one of them may belong to the party of the Chancellor

  1329
  of the Exchequer and not to ours. They look upon this purely as a business proposition, and that is the opinion they have formed. Then they sum up their position in very few words:—
  "Before the Act was passed our members enjoyed the benefit of which the operations of the Act have now deprived them, despite the reply of the Chancellor that those compelled to insure, who desired to make their own arrangements for paying their doctor would be allowed to do so and an allowance made for the same. On the strength of this assurance by the Chancellor 17,00 to 18,000 new members had joined the association in order to obtain this benefit for which they are willing to pay extra as it is better suited to their needs than a capitation service. But they are now being driven back on the system which was abandoned years ago as unsuitable to the requirements of the members and to the nature of their employment."
  That sums up the situation from their point of view, and it is a situation with which I think the Government ought to deal. I want to refer to one other concrete case, because I think the House will very well remember the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took up with reference to medical institutes. He will remember that the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) moved an Amendment for preserving medical institutes which were already in existence. That met with the hearty support of the whole House, and everyone looked forward to these medical institutes continuing to do very useful work. The case of the Cambridge Medical Institute has been brought to my notice—an institute which has been in existence for something like twenty years, and has a membership of something like 5,000 friendly society members, and the insurance committee will not approve them because they do not approve of this system of management. The sub-committee appointed by the insurance committee recommend approval, and the Insurance Commissioners think it ought to be approved, but say that they are powerless to override the views of the insurance committee. The Cambridge Medical Institute has written several times to the insurance committee to ask them in what particulars the Regulations of the Commissioners in respect to management are insufficient, and they say they are ready to do anything they can to fall in with the views of the insurance committee so as to obtain approval. I do not think it is at all satisfactory that the provisions of the Act should be set at naught by the refusal of the insurance committee to give approval to eases of that kind. I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer as to details of that kind, but I take the opportunity to bring
  1330
  them forward, because it is better to deal with them viva voce than to take the endless course of carrying on correspondence with the Insurance Commissioners. I think if one can get public opinion brought to bear on the subject, greater attention may be given to it by recalcitrant people.
  There is another question of real importance to which I wish to refer. People complain to me rather strongly of the difficulty of getting the medicine which the doctor prescribes. They take the prescription to the chemist, and in some cases the bottle has not arrived for days afterwards. That is a great scandal. What is the use of the doctor prescribing unless the medicine can be got? I hope the Commissioners will give their attention to this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also promised that we might look forward to the prescription of the most expensive drugs. He said that the poor man had never had a chance of getting decent medicine if it was costly, but that now he would be able to get the most expensive drugs as well as the rich. It would absolutely ruin chemists if these most expensive drugs were supplied. I am told, but I believe it is only gossip——[Laughter]—I say at once I believe it is only gossip—I am told that there are two classes of drugs used in making up prescriptions — one of insurance quality and the other of better quality. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not true."] If hon. Gentlemen would look at the thing from a reasonable point of view, they would see that the quickest way to kill gossip was to have it out and cut its throat. I shall be very glad if I have done anything to kill what I believe to be a scandalous attack upon the honesty of those engaged in the business of chemists. I have had to go about the country a great deal of late, and I have found, wherever I have been, that after the meetings I have addressed people have come to me, not from the party point of view, but because they knew that I had something to do with the Act, asking how they can get improvements in regard to medical service. I find wherever I go that there is general dissatisfaction with the quality of the medical service which is given now.
  The complaints made to me state that it is worse than that which was given by the old club doctors, and which the right hon. Gentleman painted in dark colours when introducing the Bill. I hope, therefore, that something will be done to improve the quality of the medical service.

