Sitting of 12 August 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Electric Traction Bill,
Westminster Hospital Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 30th July, and agreed to.
City and South London Railway Bill [Lords] (Prince of Wales' Consent signified),
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Morley Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made:—
Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

HUMIDITY IN COTTON CLOTH WEAVING SHEDS.
Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I desire to present a Petition, on behalf of 63,415 organised cotton weavers of Lancashire, praying this Honourable House to pass into law a Bill to prohibit the use of steam or any other form of artificial humidity in cotton cloth weaving sheds. I ought to
2220
say that great care has been exercised to prevent duplication, and thousands more names could have been added by weavers working in what is known as "dry" sheds.
Mr. GILL: I am desired to present a Petition from 63,063 weavers employed in cotton mills in Sabden, Saddleworth, Wigan, Heywood, Blackburn, Rochdale, Bolton, Preston, Skipton, Hyde and Hadfield, Burnley, Oldham, and Glossop, praying that Parliament may pass a Bill abolishing the use of artificial humidity in any form in cotton cloth weaving mills.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5179 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Forty-fifth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland for 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
Copy presented of Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (REPORT ON VENEREAL DISEASES).
Copy presented of Report on Venereal Diseases by Dr. R. W. Johnstone, with an Introduction by the Medical Officer of the Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES AND QUARRIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report for the year 1912 by the Chief Inspector of Mines. Part., District Statistics [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE).
Copy presented of Alteration in Regulation 7 of Examinations for Admission to the Civil Service of India, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NEW ZEALAND (TRADE).
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of the Dominion of New Zealand for the year 1912, by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for the Dominion of New Zealand, Mr. W. G. Wickham [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
Copy presented of Memorandum summarising the Regulations in force in. British India, British self - governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, and Protectorates, and in Foreign countries with regard to British Commercial Travellers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1881 TO 1911.
Copy presented of Tables showing the Progress of Merchant Shipping in the United Kingdom and the Principal Maritime Countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRON AND STEEL, 1912.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
COAL TABLES, 1912.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be pinted. [No. 285.]
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, 1912.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th August; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
RAILWAYS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th December, 1911; Mr. Chiozza Money]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 287.]
PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Samuel Roberts]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. M'Kinnon Wood]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS VENTILATION.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 290.]

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON, No. 3) BILL [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [Lords]
Report from the Committee that they had reinstated the Kingstown Order in the Bill, pursuant to the Order of the House of 6th August, and had divided the Bill into two Bills:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords] (comprising the Portrush Order), and
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8, Kingstown) Bill [Lords] (comprising the Kingstown Order)
brought up and read;
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without further Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,
Public Buildings Expenses Bill,
Education (Scotland) Bill,
Education (Scotland) (Glasgow Electoral Divisions) Bill,
Bankruptcy (Scotland) Consolidation
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 22) Bill,
Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill,
Mental Deficiency Bill,
Bankruptcy Bill,
Pilotage Provisional Order Bill,
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill, with Amendments.
Local Government (Adjustments) Bill,
Post Office Bill,
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill, with an Amendment.
Amendment to—
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords],
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords],
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill, [Lords], without Amendment.
East Ham Corporation Bill,
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, namely: That it is desirable to suspend any further proceedings on the said Bill until the next Session, of Parliament.
Pilotage Provisional Order Bill,
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 320.]

MR. GEORGE LANSBURY (PETITION).
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire to present. a Petition from Mr. George Lansbury, who says he has been bound to the Peace; that for particular reasons affecting his personal honour he did not feel at liberty to enter into recognisances; that his liberty is now in the power of the police, who can rearrest him when they like without his having committed any offence. The prayer of the Petition is:—He is suffering from an urgent and continuing grievance for which he knows no

2225
remedy unless it be in your wisdom and authority, and humbly prays your honourable House to secure for him, irrespective of wider considerations of public policy, that immediate relief of which he is personally in need, either by interceding with the Crown or such other means as seems good to your honourable House. I would further urge that this Petition should be immediately discussed. If you turn to Erskine May (page 532) you will see the following passage:—
"In the case of a Petition complaining of pressing personal grievances, calling, as an urgent necessity, for an immediate remedy, the matter contained in such Petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof."
I submit to you, Sir, that this prayer of Mr. George Lansbury is of the nature of a pressing, personal grievance and that it does call as an urgent necessity for an immediate remedy, and I submit that this Petition is one which does come entirely within the purview of those Petitions indicated by Sir Erskine May, and therefore the question whether this Petition shall be granted or not may come before the House and may be debated, so that we may afford to this former Member of the House a remedy for which he so urgently and so humbly prays. I submit to you. Sir, that the position is peculiar; he is bound to the peace; he was not re-arrested as he had reason to expect yesterday, but any moment his liberty is at the disposal of the police, and in this case the position of urgent necessity is such that it does warrant immediate discussion.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member calls my attention to a passage in May, which seems to indicate that there is power of immediate discussion of Petitions in certain circumstances. There is also Standing Order 78. I will not pronounce any definite judgment, because I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity, in the course of an hour or so, of raising the points he wishes to raise, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. But I would like to point out that I doubt very much whether that old system of discussion on Petition can still be said to obtain. We passed, at a very early period of the Session, a Resolution ordering that all Petitions should be referred to the Select Committee upon Petitions, and, under that order I think that the Petition to which the hon. Member refers ought to go to that Committee, and there he considered by that Committee, and not considered by
2226
the House. Therefore, I think it is probable the House in passing that Resolution intended to override any right given by Standing Order 78 and mentioned in Erskine May that there might be of immediately discussing Petitions. It does not seem necessary to-day to give any such ruling. The hon. Member will get an early opportunity of discussing the matter, and, therefore, at present I only ask the hon. Member to bring the Petition to the Table-in the usual way.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I point out that this is not merely a dictum of Sir Erskine May. Perhaps I may be allowed to emphasise the quotation from Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice":
"In the case of a petition complaining of a present personal grievance, calling, as an urgent necessity for an immediate remedy, the matter contained in such petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof."
I do not wish to discuss your ruling, Mr. Speaker. All I wish to do is to call attention to the fact that it does not depend upon the common law, but it is a matter of express enactment by the Standing Orders.
Mr. SPEAKER: It would be extremely inconvenient that the opportunities afforded for hon. Members asking questions and for Ministers replying to those questions should be taken advantage of in this way. We have a Standing Order which sets up a time table dealing with private business and questions, and I think it can hardly be contemplated that all that has to go by the board for a discussion to take place of such a character as that referred to in Standing Order 78. I will not give a definite pronouncement upon this point to-day, because it so fortunately happens that the hon. Member will get an opportunity in an hour or two of raising the point to which he desires to call attention. Perhaps the hon. Member will now bring his Petition to the Table.
Petition handed in at the Table, and read by the CLERIC (Sir COURTENAT P. ILBERT), as followeth:—
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
The humble Petition of George Lansbury, of 103. St. Stephen's Road, Bow, Middlesex, Timber Merchant, Dated 7th day of August, 1913.
Showeth,—

1. That in respect of certain speeches made by your Petitioner in support of Women's Suffrage, your Petitioner was on the 3rd May, 1913, by the magistrate at

2227
Bow Street, ordered to enter into his own recognisances in the sum of £1,000, and further to find two sureties for his good behaviour each to be bound in the sum of £500, or in default of his finding such sureties, and being himself so hound, it was ordered that he should be imprisoned for a period of three months.

2. Your Petitioner appealed against the said Order as being erroneous in point of law on the ground that under the circumstances of the case your Petitioner not having committed any offence or being proved to be likely to commit any offence it wad not competent for The learned magistrate to make the said Order against him.

3. The said Appeal to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice was dismissed, the judges being of the opinion that although no actual authority to bind your Petitioner over could be found by Statute, that magistrates had assumed the power for so long that the Court was not disposed to deprive the magistrates of such power.

4. Your Petitioner for particular reasons affecting his own personal honour did not feel at liberty to enter into recognisances or to find sureties, and in consequence was arrested and committed to prison. Having adopted the hunger strike he has been released, but is in peril at any moment of rearrest, although not guilty of any crime or offence, or likely to commit any crime or offence.

5. Your Petitioner respectfully submits his rearrest is wholly in the power of the police who can abstain or not from such rearrest entirely as they may think fit, and that your Petitioner may thus be again committed to prison without having committed any offence.

Your Petitioner therefore humbly submits to your honourable House that lie is suffering from an urgent and continuing grievance for which he knows of no remedy unless it be in your wisdom and authority, and humbly prays your honourable House to secure for him irrespective of wider questions of public policy that immediate relief of which he is personally in need by interceding with the Crown or by such other means as may seem good to your honourable House.
And your Petitioner will ever pray, etc.
GEORGE LANSBURY."

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the alleged murdering by the Bulgarians of Turkish prisoners of war who were lately in their hands; and, if so, whether, in view of the danger of reprisals, he will urge the Bulgarian Government to put a stop to such atrocities?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The Turkish Government have made such a statement. The Bulgarian Government state that the prisoners were killed when attempting to escape. I have not received information from any other source, but these two statements.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  2228
  whether he can give any information as to the number of refugees in Bulgaria, either from Thrace or from Macedonia; and whether His Majesty's Consular staff will assist the work of the British relief funds for these refugees?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no precise information as to the numbers of these refugees. His Majesty's Consular officers on the spot will afford all the help they properly can in connection with the distribution of relief so far as is consistent with the due performance of their ordinary ditties.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent delay in the presentation of a Note from the Powers regarding the infraction of the Treaty of London by Turkey was caused by the fact that the British Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople had not received instructions; and whether His Majesty's Government is in favour of forcible and early action by the Concert, acting through one or more mandatories, and compel respect for its decision expressed in the recent identical Notes?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the delay was due to a slight misunderstanding as to the exact terms in which the communication was to be made. As regards the second part, I propose to make a general statement on Balkan affairs this afternoon, and I should prefer not to anticipate this by explanation on particular points like that which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in regard to the question of supporting the Russian and other Governments as to allotting the port of Kavala to Greece, he will take into account the fact that Kavala is the only possible seaport for Bulgaria proper, as distinguished from Thrace; and that a settlement which subjects the bulk of the Macedonian population to Governments alien to itself is likely to lead to renewed war and to danger to the peace of Europe?
  Sir E. GREY: The consideration advanced by my hon. Friend is one of several all of which have to be borne in mind, and I can only deal with the question of possible modifications of the Treaty of Bucharest in the general statement that I propose to make this afternoon.
  Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether proposals have recently been made voluntarily by Turkey to the Powers for administrative reform in Armenia; whether objection has been taken by any Power to these proposals; what is the present position of negotiations between the Powers with a view to general reform in Asiatic Turkey; and whether it is accepted, as a basis of such negotiations, that their object is not to establish different spheres of interest but to secure for Turkey the co-operation and support of all the Powers in preserving her Asiatic dominions by the establishment of good government?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first point is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third points, the position is that the representatives of the six Great Powers at Constantinople are engaged in discussing a scheme of reforms, but at this early stage of the question I cannot usefully make any statement with regard to the nature of the scheme except to say that the object of all the Powers is correctly described in the last words of the hon. Gentleman's question, and that they have not in view the establishment of different spheres of interest in the Turkish Empire.