  1331
  I have not done more than touch the fringe of some of the questions that I would like to refer to. We are in a certain difficulty in dealing with this thing. The Government are so secretive about the administration that in spite of the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has to give to questions addressed to him from all quarters of the House we are continually left in the dark as to what is being done. They try to create a public opinion which is favourable by declaring that everything is working smoothly, and it is only from insured persons themselves that you hear a different story. It is no use saying, "Can you give the names?" We can give dozens, hundreds of names. It is not merely a question of names and addresses. It is the general sense of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The sense of dissatisfaction is widespread. We have not brought this Motion forward merely for the fun of the thing, but in the hope that good will result to the insured people and that benefits will be improved. This Motion reflects the thoughts and opinions of insured people, who formed their opinions of what was going to happen from the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is a master of platform oratory, but I think that when
  he goes on the platform he ought not to forget that he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So long as he is Chancellor of the Exchequer he must not blame simple-minded people such as myself if they take what he says as true, and believe that they are entitled to attach the fullest credence to the description he gives of any Bill of which he may be in charge——
  Colonel CHALONERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. FORSTER: People have formed the habit of believing what Chancellors of the Exchequer say, and when they are promised definite benefits by the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were entitled to believe that they were going to get them. The Act empowers these benefits to be given to the fullest possible extent, and it is only because we believe that the administration is at fault that my hon. Friends have moved this Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 270.

  Division No. 79.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Barrie, H. T.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bird, Alfred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Boyton, James

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Butcher, John George

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Worthington-Evans. L.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nield, Herbert

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Chaloner and Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Gilhooly, James

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Allan, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Arnold, Sydney

  Barton, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Alden, Percy

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hazleton, Richard

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Blyes, Sir William Pollard

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  John Edward Thomas

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Johnson, W.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, G. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Reddy, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Keating, Matthew

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Crooks, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cullinan, John

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Leach, Charles

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Delany, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  McGhee, Richard

  Sheehy, David

  Dillon, John

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Manfield, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thomas, James Henry

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Martin, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Falconer, James

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wadsworth, J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Field, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Furness, Stephen

  Morrell, Philip

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morison, Hector

  Webb, H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wedgwood, J. C.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Munro, R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Goldstone, Frank

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  0'Doherty, Philip

  Wing, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rosseudale)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Grady, James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

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

  O'Malley, William

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  SIGHT TESTS (MERCHANT SERVICE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland].
  Mr. PETO: The question to which I want to call the attention of the House, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, is one of considerable urgency to the whole of the masters and officers of the merchant service. The question is the nature of the sight tests for form and colour vision which came into operation on the 1st of this month. The tests have only been in force for a few weeks, but we have already had sufficient experience of the grave change that the alteration makes to find that this is a matter that vitally affects the employment of at least 50,000 officers and masters in the merchant service. I will say very little in regard to the scientific aspects of the case, because it is clearly a matter of controversy, and one which has already been dealt with very fully from the point of view of the Board of Trade by question and answer across the floor of the House. I would only say that at any rate the composition of the Committee appointed to go into the question was open to suspicion—not suspicion in the sense that it was improperly appointed, but on the lines that only the scientific elements were represented, and that no representation was given to the men whose careers are at stake, the masters and officers of the merchant service.
  The Imperial Merchant Service Guild were perfectly well advised in saying that as the officers were to have no representation on that committee they would not give evidence before it. If fair evidence was to be extracted under cross-examination, it is perfectly obvious that some representation of the men who were not scientists at all, and who have got to conduct our great merchant service should have been on the Committee to bring out the practical points for these might be different from the point of view of the scientists engaged in the investigation. Further than that, the "British Medical Journal" condemned the findings of this Committee in August last year. The British Association for the Advancement of Science lately appointed a committee to go into the whole question of colour vision and colour blindness. The
  1336
  committee consists of: Chairman, Professor E. H. Starling; secretary Dr. Edridge-Green; and Professor F. Gotch, Mr. Leonard Hill, Professor A. W. Porter, and Dr. A. D. Waller. In addition to this, the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow, at their meeting at the beginning of the month, most strongly condemned the findings of the Committee and the tests now imposed, while Dr. Fergus, one of the greatest authorities on this question, expressed his opinion very clearly and adversely to the Board of Trade's present test. Then I want to call attention to the fact that it was made very clear in the article to which I referred in the "British Medical Journal" that it is a very curious thing that the findings of this Committee was that the two tests that have been described as the wool test and the lantern test, should continue in force. The "British Medical Journal" says that if the lantern is to be used in the way suggested perhaps it is as well that the wool test should also be retained. The Committee reported that:—
  "When these tests have been in use for a certain number of years the results of the two method: should be compared and the question of dispensing with one or the other should be considered."
  Surely the Board of Trade should consider upon what principle these experiments are to be carried out. But while these scientists are considering which test should be finally adopted the certicates of officers and masters of the merchant service have been taken away, because the new tests are infinitely more severe than the old ones. I leave the question of the scientific aspect of the case with these words: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to state why these new tests are required. Before the Committee the late Secretary to the Marine Department or the Board of Trade, Sir Walter Howell, said:—
  "The Board of Trade are not aware of any casualties which could be traced to defective vision."
  The Committee in their Report say:—
  "There appears to be no evidence showing conclusively that defective vision has caused any appreciable number of accidents at sea."
  I am well aware that the public generally would be in favour of any proposal to make the navigation of our merchant service safer, but surely there are other matters which might have engaged the attention of the Board of Trade before that one thing of the complete revision of these sight tests, when the Secretary of the