  Argentine (Importation of Live Animals).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have recently been made by the Argentine Government regarding the desire of cattle breeders in that country to be allowed to import into this country live animals for immediate slaughter; if so, when such representations were received; and whether consideration has been given to the matter, and, if so, with what result?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The present restrictions upon the importation of live cattle into this country from the Argentine have been a subject of discussion for many months past between His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Aires and the Argentine Government. I have frequently explained to the House the reasons which make it impossible to withdraw the restrictions until adequate safeguards are provided to prevent the introduction of disease. I have arranged to receive a deputation on the subject this
  2230
  afternoon and am prepared to consider any suggestions which may be made.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Report of the Delhi Town-Planning Committee recommends a thoroughfare being driven through the existing city and to connect the new city with St. James's Church; that this road would pass through a flourishing part of the city; and that a number of fine residences would be demolished; and whether the Delhi Executive Committee will be instructed to reconsider this proposal with a view to a minimum amount of disturbance of old-established residents being undertaken?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India have stated that the proposals of the Town-Planning Committee will receive very careful examination, and that some will probably be deferred and others modified. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the considerations to which he refers will not be lost sight of in dealing with this particular proposal.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any estimate has been formed of the number of persons to be dispossessed and disturbed and of the cost of purchase, demolition, and reconstruction of buildings, if the proposed new road connecting the new capital of Delhi with St. James's Church in the ancient city is carried through; if so, whether figures can be stated; and, if no such estimates have been formed, whether they will be requested from the Government of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject beyond what is contained in the Delhi Town-Planning Committee's Report. He does not propose to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but a general project estimate is being prepared, which will include every proposal that is finally accepted by the Government of India.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give an assurance that the plans for the Government House and the secretariat buildings in the new Delhi will not be finally approved nor work upon them begun until the designs and drawings have been in

  2231
  some way made public and time has been allowed for public opinion, whether critical or approving, to find expression?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State does not propose to fetter the discretion of the Government of India in the matter, though lie has little doubt that the public will be afforded an opportunity of seeing the designs before work is begun on them.
  Mr. KING: Does the promise that the designs will be shown before the work is begun refer both to exhibition in India as well as in England?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No; these matters are entirely within the discretion of the Government of India, to whom the Secretary of State delegated the duty of preparing and considering these plans.
  Mr. KING: Will the Secretary of State intimate to the Government of India that it is desirable both in India and in this country that some opportunity for public criticism before approval should be afforded?
  Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend's question and my answer will be published in India as a matter of course.

  Zainab Bibi.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the claim of Zainab Bibi and others, heirs and legal representatives of the late Nizam Din, woollen merchant, against the State of Kapurthala for the sum of Rs.1,088/15, being the sale proceeds of the deceased's estate after deduction of a sum due to the aforesaid State; and whether he can say why the surplus amount due is being withheld?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The claim to which the hon. Member refers has not been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State.

  Sitapur Murder Case.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what were the names of the Judicial Commissioners before whom the appeal was heard in the Sitapur murder case; what was the date of their appointment; and by whom were they appointed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Louis Stuart, appointed to officiate as Additional Judicial
  2232
  Commissioner with effect from the 18th April, 1912, and Pandit Kanhaiya Lal, appointed to officiate on the 1st July, 1912, and permanently on the 30th July, 1912. Both appointments received the previous approval of the Government of India, and the latter was, for technical reasons, submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State in Council.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both those gentlemen owe their 'appointments in the first instance to Sir John Hewett; that Pandit Kanhaiya Lal had been a subordinate judicial officer and that the other, Mr. Stuart, had come straight from Sir John Hewett's Office?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Both these gentlemen were appointed to very responsible positions as High Court judges in India, and I see no reason for supposing that they were unfitted in any way for the office they were called upon to hold.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these appointments were made after the first trial and after the first acquittal of those prisoners, and that this was the first judicial office they were called upon to discharge their first job?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The insinuation behind the hon. Member's question is a reflection upon the impartiality of those gentlemen, and would not be allowed upon judges in this country.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I meant it to be a reflection.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information showing that Sir John Hewett, in refusing to postpone the date of execution of the condemned men in the Sitapur murder case so as to admit of their petition being forwarded to the Governor-General, was acting upon instructions received from the Government of India, or whether he had full discretion in the matter?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The papers presented show clearly that Sir John Hewett conformed to the instructions of the Government of India; that those instructions may be differently interpreted; and that the interpretation in this case was within Sir John Hewett's discretion.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that Sir John Hewett had it absolutely within his own discretion to postpone the execution; and, if that is so, will my hon. Friend convey that fact to the Leader of the Opposition, who based his whole argument upon the assumption, which I believe to be a false one, that Sir John Hewett had no such discretion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion to ask the hon. Gentleman to reply to a previous Debate?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir John Hewett's position was that he was strictly bound by instructions he had received from the Government of India not to forward this petition, and, if so, will the Government of India participate in the censure most properly given to Sir John Hewett?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India asked Sir John Hewett to deal with the matter strictly according with rule. Most Members of this House interested in the matter have expressed their opinion, and the Secretary of State has expressed his opinion, and I do not think that it is any use pursuing the matter further.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it in accordance with custom not to postpone executions, but to execute and to keep the petition in hand?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to read the papers on this subject, he will find full information.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have read the papers.
  Mr. MORTON: May I ask whether this is not executing first and trying afterwards?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the block in promotion of sergeants in the Royal Artillery to staff rank; and whether he can take any steps to expedite promotion either by the grant of honorary rank or otherwise?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am not aware that there is at present any abnormal
    2234
    block in the promotion of sergeants to staff sergeants in the Royal Artillery.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have made inquiry, and I find that my opinion is not in accordance with that of the hon. Gentleman.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the statement of Lord Esher, president of the County of London Territorial Association, to the effect that in the event of a general mobilisation, owing to an oversea war in which we were engaged, it would be quite impossible to find horses for the mounted troops of the Territorial Force; and, in view of this statement, what steps he proposes to take to secure an adequate supply of horses for the purpose of training the Yeomanry?
    Mr. TENNANT: The figures of the recent military census show an ample margin over and above the maximum requirements.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Esher asserted that his statement was based on information obtained from the military authorities?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that is a mistake.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a letter was written and signed by Lord Esher? Would the hon. Gentleman like to have it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should very much like to have it. I venture to state that it might be in error.

  National Revenue (Wales).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the disproportionate contributions, having regard to their wealth, made by Scotland and Ireland to the total tax revenue; and, in order to make clear whether Wales is or is not being similarly mulcted, whether he will arrange to ascertain what the separate contribution of Wales (including Monmouthshire) during the current financial year amounts to under each head of such revenue?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Without admitting the premiss of my hon. Friend, I am considering the possibility of obtaining separate figures for Wales; but, inasmuch as England and Wales have always been treated for revenue purposes as an administrative unit, there are very grave difficulties in the way of doing so.

  Telegraphic Communication (Elphin and Assynt).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can yet see his way to grant the two-thirds guarantee towards extending the telegraph to Elphin and Assynt, Sutherland?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am sorry that I cannot modify the terms which were communicated to the hon. Member on the 6th June, 1912.
  Mr. MORTON: The Postmaster-General or his assistant sent a letter to us last year saying that he could not do anything, because it was for the Treasury to act. Since then I have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to ask him what he has done with regard to my interview with him?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    EMPLOYERS' PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION.
    Major WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations from the Employers' Parliamentary Association with regard to the appointment of a special commission of experts to inquire into the subject of amendment of the National Insurance Act; and if he intends to take any steps in this direction?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but I shall, of course, be pleased to consider any representations which the association may care to submit. With regard to the latter part of the question, I can at present add nothing to the statements on this matter which have already been made in this House.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if an amount of 3s. 6d. was credited to the London Insurance Committee in respect
    2236
    of the second quarter of the present year for each insured accepted person on the list of one or other of the panel doctors; have the doctors only received 2s. 7½d. of the amount; and, if so, what has been or is proposed to be done with the balance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The doctors have received on account of the first two quarters a sum equivalent to 3s. 3d. per insured person on their lists as a payment in advance of the amount due to them at the end of the year.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the circumstances of the valuation for land tax purposes of Nos. 2, 4, and 6, Wood Vale, Sydenham, the property of Mr. A. Smith; if the property, which cost about £1,500, has been valued at £945; and if it is proposed under the Finance Act that owners of property should be called upon to pay Increment Duty in the case of the sale of property at an amount equal to or less than that which it cost in the first instance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the values, aggregating to £935, which have been provisionally placed on the property referred to by the hon. Member, and to a claim for Substituted Site Value now under consideration. As regards the last part of the question I may point out that Increment Value Duty is charged on the basis not of cost, but of the excess of occasion site value over original site value, or substituted site value, as the case may be.
  Mr. EDGAR HORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any instructions have been issued by the Valuation Department, Ireland, of a similar character to those which were made the subject of the Return to the Order of the House of Commons, dated 27th July, 1911?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Will they be issued as a Parliamentary Return?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure about that. I would ask for notice of that question.

  Episcopal Training College (Edinburgh).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland what portion of the expenditure of the Episcopal Training College in Edinburgh has been provided by Government Grants during the last seven years; whether the present reduction in staff salaries has the approval of the Education Department; whether his Department has sanctioned the proposed curtailment of the curriculum at the college; what proportion of the students in training during the last seven years came from England; and whether such students are being trained with funds provided by the Treasury through the Scottish Education Department?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The accounts for the year 1912–13 are not yet available, but, during the six years beginning 31st July, 1906, the average expenditure of the training college in question was about £4,160 a year, while the average income from Government Grants was about £2,300 a year. The estimate for the year 1913–14 has not yet been submitted. So long as efficiency is properly secured, it is not open to the Department to object to variations in staff and salaries. I am not aware that it is proposed to curtail any part of the curriculum which is essential for the granting of the general certificate. Out of 211 students enrolled during the last seven years eighty are understood to have come from England. The Grants paid by the Department in respect of these students were provided by the Treasury.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that this college has made any suggestion for curtailing the curriculum, and, if so, does the Department approve of it?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have answered that: "I am not aware of any proposal to curtail any part of the curriculum which is essential for the granting of the general certificate."

  Calton Goal, Edinburgh.
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked whether a site has now been chosen or purchased for the new prison to replace the Calton Gaol; where the site is; and when building operations will begin?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The negotiations for a site have now been completed.
  2238
  The site is on the Saughton estate, on the Lanark Road. Preparations for building will not be unduly delayed.
  Mr. HOGGE: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the extent of the site and what it has cost?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not asked in the question, and I do not carry it in my head.