  1337
  Marine Department stated in his evidence that no casualties had been caused by the tests in force. They might have devoted their attention to deck loads for Continental ports, to the raising of the deep load line, to the under officering of the merchant service, to foreign officers without certificates in ships flying the British flag—and many other matters of that kind. But it appears they prefer to strain at the gnat while swallowing these various camels. What has been the effect of the actual putting into effect of these new sight tests? I asked a question yesterday, and in consequence of the answer I am raising this question on the Adjournment now. I hardly think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who answered, could have heard the question I asked:—
  "Does that mean that nine officers of the merchant service, previously holding certificates, have been failed entirely owing to the new tests, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lights are not shown as three miles instead of one mile, although one mile is the minimum test of the Board of Trade?"
  And the answer was—
  "Lights do represent a distance of one mile. That is how they are planned, and that is how they are worked. The number failed was not nine, but seven, and they were not officers previously holding certificates."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th April, 1913, cols. 996–7.]
  I had a record of four of these cases, and in every one of them the officer was holding previous certificates, and in two or three of these cases has been called upon by the Board of Trade to surrender the certificate under Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Act. I should like to read the exact terms of the letter to which I refer in this connection. It is as follows:—
  "Under Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Act, of 1894, if the Board have reason to believe that a certificated officer is unfit to discharge his duties, they may order an inquiry into his competency to hold his certificate. Before taking any action under the provisions of this Section, the Board would he glad to know whether you are prepared, as an alternative, voluntarily to surrender the certificate of competency as first mate of the steamship, which you hold."
  1338
  That was addressed to one of the officers who had failed.
  Mr. BOOTH: What was the reply?
  Mr. PETO: The officer very properly consulted his guild as to what action he should take, and he has made no reply to that letter from the Board of Trade, dated the 26th instant. Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Act provides for an inquiry into the conduct of a certificated officer. The words of the Section are:—
  "If the Board of Trade, either on the part of the Local Marine Board or otherwise, have reason to believe that any master, mate, or certificated engineer is, from incompetency or misconduct, unfit to discharge his duty, or that in case of collision he has failed to render such assistance or give such information as required under the 5th part of this Act, the Board may cause an inquiry to be held."
  There is no doubt that the Board of Trade, in dealing with these cases, has stretched almost to the breaking point the powers they possess under that Act, and I think the officers concerned will be well advised to take the best legal opinion possible as to whether the Board of Trade have any right to address to them a letter of the kind which I have read out. It seems to me to be practically a threat to hold this Court of Inquiry into their unfitness to continue in their avocation, and they ask, in the alternative, whether they will voluntarily surrender their certificates.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present,
  It being Half after Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Legal Fees to Members of House of Commons.
  Legal Fees to Members of House of Commons.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Customs and Excise.
  Customs and Excise.
  Sugar, Tea, and Other Duties.
  Sugar, Tea, and Other Duties.
  Super-Tax.
  Super-Tax.
  Income Tax (Prussia).
  Income Tax (Prussia).
  Valuation Department.
  Valuation Department.
  Women Suffrage (Ireland).
  Women Suffrage (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Irish Potatoes Exported.
  Irish Potatoes Exported.
  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Salmon Fisheries (Ireland).
  Salmon Fisheries (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Bee Disease.
  Bee Disease.
ROYAL NAVY.
  H.M.S "VERNON," PORTSMOUTH.
  H.M.S "VERNON," PORTSMOUTH.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
  WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
  PENSIONER CLERK (YORK).
  PENSIONER CLERK (YORK).
  TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS (CAMP).
  TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS (CAMP).
  CIVILIAN SUBORDINATES (PORTSMOUTH).
  CIVILIAN SUBORDINATES (PORTSMOUTH).
  GUN WHARF, PORTSMOUTH (CRANE DRIVERS).
  GUN WHARF, PORTSMOUTH (CRANE DRIVERS).
  AIRCRAFT.
  AIRCRAFT.
  Shops Act (Exemption Clauses).
  Shops Act (Exemption Clauses).
  Sleeping Sickness (Southern Rhodesia).
  Sleeping Sickness (Southern Rhodesia).
  Lagos Harbour Works.
  Lagos Harbour Works.
  Foreign Income Tax Systems.
  Foreign Income Tax Systems.
  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Leavesden Poor Law Schools.
  Leavesden Poor Law Schools.
  Rural Housing, Bedfordshire.
  Rural Housing, Bedfordshire.
  West Riding County Council.
  West Riding County Council.
  Small-pox.
  Small-pox.
  Women Householders.
  Women Householders.
  National Collecting Society, Glasgow.
  National Collecting Society, Glasgow.
  Lind v. Saleeby and "Pall Mall Gazette."
  Lind v. Saleeby and "Pall Mall Gazette."
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Mail Service, Shetland Isles.
  Mail Service, Shetland Isles.
  Telegraph Circuits (Ireland).
  Telegraph Circuits (Ireland).
  Agricultural Colleges (Scotland).
  Agricultural Colleges (Scotland).
Preamble
The LORD MONTEAGLE (M. sligo)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
MACCOLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of George Edwardes MacColl of Kirkliston Drive, Bloomfield, in the County City of Belfast, in Ireland, Engineer, with Mary MacColl his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on Petition), and a copy of the proceedings in and of the decree of the King's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland: Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a, and to be read 2a on Monday next: Usual Orders made.
LORD WIMBORNE'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read 1a.
HALKYN DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, without amendment.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the National Health Insurance Joint Committee acting jointly, as to payment of contributions in the case of certain contributors receiving a low rate of remuneration and as to payment of arrears by deposit contributors.
2. Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under Section 42 (f) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, as to the payment to be made on the death of a deposit contributor out of amount standing to his credit in the Post Office Fund, dated 18th April 1913;
3. Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, under the Act as to the contributions to be paid in respect. of outworkers:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 44.)

THE FUTURE OF ALBANIA.
*LORD LAMINGTON*LORD LAMINGTON had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask what steps His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with other Powers, are taking to secure the future autonomy of Albania.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they would advocate the appointment of an International Commission for the protection of those Mahomedans who wish to return to or to retain their lands previously situated in the Turkish Empire but now occupied by the Balkan Allies, and for the obtaining of compensation for those refugees who have left their lands but who have retained their title-deeds.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last February I had a Question down which bore upon the one now appearing on the Notice Paper, but at the request of the Government I did not put it, because the Government represented that it would not be in the public interest that I should do so. I should not have put this Question down for to-day had it not been for the fact that a memorial has been circulated, of which I have no doubt your Lordships have received a copy, inviting the Government to depart from the line of policy which they had arrived at in concert with the other Great Powers of Europe. I am one of those who share the general admiration of Sir Edward Grey in his management of this most difficult and complicated business which now agitates Europe, and I should be the last to desire to add any embarrassment to the Government at such a time. The memorial to which I have alluded, however, contains many misleading statements. I do not wish for a moment to enter into a discussion upon the memorial; but sub-clause (6), for instance, speaks of the "just aspirations of the existing Balkan States." I imagine it is the just aspirations of Albania which influenced the Great Powers in arriving at this determined policy. In the case of Albania you have really the oldest State in all the populations of the Balkans—a people of one language and of one history who, despite religious differences, are united as a nation; and if there is any criticism to be levelled at Sir Edward Grey and the Great Powers in the matter it is that they have restricted the boundaries Of Albania too greatly. The towns of Ipek, Prizrend, Djakova, and other places which are distinctly Albanian in character have been put under Servia. For the sake of peace in the Balkan States it is most essential to have a strong Albania, and to leave considerable portions of the Albanian population outside this new State may not lead to contentment. Further, a strong Albania is essential; otherwise there are
366
certainly two Powers in Europe who are directly interested in the affairs of Albania, and unless you have a country able to be self-supporting and which has districts other than mere wild mountain tracts it will be difficult to prevent intrigues being carried on. I think the Great Powers might wisely have extended the frontiers of the new Albanian State. However that may be, it is much better to have even a weak Albania than no Albania at all. Therefore I trust that nothing will be done to deter the Great Powers from carrying out their pronounced policy. There are great risks and most anxious complications, but I imagine that any departure from the avowed policy of the Great Powers would be attended with infinitely greater anxiety than insistence on carrying out the policy which they announced. In saying this one must recognise the great forbearance shown by the Russian Empire in all these difficult negotiations, and the same may be said of Austria. They- have been agreed upon this one policy. It is my anxiety to see this policy carried through, and thereby, as I believe, the peace of Europe maintained, now and in the future.
THE LORD PRESIDENT of THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I am afraid that I must with all courtesy decline to answer either of the Questions of the noble Lord. I do not think the House will need many words from me to convince them that this is no moment at all for this House—or, if I may say so, the other House either, in spite of the round-robins referred to—to discuss such points as he has raised, as, for example, whether it is better to have a weak Albania than no Albania at all. It is admitted that the knot we have to unravel and disentangle is one of the most perplexing that ever confronted diplomatists, and it is impossible, in answer to a Question upon one particular and specific point, to state the view of the Government on what must be a large arrangement. With that in view I cannot help hoping that the House will think the Government are perfectly wise in asking to be excused from saying what particular steps they are taking, in conjunction with the other Powers, to secure the future autonomy of Albania. The stage at which the discussion has arrived is, I may tell the noble Lord frankly, not a stage at which a point of this kind can be effectively discussed with one another—not to-day. There are other issues, well