  Small Holdings (Scotland).
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether in the district of Taynuilt, Argyllshire, the policy of the plantation of arable lands prevails and has been explicitly condemned locally by one important public body; whether the greater part of the low ground, partly arable and partly pasture, of the farms of Duntanachan and Barglas is now in the process of being planted; whether the best of the pasture land of the farm of Clachadow has recently been planted; whether, on the estate of Achnacloich the same process has been carried out; whether land in Glencreran, in the parish of Appin, which was scheduled by the Deer Forest Commissioners as suitable for small holdings, has been planted; whether the lands of Inverliever, purchased by the Government for forestry purposes, previously supported a numerous pastoral and agricultural community; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take such steps as will make it possible, by the speeding up of the operations of the Board of Agriculture, to anticipate the planting of trees by the planting of people upon the land?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have made inquiry and am informed that planting operations have been carried on for some years upon the farms of Duntanachan, Barglas, and Clachadow; that planting upon the Achnacloich estate (chiefly on the hill ground of the home farm) has been in progress for a considerable period; that a few years ago the owner of Fasnacloich, in Glencreran, planted arable ground, which, it is believed, was scheduled by the Deer Forests Commission; that the Office of Woods and Forests are afforesting part of Inverliever on Lochawe, which at one time maintained a pastoral community. I am informed by the Office of Woods and Forests that the total number of men employed on the Inverliever estate is larger now than it was before the purchase. There is no direct statutory power

  2239
  prohibiting the owners of 'land from planting any part of their estates, but wherever there is a sufficient demand for small holdings the Board of Agriculture for Scotland will endeavour to use the powers of the Small Landholders Act to secure the land for the purpose.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman now believe that which I alleged last week is being done?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir. The lion. Member last week alleged that there was new planting going on for the purpose of defeating the Small Landholders Act.
  Mr. HOGGE: is it not the case, as stated in the question, that land which has been scheduled for the purposes of small holdings is being used for other purposes, and, if that is so, is it not sufficient confirmation of my statement that was being done?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that there has been any afforestation of land suitable for small holdings.
  Mr. MORTONasked whether anything can be done to find increased holdings under the Small Landholders Act (Scotland), 1911, for the applicants at Laid Durness, Sutherland; and, if not, why not as promised, the applicants being quite willing to pay a fair rent?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the applicants from the district of Laid are without the means to stock new holdings and in these circumstances the Board of Agriculture are not able to entertain their applications.
  Mr. MORTON: May I ask whether nothing can be done to give these people the land which it was proposed to give them under the Small Landholders Act, 1907?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think the hon. Member is right in saying that the Act is intended to deal with cases where people are unable to stock the farm.
  Mr. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 390.000 acres were marked out as suitable land for this purpose? I want to know when the Government are going to carry out the Act of Parliament?
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that a large number of people cannot take these holdings because of their inability to provide stock, and is the right hon. Gentleman, as head of the Board of Agriculture, hastening the creation of credit banks in order that that may be possible, and that these people may get on to the land?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am doing what I can in the matter of credit banks, but the Act did not contemplate finding money for stocking farms.
  Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that it has only been possible to find tenants for seven of the twelve small holdings constituted at Lindean, Selkirk, last Whitsunday term day, he will instruct the Commissioner for small holdings that, in future, when submitting to the Land Court schemes for land settlement, which involve the breaking up of farms, he should produce evidence that there are suitable applicants for small holdings willing to occupy the land?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that in this case there are a sufficient number of suitable applicants, although they could not all be settled last Whitsunday. The other tenants are taking up the holdings at Martinmas next.
  Captain GILMOUR: What steps have been taken to look after the land which is not occupied?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should require notice of that. I cannot say now precisely what steps have been taken.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the small holders on the land could have been accommodated if this land had not been provided?
  Colonel GREIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that twice the number of landholders have been put on the land than was offered by the owners?
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether there is any appeal from the decisions or refusal to find land of the Board of Agriculture (Scotland); and whether applicants can appeal to the Land Court to compel the Board of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the Small Landholders Act, 1911, forthwith?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The provisions relating to the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are contained in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, to which and especially to Sections 4 and 7 of that Act, I refer my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MORTON: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no appeal to the Land Courts against the decisions of the Board of Agriculture?
  Mr. URE: My hon. Friend will find an answer to that question in Sections 4 and 7 of the Statute.
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the case respecting enlargement of holdings from an owner other than the owner under which the applicants hold land has yet been submitted to the Land Court (Scotland) and whether the decision will be announced before the end of the Session?
  Mr. URE: No application raising the point referred to by my hon. Friend has been presented to the Land Court.
  Mr. MORTON: What has become of the promise of the Secretary for Scotland to bring forward that appeal?
  Mr. URE: The Secretary for Scotland has no power to bring forward an appeal.

  Board of Agriculture Commissioners (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any new appointments have been made to the Commissioners under the Board of Agriculture; if so, which; and when he anticipates completing the new appointments?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I expect to approve the appointments next week, when I go to Edinburgh.

  East Coast Crab and Lobster Fisheries.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the frequent theft of crab and lobster pots by the crews of coasting vessels on the East Coast of England; whether the officers of fishery district committees have forwarded information on the subject to the Board; and what remedy he can suggest?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. I shall be glad to consider any representation which may be made to me in the matter.

  Board of Agriculture (Reports).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture when it is proposed to issue the annual Report of the proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts for 1912 and the annual Report for 1912–13 on the distribution of Grants for agricultural education and research, respectively?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The annual Report under the Diseases of Animals Acts has been unfortunately delayed by the long absence through illness, both of the assistant secretary of the animals division and of the chief veterinary officer of the Board, but I hope that it will be issued in a few weeks' time. The Report on the distribution of Grants for agricultural education and research will probably be issued in October.

  Sale of Foods and Drugs Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department was consulted as to the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs. Bill introduced last week by the President of the Local Government Board, and, especially as to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 thereof, prior to its being drafted; and, if so, whether he gave his approval to the Bill?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I saw the Bill in question before it was introduced by my right hon. Friend. I doubt whether its provisions materially affect my Department, but there will be time for detailed consideration before the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, as at present advised, is prepared to part with the control of the functions exercised by his Board in this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should be very reluctant to give up any of the functions of my Board.

  Tuberculosis Order.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he

  2243
  is aware that throughout England and Wales most, and in some counties all, of the cattle slaughtered under the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 have been treated as being in an advanced stage of the disease as defined in Article 8 of the Order, and that 30s., or little more than the value of the hide, is in most cases being paid in respect of them; that the financial inducement to owners to report their tuberculous animals, especially those giving a large and profitable supply of milk, is so small that the bulk of the tuberculous cattle in the country remain unreported; and whether, as a very small proportion of the £60,000 per annum granted by the Treasury for this purpose during the current financial year seems likely to be expended, he will, for the more effective extermination of the disease, vary the wide definition of advanced tuberculosis contained in the Order, or otherwise increase the inducement to stockowners to report diseased animals to the authorities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is evident from the returns furnished to the Board by the local authorities that the majority of the animals slaughtered hitherto under the Tuberculosis Order suffered from advanced tuberculosis, and compensation has been paid to the owners on the lower scale, but I am not at present in a position to say whether or not the hon. Gentleman is correct in estimating the average compensation at 30s. I am not aware that most owners of tuberculous cattle are deliberately disregarding the provisions of the Order, as is suggested in the second part. of the question; if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that the failure to report tuberculous animals is general, I shall be much obliged if he will communicate it to me. The amount sanctioned by the Treasury for compensation during the current financial year is £45,000, not £60,000; the estimate was necessarily very conjectural, and until the Order has been longer in operation it is impossible to judge how much of the amount sanctioned will actually be required. The definition of advanced tuberculosis is based on recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, and if experience proves that it is too wide, I shall be prepared in that as in other respects to consider an amendment. of the Order.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bulk of the
  2244
  cases of bovine tuberculosis in milch cows are not reported, and that that is likely to continue unless greater inducements are offered to stock owners to report them?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If cases are not reported, and if my hon. Friend knows about them, I wish he would give me the benefit of his information, and then we would take action direct.

  King Edward Memorial (Shadwell Park).
  Mr. HOAREasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Shadwell Park memorial scheme for King Edward VII. has been completed; and when the work will be commenced for clearing the site and laying out the ground?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The contract for the purchase Of the ground has been completed, and Sir Alexander Rendel is preparing plans for constructing a river wall.

  Admiralty Arch.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First. Commissioner of Works, whether he has noted the proposal that the Admiralty Arch should be surmounted by a block of sculpture or a model of Nelson's ship, the "Victory"; whether the structure of the arch admits of such a proposal being carried out; and whether any practical suggestion of this kind will be favourably considered?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It was originally proposed to place a group of sculpture on the Admiralty Arch, but after careful consideration the project was abandoned.

  Stationery Office Motor Vans.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, looking to the fact that motor omnibuses in London must first pass a test for silence before being licensed, he will consider the advisability of applying the sante test to the motor vans used by the Stationery Office?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The Secretary of State has statutory power to prescribe the conditions under which

  2245
  public carriages may be licensed. This power does not extend to other motor vehicles.
  MURRAY: Is not a motor van on the same footing as a public vehicle?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is not in the ordinary sense a public carriage.

  Painters' Cradles (Home Office Inspection).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to three men being killed at the West Ham Gasworks on Friday last, 1st August, in consequence of the painting cradle falling through a rotten rope being; used; if he is aware that the coroner stated that he hoped the factory inspectors who were present at the inquest would recommend a better system of testing the ropes; and if he is prepared to grant powers to local authorities to enable the local inspectors to examine ropes attached to all such painting cradles and to inspect the chains attached to such; Scotch derricks and cranes?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My right hon. Friend has received a Report on the circumstances of the accident and the proceedings at the inquest. The coroner appears to have said that it was within the province of the inspectors to recommend the making of regulations for bringing about a better system of testing ropes; but the painting of buildings is not, as such, within the Factory Act, and further powers must be given by legislation if the Home Office is to deal with the matter. The provisions of the Buildings Bill, which is in draft, would enable regulations to be made as to the precautions to be observed in connection with cradle ropes, and the matter will be considered when the Bill passes. I should point out, however, that the Building Accidents Committee had this point before them, but did not recommend the testing of ropes in use, and it is doubtful whether any system of testing which might be likely to accentuate a latent defect would be desirable.
  Mr. J. WARD: Why does the hon. Gentleman refer to a Bill which' the Government have not even taken the trouble to introduce at all this Session?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of these cradles
  2246
  are in use in connection with gas holders, schools, and so forth?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I tried to explain to my hon. Friend that legislation is required before the Home Office inspectors can have control over this class of work.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is it intended to introduce legislation next Session to deal with the subject?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH:I cannot pledge the Government on a matter of that sort.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I will remind you next Session then.

  Suffragist Prisoners (Sentences).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he was consulted by the judge before he reduced the sentence on Lady Sybil Smith from fourteen days to four days; what reasons were assigned by him for the change; and whether any communications, verbal or oral, passed between the judge and the Home Office on the subject.?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No direct communication passed between the Home Office and the magistrate. As was explained to the hon. Member last Thursday, the solicitor who appeared for the police represented to the magistrate, with my right hon. Friend's cognisance and approval, that Mrs. Pethick Lawrence, Lady Sybil Smith, and Miss Evelyn Sharp were not militants habitually engaged in the use of criminal methods. The magistrate assigned this fact as his reason for reducing the sentence from fourteen days to four days.

  Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Act.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how many county authorities have not yet granted the police within their areas one day's rest off duty in every seven under the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Act. 1910; and whether Wiltshire is among the number?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH:Full particulars are given in the Return, Parliamentary Paper No. 243, which was issued last Thursday, and to which I would refer the hon. Member. It will be seen from the Return that the police authority of the county of Wiltshire have the matter under consideration.

  Financial Relations (Scotland).
  Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the tax revenue expected to be contributed by Scotland under this year's Budget amounts to 3s. 8d. per £ of income as assessed for purposes of Income Tax under Schedules A, B, D, and E, as against 3s. per £ contributed by England and Wales, being an excess of £3,000,000 per annum; whether this discrepancy, as well as the insufficiency of the amount at present allocated to Scotland for purposes of agriculture and small holdings, will be duly considered in settling the terms of the Government's proposal for establishing national self-government in Scotland; and whether, having regard to the fact that emigration from Scotland continues at an unprecedented rate, Scottish affairs will receive attention early next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith):I must not be held to accept the assumptions contained in the first part of the question, as my hon. Friend appears to have ignored all sources of revenue except Income Tax, but in considering the matter referred to, all relevant aspects will be borne in mind. I cannot give any pledges as to the distribution of time next Session, but my hon. Friend's proposal will not be overlooked.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that if you take account of all sums of money Scotland is contributing more than her fair share towards the Imperial Revenue?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of it, but I am quite prepared to believe it.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to remedy it?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set up a Committee to look into the financial relations of Scotland in view of the contemplated Home Rule Bill?

  Sir Stuart Montagu Samuel Indemnity Bill.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister the reason why the Government do not propose to proceed this Session with the Sir Stuart Montagu Samuel Indemnity Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on Thursday last, it has not been found possible to come to the agreement without which the further prosecution of the Bill at this stage of the Session was impossible.
  Mr. GWYN NE: Are we to understand that Samuel Montagu and Company are unable to comply with the request of the Leader of the Opposition?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the correspondence has been published.