367
known to noble Lords, which must engage the attention of the Powers. In that state of things he asks us, in isolation, to say what steps we are going to take to secure the object which the Powers have in view of constituting a satisfactory and prudently delimited Albania. I submit that it is entirely inexpedient for us to give an answer to a question of that kind; and I do not think anything would have been lost if the noble Lord had not raised the point.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, after the appeal of the noble Viscount opposite I shall refrain from discussing this question myself, although it happens to be one in which I take a personal interest. At the same time I fail to see why we or anybody else should be precluded from pointing out the absurdities contained in the memorial referred to by my noble friend. I will, however, resist upon this occasion the inclination which I feel to expose these absurdities, and will keep silent on the subject. But when the noble Viscount says the moment is inopportune to discuss this question, I should like to ask when we are going to have an opportunity of saying anything on the subject at all. As far as I am aware the House is about to adjourn and not meet again for six weeks. I have shown my good will in the matter by meeting the noble Viscount's wishes, but what I contend is that one does not get an opportunity in this House of expressing one's views at all at any time.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I merely rise to make one small correction in what fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down. He stated that in his belief there would be no opportunity of discussing any question of foreign affairs for a period of six weeks. I am afraid I cannot venture to hold out either to him or to noble Lords generally the prospect of so long an abstention from business as that which he seemed to consider likely.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount will take my assurance that' nothing is further from our thoughts on this side of the House than to utter a single word which may embarrass His Majesty's Government at 'the present time. We quite recognise the extreme difficulty under which His Majesty's
368
Government must speak at such a moment I upon foreign affairs, and the great delicacy of the situation with which they have to deal. I noticed just a note of complaint in the speech of the noble Viscount. I do not think that that complaint was deserved. My noble friend did not desire in any way to interfere with the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government; neither do any of us. All we desire to say is to be said in one sentence—that in a matter of this international importance and at such a moment any step which His Majesty's Government think it right to take will receive our cordial support and assistance. That is all we have to say.
LORD LAMINGTON: My next Question is to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would advocate the appointment of an International Commission for the protection of those Mahomedans who wish to return to or to retain their lands previously situated in the Turkish Empire but now occupied by the Balkan Allies, and for the obtaining of compensation for those refugees who have left their lands but who have retained their title-deeds. After the intimation of the noble Viscount that he will be unable to give me an answer, it is rather useless for me to enlarge on this question, but I cannot see why some consideration should not be given to this eminently fair proposal. We know what horrors have been perpetrated and possibly are still going on, and I should have thought that in these days of modern civilisation the most satisfactory way of putting an end to the present state of affairs would be by the appointment of an International Commission. I therefore ask the noble Viscount not to give a blank refusal, but to consider favourably the question of an International Commission, which I believe would give confidence to Mahomedans both in this country and throughout the world.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I have no intention whatever of expressing any opinion upon the actual proposals indicated in the Question. They may or may not embody a desirable policy, but for us now in isolation, without consultation—free and copious —with the other Powers, to adopt—
LORD LAMINGTON: I ask you to consult with them.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: That is not the point of the Question.