  Secondary Schools.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Education the number of public secondary schools in Wales for the year 1912; the number of pupils attending; the number who are taught free; the number of full-time teachers employed: the salaries paid; and the total annual cost of maintaining these schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The number of secondary schools in Wales—including Monmouthshire—recognised for Grant under the Regulations for Secondary Schools in the year 1911–12 was 110. On 31st January, 1912, the number of pupils on the rolls was. 15,012, the number of pupils who were taught free 6,737, and the number of full-time teachers 954. The salaries of the teachers ranged as follows:—
  Head Teachers—
  Men: From £184 10s. to £750; average,. £371. Women: From £130 to £583; average, £309.
  Assistant Teachers—
  Men: From £70 to 2300; average, £155. Women: From £30 to £220; average, £124.
  The total cost of maintenance of the schools in the financial year 1911–12, as given in the statements of accounts rendered to the Board by the school governors was £221,600 18s. 0d.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Education the number of council schools for England for the years 1905 and 1912, respectively; the number of teachers employed; the number of pupils on rolls; the number who are taught free; and the fees generally charged; and the number of free pupils in the various other secondary schools for

  2249
  the year 1912; and the conditions and amount of the Grants paid to those schools?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The number of secondary schools on the Grant List for which local authorities were responsible in the year 1904–5 was 122, and in 1911–12, 382. In these schools in 1906–7—the first year for which figures are available—the number of full-time teachers employed was 2,870, a small number of whom would now be classified as part-time teachers, and in 1911–12 4,163; the number of pupils on the rolls in 1904–05 was 30,357, and in 1911–12, 70,458; the number of pupils who were taught free in 1906–07—the first year for which figures are available—was 15,811, and in 1911–12, 28,153; the fees in these schools ranged from £ 1s. to £17 5s. per annum. In the secondary schools on the Grant List, other than those for which local authorities were responsible, the number of free pupils in 1911–12 was 24,432. The conditions of the Grants paid to all schools on the Grant List are set out in the Board's Regulations for Secondary Schools, and the Grants paid to secondary schools, other than those for which local authorities were responsible, in respect of the school year 1911–12 amounted to £285,608 2s.

  School Attendance.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education what is the approximate number of children exempted from school attendance under Robson's Act at the age of eleven for the purpose of undertaking agricultural work?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: At the end of the school year there were thirteen children between the age of eleven and twelve on the partial exemption registers of those local education authorities whose by-laws provide for the partial exemption at the age of eleven of children employed in agriculture. This figure relates to the statistical year 1911–12, the latest period for which Returns are available.
  Major WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in any further Education Bill he may introduce, he will take steps to improve the conditions existing with regard to the superannuation of school attendance officers?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this
  2250
  matter, but it is impossible at this stage to anticipate the provisions which may be included in contemplated legislation. I may add that some local authorities have obtained powers to adopt superannuation schemes for their employés, amongst whom school attendance officers may be included.

  Educational Experiments (Grants).
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether the new Grants which the Board proposes to make towards the expenses of educational experiments will be restricted to local education authorities?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Government Departments (Boy Messengers).
  Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many messengers under fifteen years of age are at present employed in the various Government Departments?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Boy messengers are recruited when required by the various Departments concerned, and I fear I have no information as to the number under fifteen years of age now employed. The hon. Member will find sonic information on the subject in the Report on Boy Labour in the Post Office recently presented (Cd. 6959).

  Telegraph Service.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether the poles and apparatus for the extension of the telegraph to the Post Office, Thruxton, have been lying at Weyhill for some months; how much longer he anticipates this improvement of communication is likely to be delayed; and what are the reasons against immediately proceeding with the work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Before an extension of the telegraph system can be carried out, way-leaves have to be obtained and notice given to the public as required by law. These conditions as regards the proposed extension to the Thruxton Post Office have now been fulfilled, and it is hoped that the office will be open for the transaction of telegraph business by the end of this month.

  Free Church of Scotland.
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, the Free Church of Scotland claimed to have 160 full sanctioned charges, and had churches and manses allocated to them for that number and funds for equipment of same; whether ninety of these charges are still vacant; whether he is aware that the church and manse in North Knapdale were allocated to the Free Church and that no minister has been settled there, while the manse has been let on a lease of five years to a boarding housekeeper; whether the manse at Kilmarton is let to a minister of the Church of Scotland, whose church is in a neighbouring parish; and, in view of these and other facts previously brought to his notice, will he appoint a small Commission to take evidence during the Recess as to other places where property and funds are being diverted from the purposes for which the donors intended them; and will he include in the reference to such Commission the duty of preparing a Return of the members in full communion as at 31st December, 1912, in each of the congregations claimed by the Free Church as a sanctioned charge, showing the income and expenditure of each apart from the Endowments allocated under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Until I have received a reply from the authorities of the Free Church of Scotland, to whom my hon. Friend's question has been sent for observations, I am not prepared to consider the suggestion.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer this Session or next?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly next Session. I am afraid I cannot give it this Session. I am told the authorities of the Free Church are on holiday.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the filling up of all these churches has been progressive, and that it is only a question of time for them all to be filled?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should hesitate very much to express an opinion on that point.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CHATHAM DOCKYARD (FATAL ACCIDENT).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fatal accident that happened at the Chatham dockyard to a mechanic by the name of Thomas J. Kent.; if the jury expressed the opinion that happened at the Chatham dockyard of the dockyard inspector; and what action he intends taking in regard to the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Admiralty have been apprised of the unfortunate accident referred to, and of the terms of the jury's verdict at the inquest. The whole of the circumstances connected with the accident are being carefully investigated, and steps will be taken with a view to avoiding any recurrence of such an accident. It will also be considered whether any action other than that of a precautionary nature is called for.

    PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS (MEDAL).
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the medal for general services in operations carried out by His Majesty's Navy in the Persian Gulf in the years 1909–12 has been granted; and, if not, when the question of granting the medal will be settled?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The question is still under consideration.
    Mr. WHELER: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that I asked this question sonic months ago and he definitely promised action; and does he realise that the postponement of this matter is causing a good deal of feeling among the men who were engaged?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The operations come rather near the border line, and we have been in communication with the India Office upon the subject.
    Mr. WHELER: Have not several men suffered severely; were they not severely wounded in these operations; and are not these men deserving of a medal as much as or more than many men who have received one?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A great deal of thought has been given to this subject. As I said, the matter comes very near the border line, and I cannot say what the final decision will be.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Is it not a fact that the military got the medal for the same operations some years ago?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot go into that without notice.

    SUNDAY LABOUR.
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the amount of Sunday work in the Navy; and, if so, whether he would consider the possibility of the more strict enforcement of Article 703 of the King's Regulations relating to the Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that only work which is necessary is carried out on Sunday.

    NAVAL MANœUVRES.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the importance to the people of this country, he will publish the fact as to whether or not during the recent naval manœuvres the smaller Red Fleet were able to land troops in this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rutland on the 7th of this month.
    Mr. HUNT: Did not Admiral Jellicoe have plenty of time to land 50,000 troops, and did not the troops actually land, so that they could have destroyed the oil reserves, wireless telegraphy apparatus, the telegraphs, and the railways.?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. HUNT: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to what. I have asked him?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given an answer. I said that I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rutland on the 7th of this month.

    MEDWAY FLOATING DOCK.
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty
    2254
    propose to move the floating dock in the Medway from its present moorings?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is intended to transfer the Medway floating dock to Cromarty.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. HUNTasked, in view of the fact that contractors for the Admiralty can buy from abroad articles required for Admiralty contracts, whether steps are taken to secure the payment of wages equal to those required by the Fair-Wages Clause to the workmen abroad producing these articles for Admiralty contracts?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Fair-Wages Clause in question has reference to the wages, hours of labour and conditions generally of workpeople in the United Kingdom. It is designed to safeguard them against unfair conditions in this country. It is not intended for the defence of the interests of workpeople in foreign countries. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, according to Parliamentary Paper, No. 7 of 1912, the value of Admiralty purchases of manufactured articles from abroad during 1910–11 was £217,611, the grand total of Admiralty purchases under contract for that year being computed to have amounted to between £22,000,000 and £23,000,000. I may further add that, of this expenditure of £217,611, £78,800 was for tinned and preserved goods; £62,000 for crystallised sugar, and £19,000 for rum.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the contractor is allowed to buy from abroad goods made by very cheap labour, such as Chinese and Japanese, and, if so, what is the use of the Fair-Wages Clause to many of our workmen?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Fair-Wages Clause provides a safeguard against unfair competition in this country. With regard to the earlier part of the question the British manufacturer must do pretty well if out of £22,000,000 or £23,000,000 worth only £60,000 is foreign manufactured goods in highly specialised articles.
    Mr. HUNT: In view of the fact that this may be increased to any extent, are not the Government allowing contractors to employ blackleg labour abroad?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that.

  Irish Language (Bibliography).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is now in a position to announce the date of publication of the bibliography of Irish language and literature, to be issued by the National Library; and can he state the price at which it will be sold to the public?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Department are not yet in a position to state the date of publication. The copies are at present being printed off, but it is not likely that the work will be ready for issue for about two months. The price has not yet been fixed.

  Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the London Sessions on 10th July the jury to try a case under the Criminal Law Amendment Act had been empanelled but was not sworn nor allowed to act; and whether he can explain why the jury was not sworn?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I have made inquiries with regard to the case to which the hon. Member refers and find that the invariable practice was followed. No jury was sworn because the defendant pleaded guilty to the whole indictment, and there was, therefore, no question for the jury to try.

  Criminal Appeals (India).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Attorney-General whether the rule as to costs in cases between the Crown and a subject, quoted in the recent case of Vaithanatha Pillai v. the King-Emperor, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, has the effect of making it difficult, if not impossible, for a poor man in India to appeal against a criminal conviction; and, if so, whether he will advise that the rule should be so amended as to make it possible for other than rich men to appeal?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have read a transcript of the shorthand note of the discussion with regard to costs which took place after the delivery of judgment in this case. The rule to which the hon. Member refers does not prevent any person from appealing to the Judicial Committee.

  Load-Line.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply a sworn list of the vessels built and launched prior to 1900, with their respective tonnage, upon which the load-line was raised during 1906, and since that year by the secret fiat of the Board of Trade; the names and tonnage of such vessels upon which the load-line was so raised which foundered or were stranded after this was done; the names of the survivors so far as they may be known to the Board of Trade; copies of the remonstrances in regard to the raising of the load-line on old vessels which were addressed to various Members of the Cabinet, including the then President of the Board of Trade, at the time when the load-line was raised on these old vessels and afterwards; the actual amount that it would have cost to have given the statistics in regard to the foundering and stranding of overladen vessels asked for by Lord Muskerry, the furnishing of which was refused by the Board of Trade on the score of expense; and whether any action whatever has been taken by the Government or by any of the shipowners who have benefited so largely pecuniarily by the raising of the load-line to provide pensions or reasonable compensation to the widows of the seamen, firemen, and others who have been drowned on board the "North Briton," whose foundering was directly attributed by a magistrate in his official judgment to the action of the Board of Trade and the Government?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): As I have stated in this House, I have already appointed a special Committee to investigate the whole question of the load line. All the information required by this Committee, statistical or otherwise, for the purpose of their inquiry, will, of course, be furnished to them by the Board of Trade to the best of their power, and every assistance will be given to them in their investigation. All representations made to me have been referred to the Committee, as has also been the case of the "North Briton." In these circumstances, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by supplying the particular information asked for. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware what action, if any, may have been taken by shipowners. No action has been taken by the Government.
  Mr. W. THORNE: How long will it be before we have the official papers?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say, but I am using my best endeavours to examine into the whole question. I hope it will not be very long.

  Aliens Bill.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the London Liberal Members petitioned the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman not to oppose the Aliens Bill because the importation of aliens lowered wages and made the conditions of life worse for our own people, he can now say whether, owing to the present administration of the Act, aliens still come into this country in sufficient numbers to keep down wages in some trades and to drive our own people out of their employment?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is possible that the immigration of aliens may tend to lower wages in certain industries, but I have no definite evidence to support this view. In any case, the administration of the Act would not be responsible as the Act does not provide for the exclusion of aliens on this ground.
  Mr. HUNT: Does not the present administration of the Act make it very much easier for aliens to come in, and is it not a known fact that aliens work for less wages and under worse conditions than in this country?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My answer covered that question. The effect on wages depends upon a number of facts, among them the number of aliens who come in and the state of the labour market in the particular industry in which they are engaged.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill referred to passed this House unanimously, and was defeated by the hon. Member's Friends in the House of Lords?
  Mr. HUNT: That is perfectly untrue.

  Steamship "Tynemouth" (Stranding).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the conclusion of the formal investigation into the stranding of the steamship "Tynemouth" the officers and engineers who were detained ashore by the Board of Trade in order to give evidence were at once put off their daily subsistence allow-
  2258
  ance as granted under the Board of Trade Regulations; whether these officers and engineers were in any way implicated in the stranding or parties to the case; whether through being put off this subsistence allowance they have been compelled to remain ashore for eight or ten days to await the return of their steamer, during which time they have been receiving no pay; and whether, if this is so, he will give favourable consideration to the granting of a monetary allowance to these officers and engineers, having regard to their evidence being tendered in the interests of the public?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The first and second mates of the "Tynemouth" and the first and second engineers were necessary witnesses at the inquiry into the stranding of the vessel, and in accordance with the usual practice they were paid full subsistence allowance from the date when they were retained at witnesses as long as their attendance was necessary. They were not made parties to the proceedings. I am sorry if any inconvenience has been caused to these officers by the inquiry, but I fear it is not possible to pay further monetary allowances in these cases.

  Juvenile Advisory Committees (Domestic Servants).
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now supply copies of the schemes under which each of the juvenile advisory committees has supplied resident domestic servants in private houses?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: There are no formal regulations governing these schemes, but certain conditions are imposed in each case designed mainly to secure that every placing of a boy or girl under seventeen by the Exchange in private domestic service is approved by a representative of the Advisory Committee for Juvenile Employment, and that satisfactory co-operation is arranged with any voluntary agencies interested in the same work. I am sending my hon. Friend further details of the arrangements which have been made.

ATTACK ON CAMEL CORPS (SOMALILAND).
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information about the attack on the Camel Corps in Somaliland?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I will read two telegrams which I have received from the Acting-Commissioner administering the Government of Somaliland. The first reached me yesterday morning, and reads as follows:—
"August 9th. Burao. The Camel Company during a reconnaissance between Berbera and Odwein were severely engaged to-lay by a Dervish party, the strength of which is estimated at 1,000 men, which was believed to have been advancing on Barao. I have received no official report, but two Camel Company men bring news. I deeply regret to report that Corfield has been shot dead and that Dunn is wounded. Sixty men of the Camel Company are reported dead. It is clear that the Camel Company retreat was cut off and that they, therefore, zaribaed. The maxim jammed. The losses both of Dervishes and Friendlies are reported to be exceedingly heavy. Firing continues. The rest of the Camel Company cannot move, twenty-five miles out, so I have no alternative but to proceed myself now with my Indian escort of twenty men and such Friendlies as I can collect (and) attempt to succour. I ant ordering the Indian contingent at Berbera to proceed to our assistance with a doctor, in case we ant make good our retreat on Sheikh. I am requesting the Resident at Aden to send 300 troops at once to garrison Berbera.—ARCHER."
Late last night I received the second telegram:—
"August 10th. Burao. In continuation of my cypher telegram of August 9th. I joined up with Camel Corps at 2 o'clock this morning at a distance of eighteen miles south-east of Burao. We have returned safely to Burao. Owing to shortage of ammunition dervishes did not follow up retirement. Summers, the Commandant of the Indian contingent, who accompanied the reconnaissance to advise me on the situation here from the military inspect, is severely wounded in three places but not dangerously. Corfield was killed beginning of action. Dunn is not wounded anti is well. Camel Corps casualties are not accurately known but probably fifty were killed and wounded. I will send a detailed telegraphic report later on the whole occurrence. Dervishes (?) numbered between one and two thousand rifles and they have cleared the district of stock. The tribesmen are moving north. It will probably be necessary to start a relief fund for destitutes arriving at Berbera. I consider an attack on Burao in the immediate future probable and I shall evacuate it if possible this evening. The Indian contingent will occupy Sheikh forthwith, while a temporary field hospital is established there by the senior medical officer. No further medical assistance is required. I do riot anticipate any danger from temporary occupation of Sheikh even at this juncture.—ARCHER."
Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of how the Camel Corps came to be so many miles from the coast?
Mr. HARCOURT: No, I cannot at present.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: After the Finance Bill we propose to take the Forgery (No. 2) Bill, the two Orders in regard to Ancient Monuments, and the Committee stage of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, Amendment Bill.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why No. 20 (Bishoprics of Sheffield, Chelmsford, and for the County of Suffolk Bill) has been starred? This is the first day on which it has been starred, and it conies as a great surprise, I believe, to all Members who have been watching its progress.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. 19 (Great Haywood and Tompkin Congregational Chapels Charity Bill) is starred also. They were starred at the same time with the object of seeing if some arrangement can be arrived at.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hulme Trust Estates Charity Bill is very much desired in the interests of the university and also of Church of England officials, and, seeing the huge importance and scope of that Bill, is it not possible to make an arrangement for it to go through?
  Mr. KING: Will this arrangement which is contemplated with regard to Charity Bills also have in view the Charity Bills which are just about to be introduced at the Table, I think four or five in number?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it will.

SIR STUART MONTAGU SAMUEL INDEMNITY BILL.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: May I ask you, Sir, whether I should be in order in raising the policy of the Government in regard to the Sir Stuart Montagu Samuel Indemnity Bill on the Appropriation Bill this afternoon, or whether the fact that the Government have left it on the list, although they do not mean to proceed with it, acts as a Blocking Motion so that we cannot discuss the matter?
Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that the Bill remains as one of the Orders of the Day would prevent the hon. Member raising a discussion upon it on another Order of the Day. He must wait until that particular Order is reached.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  EXPORTATION OF WORN-OUT HORSES BILL.
  "To amend the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910." Presented by Captain MURRAY; supported by Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. George Greenwood, Mi. King, Mr. Lyell, and Mr. Parker; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to he printed. [Bill 313.]
  PRESTON, SOUTHPORT, AND GATLEY CHAPELS CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the following charities: (1) the charity of the Congregational chapel, school, and trust property in Grimshaw Street, in the borough of Preston, in the county of Lancaster; (2) the charity consisting of the West End Congregational chapel, school, and trust property in the borough of Southport, in the said county; and (3) the charity consisting of the Congregational chapel, school, and trust property at Gatley, in the ancient parish of Stockport, in the county of Chester." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 315.]
  BOSDEN WESLEYAN TRUST PROPERTY CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the school burial ground, Wesleyan place of worship and trust property at Hazel Grove, in Bosden, in the county of Chester." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 316.]
  BOURNEMOUTH HOSPITALS CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the following charities in the borough of Bournemouth, in the county of Southampton: (1) the charity called or known as the Royal Victoria Hospital; (2) the charity called or known as the Royal Boscombe and West Hants Hospital." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 317.]
  ALFRISTON CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the following endowments in the parish of Alfriston, in the county of Sussex: (1) the chapel and trust property comprised in indentures dated, respectively, the 9th and 10th day of September, 1800, the 3rd and 4th day of April, 1811, and the 29th and 30th day of July, 1824; and (2) the minister's house comprised in an indenture dated the 9th day of October, 1833." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA- TION) BILL.

  WAR IN BALKANS: STATEMENT BY SIR EDWARD GREY.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): There is some information which I should like to give to the House with regard to Foreign Affairs which I think the House certainly ought to have before it separates, and on which it is necessary for me to make some explanation. As the House is aware, there has been ever since last, December continuing in London meetings of the five Ambassadors of the Great Powers and myself, discussing certain points connected with the difficulties in the Balkans. The announcement I have to make is that those meetings are now adjourned for the holidays. We had our last meeting yesterday, and we have come to the conclusion that we have reached a stage in the original work of those meetings which justifies a pause, and the meetings have been adjourned with the intention of reassembling whenever it may become necessary, and it may be the unanimous desire of the Governments concerned that there would be utility in the meetings being resumed. But I should like it to be clearly understood that the fact that what have been called the meetings of the Ambassadors had adjourned for a considerable time is no ground whatever for drawing any ill-omened inference as regards the relations of the Great Powers to each other. For
  2282
  some time the meetings of the Ambassadors have been regarded as the symbol of the existence of the Concert of Europe, but we have happily reached the stage at which I trust the Concert of Europe is so firmly established that the mere fact of the meetings of the Ambassadors being adjourned for the holidays will raise no doubts as regards the health and well-being of the Concert of the Great Powers of Europe. On the contrary, I think everyone who considers how startling, distressing, and sudden have been the events of the last few weeks in the Balkan Peninsula, and then at the same time recalls the fact that during these last few weeks there has been no talk of a cases fœderis arising among the different sets of Allies of the Great Powers, that there have been no rumours of mobilisation on the part of any of the Great, Powers, and no alarming reports of tension between any of the Great Powers—all that there was in the earlier stages of this Balkan trouble—anyone who remember.; that within the last few weeks we have had such startling and surprising events, and yet that there have been none of those rumours as to the intentions of the Great Powers which we had in the earlier stages, I think will be convinced that at the present moment the relations between the Great Powers are not in a condition which threatens the peace of Europe or gives rise for apprehension.
  It is true, of course, that there has not been unanimity between the Great Powers. Anyone who reads the Continental Press will see that there is not unanimity on all points. The opinions expressed in the different countries on the merits of the different points of the Treaty of Bucharest differ, but there are no differences of opinion which show a tendency to divide the different groups of the Great Powers into opposing camps. And so, Sir, the meetings of the Ambassadors have been adjourned primarily because it is essential that the personnel of which they have been composed should have some rest. They have been working for many months. I believe that even all machines, whether a high-speed motor car or slow-driving mill machinery, must have a rest. The meetings of the Ambassadors have been the machinery by which communications between the Great Powers have been interchanged, and their personnel, being human, are not exempt from the law which applies to inanimate machinery. We all need rest. The work of the Foreign Office would have been heavy even with-