LORD LAMINGTON: It is the point.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Can the noble Lord dream that we should not be constantly thinking of a question of this kind and taking any opportunity which may offer to ascertain what policy, in connection with these Mahomedans, would be most likely to secure the effective consent and approval of other Powers who are even more interested than we are?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would be for the general convenience if the noble Marquess could intimate what is proposed in regard to the business of the House. I understand there is nothing on the Paper for to-morrow. I do not know whether the noble Marquess proposes that the House should meet to-morrow. Then there is a Notice on the Paper for Monday. Perhaps the noble Marquess would state what he proposes as to the course of business after Monday next.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, and the noble Marquess will remember that to-morrow is Ascension Day, on which it is not the custom of this House to sit. For Monday next there is a Notice in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, but I understand there is no further business down for next week. Supposing that to be the ease and that no other Notices are put down, I would propose, subject to any desire on the part of noble Lords to bring forward any business next week, to adjourn on Monday for the holidays. With the leave of the House I would propose an adjournment to the date which I understand has been fixed for another place—Tuesday, May 27.
LORD NEWTON: I suppose it is not the slightest use my protesting against any arrangement which comes from either of the Front Benches, but I confess it seems to me that most elaborate pains are taken in order to show the world that it is perfectly unnecessary for this House to sit at all. I do not want to speak so much on the general point, but there is a particular point to which I want to draw attention. I am personally aggrieved with regard to this proposal, for this reason. I have a Bill which last session passed through this House without any opposition, and I was extremely anxious to get it through before Whitsuntide so that it could be sent down to the House of Commons. In consequence
370
of entreaties received from a noble Lord who is interested in this particular Bill but who finds that he is urgently required at Newmarket this week, I put the Committee stage of the Bill off until Monday next. Now I understand that it is suggested that the House should adjourn on that day, and it would therefore be impossible to get the Bill through before the holidays unless the noble Marquess will make a corrupt bargain with me that if I get the Bill through Committee on Monday he will allow me to take the remaining stages on the same day. If so, of course I shall offer no objection; but it seems to me that under the plea of sanctimoniousness, or one thing or another, we are not to sit to-morrow because it is Ascension Day, although Committees sit and the House of Commons sit. This seems to me to be only an ingenious excuse for unmitigated sloth on the part of the Leaders of this House. I do not profess to be of an industrious disposition myself, but at the same time I confess that it strikes me that any complaint we may make in the future with regard to the way in which we are treated by the other House will come with very bad grace from us if we make it appear that we wish to avoid coining here on every opportunity.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If the noble Lord should be successful in getting his Bill through Committee on Monday and then wishes to suspend the Standing Order so as to get it through the remaining stages I personally should have no objection, supposing this to be the wish of the House generally. Failing that, I have no doubt the House would meet again in the course of next week to take the Bill through its remaining stages. As regards the general complaint made by the noble Lord, I think it is rather premature at this time of year to complain of the lack of business which has come to us from another place. If the noble Lord will cast his recollection back I think he will agree that at this time of the year it is not often that measures of importance reach this House from another place. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will postpone making a complaint of the lack of business which we have to do until some later period in the session if he should then find it necessary, but it may not be necessary.
House adjourned at Five minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.