  2283
  out the meetings of the Ambassadors. The work entailed on each of the five Embassies would in any case have been exceptionally heavy during the past five months, but the fact that London has been the clearing house, so to say, for the opinions and discussions of the Great. Powers with regard to the Balkan crisis, has, of course, added greatly both to the work of the Foreign Office and the work of the respective Embassies. And so I trust that the Ambassadors are going to take some holidays which are thoroughly due to them, and no doubt they will get some of the refreshing inspiration which they get when making visits to their own countries and coming into personal contact with their own Governments. Personally, I propose to enjoy such leisure as is compatible with the ordinary work of the Foreign Office.
  In the next place, I would like people to realise what it is that the meetings of the Ambassadors were called into existence to do. It has been an axiom of diplomacy for many a year past that if ever war broke out in the Balkans it would be impossible, or almost impossible, to prevent one or more of the Great Powers being dragged into the conflict. Suddenly, last October, we were confronted with that situation which had been regarded as so threatening and ominous to the peace of Europe, and the peace of the Great Powers themselves. Up to the time of the outbreak of that war in October there had been universal expectation that if war took place in the Balkans, the Great Powers, or some of the Great Powers, would be unable to keep out of it, and that, if one or more was brought it, it was impossible to say how many others would be brought in. I ought to say that the Great Powers at once set to work to see if they could not disappoint that gloomy expectation by localising the conflict, at all events, in the Balkans. They saw at once the necessity of keeping in touch with each other with that object. The ordinary method of diplomatic communication by which the Great Powers keep in touch with each other is that of telegrams between the different Capitals. That is a machinery which in the case of six Great Powers requires for its working six 'foreign Ministers and thirty Ambassadors—a personnel of thirty-six in all—necessarily a very cumbrous and slow-moving machine, and the meetings of Ambassadors in London were called into existence
  2284
  then as an emergency expedient by which through a simpler machinery than the ordinary diplomatic methods, the Great Powers might keep more constantly and more quickly in touch with regard to each difficulty as it arose. The object was to localise the war, and we found after surveying the ground that if Constantinople and Asiatic Turkey were not to be brought within the area of the war, and if these questions were not to be raised in the course of the war, then the Great Powers might find themselves in agreement, provided they came to an understanding with each other about Albania and the Ægean Islands. For that purpose we set to work to come to an understanding on these two points, taking Albania and the Ægean Islands as a matter of discussion between the Great Powers, on which it was essential to them to reach an agreement, if they were to keep in touch and friendship with each other, and to localise the war, and in this sense that with regard to the rest, provided Constantinople and Asiatic Turkey and the Straits were not touched, the rest could be fought out among the combatants themselves without interference.
  4.0 P.M.
  That was not the only difficulty that was referred to the Ambassadors in the course of the last few months. As other questions arose they were from time to time brought up for discussion between the Ambassadors, because I think I may claim for that meeting that it became in a short time trusted by all the Powers, to this extent: that it was regarded as an eminently safe place at which to raise questions for discussion, and that if we could not settle things we did not, at any rate, make anything worse which was brought before us. But our main work was to secure agreement between the Great. Powers by dealing with the question of Albania, and in the question of Albania I include that of commercial access to Servia, to the Adriatic and the Ægean Islands. We have at last, after discussing many tedious details, reached an agreement which covers Albania and the Ægean Islands. I will not go into any details about what the actual agreement is. Roughly it is this, that an international commission of control is to be established with regard to Albania, with a gendarmerie under officers selected from one of the smaller neutral Powers, the object being to set up an autonomous State, eventually under a Prince selected by the great Powers. The difficulty of coming to an agreement about particular

  2285
  frontiers has been very great. Everyone will remember how difficult and how critical at some points were the questions raised in connection with the settlement of the north and north-eastern frontiers of Albania. They were settled some time ago. We have now come to an agreement for the delimitation under certain agreed conditions of the southern and south-eastern frontiers of Albania, which will complete the whole frontiers of this State. I am quite aware that when the whole comes to be stated it will be open on many points to a great deal of criticism from anyone with local knowledge who looks at it purely on the merits of the locality itself. It is to be borne in mind that in making that agreement the primary essential was to preserve agreement between the Great Powers themselves, and if the agreement about Albania has secured that it has done the work which is most essential in the interests of the peace of Europe.
  Then there has been the question about the Ægean Islands. There are three points to be borne in mind about the Ægean Islands. In the first place, the bulk of the nationality of these islands is Greek. But there are other considerations than that to be borne in mind. Some of the islands have most important strategic positions; sonic of them command the entrance to the Straits; and the control of the entrance to the Straits is a matter, of course, vitally affecting Turkey and vitally affecting Powers which have a particular interest in seeing that the Straits are kept open. Besides that, some of the islands are exceedingly close to the coast of Asiatic Turkey, and if, as we trust, in future the Turkish authorities with improved government and sound finance are to continue to preserve the integrity of the Turkish Dominions in Asiatic Turkey, then it is essential that none of these islands should be used as a base from which disturbance may be created on the mainland in Asiatic Turkey. All those considerations have to be borne in mind. With regard to the greater part of this scheme we have not felt that British interests—I speak now of the whole of the Albanian and the Ægean Islands question—were so directly concerned as to make it necessary for us to take the leading part in initiating what the decision should be, but with regard to the 2Egean Islands there is one point on which we do feel that, owing to our position in the Mediterranean and to naval considerations, we have a particular interest, and it is this: that no one of these
  2286
  islands should be claimed or retained by one of the Great Powers. If one of these islands passes into the permanent possession of a Great Power it roust raise questions of great importance and great difficulty. The Great Powers themselves feel this and at the beginning of the Conference passed a self-denying ordinance in this sense, that to preserve union amongst them they would none of them take advantage of the conflict still proceeding in the Balkans to claim territory for themselves. We have had a special interest to see that that should hold good with regard to the Ægean Islands and that interest remains. The Ægean Islands have been complicated by the fact that there is a special Treaty of Lausanne between Italy and Turkey, of a date prior to this outbreak, under which Italy is in possession temporarily of certain of these islands until Turkey has fulfilled the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne and withdrawn all Turkish officers and troops from Cyrenaica. The provision of the Treaty of Lausanne has not yet been fulfilled on the part of Turkey and Italy remains in occupation of those particular islands.
  That Treaty is, of course, a matter between Italy and Turkey which the Great Powers would not naturally take into consideration, but they were forced by this war in the Balkans to consider the question of these islands and they could not consider the question of the islands except as a whole. The agreement we have really come to is this. The destiny of these Ægean Islands—all of them including those in the temporary occupation of Italy—is a matter which concerns all the Great Powers, and must be settled eventually by them and no Great Power is to retain one of these islands for itself. Until the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne between Italy and Turkey are completely fulfilled, of course, the final settlement as regards these particular islands in Italian occupation cannot be made, and naturally the question may arise of what is to happen supposing the fulfilment on the part of Turkey of the Treaty of Lausanne with regard to Cyrenaica is indefinitely postponed and the Italian occupation of these islands is therefore indefinitely prolonged. Italy has never allowed us for one moment to doubt that it is her intention to complete that part of that Treaty with regard to these islands and retire from these islands when Turkey has completed her part. We have complete confidence in her good

  2287
  faith. Indeed it would be entirely wrong to suggest for a moment that there was any doubt of her good faith in the matter. We have complete confidence in that. We know that she is pressing Turkey and is anxious to get Turkey to fulfil her part of the Treaty, and therefore the question of what will happen if that is indefinitely delayed is one which need not occupy us at the present moment. The great thing is that the principle should be laid down that the destiny of the Ægean Islands is one which concerns all the Powers, and that no one Great Power can claim one of those islands for itself.
  The matter has been complicated by the Treaty of Lausanne, but the way in which Italy, whose original Treaty has not yet been fulfilled, has been ready to come to a general agreement about these islands which will take effect when that Treaty is fulfilled, I take as evidence of the friendliness of the Italian Government, and as evidence that they are entirely at one with us and the rest of the Powers that the question of the Ægean Islands is a European question to be settled by all the Powers. There is no more on these points of Albania and the 2Egean Islands that could be done by the Powers at the moment, and I think that it ought to be borne in mind that the meetings of Ambassadors have not really been meetings of Plenipotentiary. We have been criticised sometimes for not settling this matter or the other. It has not rested with the meetings of Ambassadors to settle questions. It is true that personally, of course, I go there as a Plenipotentiary in a position to give the assent of the British Government when required, but the Ambassadors themselves are not Plenipotentiaries. They are only ordinary Ambassadors acting under the instructions of their respective Governments, and things were referred to the meeting of Ambassadors for discussion, and it did not rest with the meeting of Ambassadors to settle the questions off-hand at the meeting. Whatever they discussed or recommended had to be referred to their respective Governments for settlement. Whenever I look back on the past few months on certain episodes with regard to the frontier of Albania, and the anxiety and tension which took place as to the way in which difficult corners which had to be turned in a comparatively limited time were successively turned, I think I may claim that as regards the relations between the Great Powers, the
  2288
  meetings of Ambassadors have been of great use at moments of great and urgent crisis in the relations between the Great Powers. But for the facilities which were provided by these meetings here of Ambassadors, some of the agreements which were reached on controversial points might not have been reached at all, or might not have been reached in time.
  On the other hand, there is another side of providing great facilities for discussion between the Great Powers. In times of crisis, urgency, and stress it has been exceedingly useful, but when you come to further points, the very facility with which points can be raised and discussed at such a meeting is apt to multiply the number of points which are raised. When things are very serious everybody subordinates points of minor importance to the discussion of points of greater urgency, and, when things become less serious, the mere fact that it is possible at any moment to have any question brought on for discussion has a tendency to multiply the number of points, and for the time being, while the holidays take place, the Great Powers will, of course, continue the many important questions which remain to be discussed through the ordinary diplomatic channels, which people should remember are still fully available, though what I call the emergency expedient is not for the moment working. I want to say to the House something on the situation of the moment. There are two most serious and difficult questions which the events of the last few weeks have made it necessary for the Powers to consider. There is the effectual settlement of Thrace and the settlement of Macedonia; in other words, the two great questions occupying the minds of the Powers at the present moment, and which must occupy them for some time to come, are the Turkish reoccupation of Thrace and the division of Macedonia under the Treaty of Bucharest. I will take the question of Thrace first. The Turkish Government has disregarded the Treaty which was drawn up in London under the auspices of the Powers, and, as the Prime Minister has said, when the ink was scarcely dry, they disregarded the line fixed by that Treaty, and have reoccupied Thrace and Adrianople. That was a Treaty to which the Great Powers were not actual parties, but which was made under their auspices.

  2289
  Then there was another agreement made under the auspices of the Great Powers, an agreement between Roumania, and Bulgaria, which was made at St. Petersburg. That also has been disregarded. More distressing than any of these events, or at least as distressing, has been the fact that, as the Prime Minister said in the same speech, Macedonia has been drenched with blood by war between those who were lately allies, joined in an alliance cemented by bloodshed in a common cause, and who have in the last few weeks turned upon each other and been engaged in a war between themselves, accompanied by most terrible circumstances. I find it impossible, in looking at the situation of the last few weeks, to select a high, ethical, and moral standard, and single out one particular Power from the rest for judgment. Every State connected with the war in the Balkans in the last few weeks has, it seems to me, with a disregard of Treaties, agreements, or alliances, set itself in its own way to take advantage, or attempt to take advantage, of the situation, and I do not see that any good purpose would be served either to British interests, or that it would be in the interests of ordinary fairness, that we should select any one particular State among these and head the hue and cry against it for having disregarded the Treaties. One satisfaction there is, at any rate, and that is that peace, or at least, the cessation of hostilities has now taken place, and that peace is apparently assured by the fact that demobilisation is being pursued. That, at any rate, is some relief. Now with regard to the question of Thrace and Adrianople. The Powers made a representation at Constantinople that, roughly, that the Enos-Media Line laid down by the Treaty signed in London ought to be respected, but that in requiring the Turkish respect to that they were willing to take into consideration any points that Turkey regarded as absolutely indispensable for the defence of Constantinople and her frontier.
  Some of the best military opinion is that, from the strategic point of view alone, the occupation of Adrianople by Turkey would be a great mistake. I agree, and I think all the Powers agree, that the object of the Treaty of London was to give the Turks a good frontier by which they could defend Constantinople. A good frontier can be given on the lines of the
  2290
  Treaty of London; but the retention of Thrace and of Adrianople would, in some of the best opinion, be an extra burden on the finances of Turkey in time of peace, and a positive source of weakness to Turkey in time of war. The Great Powers have a right to expect that their advice and wishes on this question should be regarded. The Enos-Media Line might never have existed, but for the knowledge that on the part of one or more of the Great Powers there would have been intervention had the question of Constantinople or the straits been raised during the war between Turkey and the Balkan Allies; that is to say, had the Balkan Allies pressed their success at one point so far as to raise, not the question of the Enos-Media Line, but the question of Constantinople, one or more of the Great Powers might have intervened; that is to say, but for the fact that the Great Powers had an interest in this question, the question of the Turkish frontier might not have been so favourable to Turkey even as the Enos-Media Line. If it is due directly or indirectly to the influence of the Great Powers that the terms of the Treaty of London stopped short of the Enos-Media Line, and did not go beyond it, then the Great Powers are entitled to make their wishes known, and to give their advice at Constantinople when it comes to be a question of settling the Turkish frontier now. Our policy towards Turkey is that which I have stated in the House before, of consolidating and securing Turkish authority and Turkish integrity in her dominions in Asiatic Turkey, and in the territory left to her behind the Enos-Media Line — that policy which depends upon reforms in Asiatic Turkey, which depends on sound finance if it is to be successful, the establishment of justice, order, and good government in the Turkish dominions.
  The real danger to Turkey is not from external attack, but from internal disorders and internal weakness. The policy which we wish to pursue is one which for its success depends on the consent and goodwill of the other European Powers. It is idle to suppose that we alone, by lending British officers to Turkey, or giving assistance of that kind, can make a success of that policy. Asiatic Turkey interests so many of the Powers, and interests them so importantly, that whatever is to be done there must be done with the consent of all. We have expressed our opinion with regard to the assistance that should be

  2291
  given to Turkey in the form of sound finance by being constantly of opinion that Turkey should not have placed upon her, as a consequence of this war, an indemnity which would cripple her finances and make the re-establishment of her authority difficult or impossible. We are anxious to see that she should have a good strategic frontier for Constantinople. That, we believe, is the true policy and true interest of Turkey, but it needs the goodwill of all the Powers. That goodwill cannot be obtained unless the advice of the Powers is taken with respect to Adrianople and Thrace. It is not for us to use the language of threats, unless we are ourselves contemplating separate coercive measures, and I use no such language, but, if Turkey does not accept the advice of the Powers, it will from the beginning paralyse any policy dependent on their goodwill, and sooner or later, whether it be by financial distress or whether it be by armed intervention on the part of one or more of the Powers, the disregard of their advice about Adrianople will, I am sure, bring on the Turkish Government disastrous consequences from which we cannot protect them.
  I believe it would be a most disastrous mistake if Turkey in this matter did not take the advice of the Powers. I believe—in fact, I know—that if she is prepared to take the advice of the Powers, they will be prepared to put before her a satisfactory proposition for a good strategic frontier, and for assistance in carrying out the policy which I have indicated as the policy in which we wish to join, and as the policy we wish to see pursued. But the difficulty about Adrianople and about Thrace may wreck the whole prospect of that. That is why I speak, I trust, in sufficiently clear language, not the language of menace, and not in any but the language of frankness. I am speaking from what we believe to be the true interests of Turkey itself. I should like to go a little further on this point, and the point of our relations with Mahomedan Powers generally, and to say this: No Minister of the Crown can speak on these matters without remembering that the King has many millions of Mahomedan subjects. What responsibility does that entail? I wish there to be a clear understanding as to what that responsibility is. For one thing, and one thing only, have we absolute and entire responsibility, and that is for seeing that inside the British Dominions the racial sentiments and
  2292
  religious feelings of these Mahomedan subjects are respected and have full scope. That is the only thing for which we have complete and entire responsibility. That duty we will fulfil, and we do fulfil absolutely. I think we may go further, and rightly claim that in deference to the susceptibilities of any great section of subjects of the Crown our policy should never be one of intolerance or wanton or unprovoked aggression against a Mussulman Power. That, I think, we are entitled to claim. But we cannot undertake the duty of protecting Mussulman Powers outside the British Dominions from the consequences of their own action. Where there be any question of real outrage on Mahomedan feeling and sentiment in any part of the world, that we will make clear is not a thing in which we can join, and there might even be circumstances in which, say, if a pilgrimage to Holy places was interfered with, or things of that sort, we might say it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of vast subjects of the Crown, that we should see that outrage was not done to our people. But to suppose that we can undertake the protection of and are bound to regulate our European policy so as to side with the Mussulman Power when that Mussulman Power rejects the advice given to it, that is not a claim which we can admit.
  I pass from that to the other question of the Treaty of Bucharest—the treatment of Macedonia. I think it is desirable that if there be interference with the Treaty of Bucharest it should be the minimum of interference, and that that Treaty should be regarded as valid, subject. to modification on any particular points which each individual Great Power whose interests they may consider are more closely affected than ours wished to make. I do not for a moment and I do not think anybody disputes the right of any of the Great Powers to select a point or points in that Treaty of Bucharest and to say that it requires modification in their opinion, and that, therefore, it must be discussed. But, it ought to be borne in mind, if revision is suggested on any one point of that Treaty of Bucharest by one Power, it is probable some other Power will suggest revision on another, and it is quite clear that it is futile to suggest modification of the Treaty of Bucharest with the temper of those who have made that Treaty unless the Powers which propose that modification should be made are prepared to assert their will by

  2293
  force. And so I say, with regard to the Treaty of Bucharest, we are prepared to acquiesce in whatever decision will secure the assent of the Great Powers, but we do not ourselves propose to suggest any point of modification or to take any initiative in suggesting modification. I think with regard to Macedonia and with regard to Thrace the Powers probably would require more time to examine the whole situation created by the Turkish reoccupation of Thrace and by the Treaty of Bucharest to decide finally what demands they have to make or what steps they desire to take. There are one or two recent events one cannot pass over in silence. I suppose seldom has Europe witnessed a more distressing spectacle than the events, the progressive events, of the months since the war began. It began as a war of liberation, it became rapidly a war of conquest, and it has ended, if all the stories are true and all the charges are true which the different States engaged in the war bring against each other, in being a war of extermination.
  I do not say that all the charges the different States have made, whether they be charges made against Turkey or made against Bulgaria, or made against Greece, or made against any of the others, are true. I have no doubt there has been considerable exaggeration, but I fear that we cannot say, if the whole truth were known, that all the charges are wholly unfounded against any of them. Anyhow, it is distressing enough that people who were lately Allies engaged in a common cause should be engaged not only in fighting each other, but in circulating against each other the most terrible accounts about outrages committed upon one nationality by another. The conflagration, I think, has nearly burned itself out, because everything consumable has been consumed; but what of the future? I think anyone who dwells on the awful passions and ferocity might well argue nothing good could come. All we can trust is that out of suffering will come the serious mind, and that to every one of these States comes the chance, after this time of carnage is over, to profit by experience and by new opportunities, and that time will show what qualities of character and growth there are in those different nationalities which may secure for them their respective places in the world. We cannot judge of the present without remembering the past. It is during the last few months
  2294
  that the pent-up passions and hatreds of generations have been let loose, as anyone who has read day by day the accounts in the Press knows. These things have happened in history before, and, while there is not much to make one optimistic, there is a great deal in the knowledge of history to prevent one being completely pessimistic. Although I think it is impossible not to comment on the distressing aspects of the situation, and impossible not to be apprehensive as to what the future may have in store for this country which has been the arena of conflict, one hopes that, at any rate, the awful experiences through which they have all been will have done something to deepen their character and produce the serious mind.
  The Concert of Europe, I suppose, is criticised because it has not prevented these things happening. I am afraid the Concert of Europe is not very sensitive to criticism. Lord Salisbury compared it once to a steam-roller, and a steam-roller never gives one the impression of being very sensitive to criticism. But it ought to be borne in mind that the Concert of Europe set itself to one object, and that was, to localise the war, and on the whole, I think, the Concert of Europe has been wise in setting itself that object and not going beyond that object. To attempt more might have been to endanger the whole Concert. It is easy enough to talk about the great strength of the European Powers, and how they could make their will respected if they chose to do so. Of course, they could do what is possible by naval demonstration when such things are likely to be of use but if the Powers were to have intervened effectively in recent events, they would have had to use troops; they would have had to land those troops, and march them to shoot at the risk of being shot. In your own country's quarrel you do those things but it is exceedingly difficult to get the Powers of Europe, or any of them, to vote money and to use its troops in any cause except one which it feels the interests of its own country absolutely requires. The question of going to war in order to impose peace is always a very doubtful question, but I would not have it supposed because the Powers have not used force, and have not intervened by force, that under no circumstances will any one of them do so. I think if intervention comes by force it will probably not be by the Concert of Europe, and it will probably not be by the Concert of Europe giving a mandate to one of its members, but it may

  2295
  be that one of the Great Powers or another may be so provoked that it may take matters into its own hands in its own interest, and the others may deem the provocation is such as to justify its action. Under certain circumstances that might become a very real contingency. I do not think it is one which I contemplate as coming home specially to us; but I do think that those States, whether it be Turkey or the Balkan States, must not count upon the fact that the abstinence of the Great Powers from intervention by force during the last few months means that under all circumstances no one of the Great Powers would intervene if sufficient provocation is given.
  I thought it right to make some statement to the House about Foreign Affairs before the Session ends. We are not committed in this country to any new engagement. Where British interests are threatened or primarily affected, of course statements ought to be frequently made. Over the bulk of these matters British interests have not been directly affected, or not so much affected as those of some other Powers. In one instance, that of the Ægean Islands, where I think our interests may be directly affected, I have explained the position explicitly this afternoon. It is always difficult to make these statements on questions of this kind when we know the susceptibilities of some of those interested in this Balkan question and who are more directly affected than we are, and more keenly alive than ourselves, and it is very difficult to survey the ground from time to time without feeling that it is impossible to speak with a freedom which might not be agreeable to other Powers which are more closely engaged. But I would like to recognise whenever the Prime Minister or I had occasion to speak through this Balkan crisis, the Press of other countries has shown goodwill towards anything we have had to say, and we have every reason to be grateful. The amount of good that any one country can do in promoting the peace of Europe, depends very largely upon the credit which it has for good intentions. If it has credit fur good intentions, it may say a great deal, and if it has not that credit, even the wisest and most carefully guarded words may do more harm than good. I do gratefully acknowledge in all criticisms which I have seen upon the action of the British Government, or utterances made
  2296
  on behalf of the British Government, we have had in other countries during this crisis, credit for being animated by good intentions. That credit, I trust, we may continue to deserve, and the House may be assured that if there is a question of British interests being directly affected, or this country being committed to engagements, we will take the House into our confidence, and the House may rest assured we will continue to work as closely as possible with other Powers in the interests of common peace, which is our great object to secure.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman concluded by pointing out how difficult it is in cases where other Powers have interests more close than ours for him to make a statement with regard to it. I feel it is necessary for me to say a few words after the speech to which we have just listened, and I shall try to avoid saying anything that could by any possibility do any harm to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out. He spoke of what has been happening in the Balkans, and the view which he expressed about it is, I am sure, the view of everyone who heard him. It is less than a year since the war broke out there, and during that time the events which have happened are indeed remarkable. The Allies in the war against Turkey succeeded with a rapidity and a completeness which, I think, surprised all the Chancelleries of Europe. In that war the Allies displayed qualities of courage, discipline, organisation, and national sentiment, which won universal admiration, and I think I am not wrong in saying that the world, which is not unmindful of the debt which it owes to Greece for the past, was not sorry to see the part which the Hellenic Kingdom played in these events. But what has happened since is, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, a very different thing. The Allies have turned their swords against each other. The Balkan Peninsula has always been a cockpit of war — I suppose there is no part of the world where war has been more almost universal—yet. I do not think that in the whole history of that region there has ever been a war which seems so deplorable as that which has just come to a close. The amount of suffering, misery, and loss of life is probably greater than was caused in the war against Turkey, and the nature of that suffering will probably never be known. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the great Powers had to look on, and with the best

  2297
  intentions were unable in any way to prevent what was going on. It is easy to sneer at the powerlessness of those Great Powers, but I am not inclined to join in that sneer. When we remember how great the difficulties were, and how different were the interests of the Powers which were more closely affected than we were—differences both of interest and sympathy—I think it is difficult to imagine in what way they could have interfered without running the risk of a calamity greater even than that which occurred. At all events, we have this to be thankful for, that the Powers succeeded in limiting the area of conflagration and preventing a European war, which would have been the most appalling calamity that anyone can conceive. For that result I think the action of the right hon. Gentleman deserves some credit. That calamity has been avoided.
  Apart from the action of individual Powers, two considerations emerge which give us hope for the future. One of those is—at least it seems so to me—that the grouping of the Great Powers in alliances, while not a guarantee of peace, does tend in the direction of peace. I think it is evident to everyone that when each Power that is interested, and would like to intervene, knows that it must carry with it the other Powers with whom it acts, action is likely to be more deliberate, and in that way there is a greater probability that the peace will not be broken. The other fact which emerges is that it is evident that no Great Power desires war; for during the past year there have been many opportunities for it, and, if they had desired it, nothing would have been easier than to bring it about. I think, therefore, we may be confident that all of them feel as strongly as we do and I cannot put it higher than that—that our main interest is to preserve the peace of Europe. In all that has happened the right hon. Gentleman has played not only a, part, but I think in this case almost a leading part. It was at his suggestion, I think, that the Conference of Ambassadors to which he has alluded was arranged, and while it has been very useful in dealing with the specific subject to which he referred, it was probably more useful in keeping the Powers in touch with each other and preventing any outbreak of special animosity or special feeling. In playing that part the right hon. Gentleman had two great advantages, to one of which he has referred. I think he will agree with rile that there never has been a Foreign
  2298
  Secretary who was less hampered in a critical time by what happened at home. I am not speaking merely of our party. On the whole, I think the support which lie has received from his country has been almost greater than has ever fallen to any Foreign Secretary in the past. The result of that has been that he has been able to speak always, and the world knew that he spoke, not for one party, but for the British nation, and that power has added emphasis to everything he has tried to do.
  The other advantage is one to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and I think it has been even greater than the other, namely, that in the events which were happening we had no selfish interests of any kind. Even the matter of the Ægean Islands, to Which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, was only of interest to us in our desire to preserve the peace of the world. We had no selfish interests, and the world recognised that we had no selfish interest, and our disinterestedness gave us a weight which could not have been enjoyed by any Power more directly concerned in what was happening. In addition to that, I must say that, from all that I have heard, the. personality and the reputation for straightforwardness and candour which the right hon. Gentleman enjoys enabled him to snake use to the utmost of the advantages to which I have referred. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the machinery needing a rest. I can assure him that everyone who has watched these events closely has felt how great must have been the strain which was borne by him. It was not only that the circumstances were difficult, but the strain was so long continued. When one difficulty was got out of the way Another more menacing arose in its place. I am sure that everyone is delighted that the machinery has a chance of resting, and no one will enjoy a holiday with more goodwill from the whole House of Commons than the right hon. Gentleman. I think we have reason to congratulate him and the country on the statement which he has been able to make to-day. It is a great thing that the Albanian difficulty has been got out of the way. If the Great Powers have agreed upon it, however much room there may be for criticism, it may be considered that the difficulty is in the main removed. That is a great thing. We all know that difficulties still remain. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one of them, the most

  2299
  important, and that is the present position of Turkey. I have great hesitation in saying anything about that, but. I feel bound to say that with every word which he said, so far as I understand the situation, I entirely agree. I think nothing can be more unreasonable than to have taken up the attitude which I see in some quarters that Turkey is breaking the 'Treaty of London, and that she ought to be coerced to obey. That can hardly be said when all the Powers are practically in the same position of neglecting obligations under which they have come.
  But that does not alter the real facts of the situation. It is true that we have an immense number of Mussulman subjects, and certainly nothing would be worse than that they should have any idea that because of religion there was to be one measure meted out to Turkey and another to the Christian populations. Such a position could never be taken up by any British statesman. I think it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the best hope for Turkey now, after what has happened, is in the consolidation of the great heritage which still remains to her, and I agree with him also in thinking that that consolidation can only take place with the good will of the other Powers as well as ourselves. For that good will it is necessary that. Turkey should at least pay some regard to the wish of the Great Powers of Europe. I am sure that if the Turkish Government seriously and earnestly deal with what is left of their Empire, they will find that it has been not weakened but strengthened by what has happened, and that there is still room for what is certainly the interest of Turkey, of Great Britain, and, I believe, of all the Great Powers, namely, that Turkey should still continue to exist in a solid and substantial set of circumstances. I have nothing more to say, except that the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated, and I am sure the whole House congratulates him on the way in which, so far, he has emerged from difficulties as threatening as were ever faced by the Great Powers of Europe. We congratulate him on his success up till now. We can at least feel sure that the greatest of all the dangers which we feared, the danger of a European war is gone, and we cannot but believe that the success which has attended him as far as the rest of Europe is concerned, will continue until all these matters have been satisfactorily settled.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: It is no mere commonplace to congratulate my right hon. Friend at this stage of a crisis which has now lasted for nearly a year on the prestige that has accrued to this country in the councils of the world, and on the peace which has been secured in spite of fears which have lasted for so long. I would like to add my congratulations on matters which seem to me even more real than those. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the corner has been turned, and that a. very stiff fence has been got over, in spite of the danger which there was cause to fear on account of the tradition so long prevalent in regard to Austria's ambition in the Balkans—the tradition that Austria intended to go to Salonika, which, after all, she has waived. Upon the fact that that fence has been surmounted my right hon. Friend is entitled to much congratulation. But there is a more positive ground upon which I would put my congratulations, and that is that at the end of this crisis the grouping of Europe is a subject of far more congratulation than it was at the beginning. The division into groups has largely gone. You have this significant illustration, that Russia is not divided from Austria on the immediate question of the moment, but is closely associated with her, and that the two Powers notably associated on the difficult point of an Ægean port are Germany and France themselves—associated in friendship instead of being divided by sundering difficulties. If it is particularly appropriate that this subject should be debated in this House, it is because my right hon. Friend has made this country prominent amongst the Great Powers who have taken action in connection with the Balkan war. My right hon. Friend said not long ago that there was no reason why announcements should be made here more often than in other Parliaments. The fact that they have been made here rather more often than in other Parliaments is a measure of the importance and of the success of my right hon. Friend's policy, and a measure of the congratulations due to him. We have seen during the last few months a very extraordinary and curious episode, in which certain small nations hitherto hardly known in the world at all have suddenly leapt into prominence and into a very considerable popularity because of their fighting feats and their military capacity, hitherto unsuspected except to military

  2301
  students of military strategy and military statistics. During the last few months, too, we have seen this country, which blew so hot last autumn, blowing cold again towards those small nations, and to the interests of the Balkan races. Interest was easily aroused by the success in fighting. We have seen a very chilling attitude because of the reports of outrages and atrocities—exaggerated, as my right hon. Friend has said they are. There is great disappointment, I think, prevalent in the public mind. That disappointment I only allude to because those of us who know the Balkans very well cannot but feel that that disappointment is largely ignorant disappointment. What has happened is not so vastly different to what was expected and what was bound to happen. Perhaps the greatest authority upon the Balkan Peninsula is the well-known correspondent of the "Times." He has held from the beginning that the differences between the Balkan States were of such a fundamental and well-grounded kind that there could not but be a very serious strain upon their relations and that there must be war unless the Great Powers intervened to prevent it. I am not saying they could have prevented it. But you must not judge the Balkan States as if they were so vastly different from the great European States. What they have done has been based upon causes for war very much greater than the comparatively slight causes which have often led to war between the Great Powers.
  We have now a period when some violent feelings have arisen between the different sections and the advocates of the different nations in the Balkans. My hon. Friend whom I see on the other side proclaims justice for Albania. Another sets forth to proclaim the rights of Turkey. Another stands forward for the Greeks. For my part, I would say that it is better o to avoid in these matters sentiment, nationalist or personal, which naturally leads us to prefer one nation or the other. Had not we better remember that what we are really discussing, and perhaps differing about, is the question which Government is the best Government for the unfortunate population composing the populations of the Balkans, who have themselves been the unhappy victims of this fighting, and not the cause of it? Having no animus against any of the nations, certainly not against the Turks, and having perhaps among even then as many keen personal
  2302
  friends as any hon. Member who may take a specially pro-Turkish view, I would like to appeal for the application now of pure reason to this question of the future of the Balkans, and to test the policy which should be pursued simply by this—a somewhat mechanical test, if you like—Is it a policy which will lead to the most happiness of the largest number of human lives, the greatest amount of trade, the greatest prosperity, and the greatest economic development in that part of the world? Certainly for those of us who know the Balkans as amateurs, who have gone there to study the question what it was like, it is not for us to parade our knowledge of high politics or diplomatic facts. If we are of any use it is because we know sometimes even more than the diplomats what are the local traditions. There are, fortunately, in this House many men on both sides familiar with the Balkans and with Asiatic Turkey—men who have travelled there. If the Balkan Committee, so often quoted, and, if I may say so, misquoted, is of any use, it is because it has got together a good many men who know the Balkans intimately from travelling there. I submit that what we can most usefully do is to bring to the public notice, and to the notice of the Foreign Office too, the opinions of men like Sir Arthur Evans, the archeologist, who, from his innumerable journeys in the Balkans and his knowledge of the dialects of the different districts, knows extremely well what are the wishes of the inhabitants with regard to future government. There is also Mr. James Bryce and Sir Edwin Pears, the leader of the Consular party in Constantinople. These know the situation. The Balkans are better known in this country than in almost any of the great States of Europe. It is a somewhat singular fact that owing to our past action in that part of the world, the interest that English people take in relief funds and so on, that there are actually, I think, many more independent travellers, including many Members of this House on both sides who know Turkey than you will find in Vienna, or Paris, and certainly Berlin.
  Of the three points which are of special interest at this juncture, one and not the least important which I would like to say a. word or two about is the matter of the relief work which interests so many hon. Members of this House. May I thank my right hon. Friend very sincerely for the interest he

  2303
  has taken in this relief work. It. is through the permission of the Foreign Office that several of the Consuls have taken part in it. This work is not at all without value from the point of view of the information gained by the Foreign Office; but incidentally it, is of very great value in the cause of saving life among these unfortunate people. One I would like particularly to mention whom I did not know before, and scarcely know personally now, is Mr. Wilkie Young, of the Consular staff at Philippopolis. I hope he has not overworked himself in the service of the Relief Fund during the last winter, but he certainly, through his work, has made a difference to many many hundreds, if not thousands of human lives, who would have perished but for the assistance of the Foreign Office, given in that way. I submit it is only fitting that the English Foreign Office should help in this way, because we have historically and otherwise a duty to these countries and to these people. It is not denied—indeed you may read it in the most pro-Turkish papers, like, for instance, the "Morning Post," that we should have done better to have left the Treaty of San Stefano alone. Granting all that, on which there is now no difference of opinion, we have a great duty to that part of the world. We have also the tradition of impartiality and benefaction, very suitably applied to the Balkans. The English public, as distinguished from the English Government, has done extremely well in this matter, and I think it deserves a word of commendation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told the House the other day that something like £100,000 had been subscribed in this country for the relief of the refugees in the Balkans. The English Government, as a rule, is hampered by the necessity of working with the other members of the Concert. In regard to this matter of charity, which it can assist through the Consuls, it is very fitting that it should be generous. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also told the House the other day that conditions might arise in which the British Government would take part in the actual giving of money. I hope that those circumstances may not be as far off as appears at the moment. There is this fact, which is not known in regard to help of this kind, and which cannot be known to those who have not travelled there, that the Consuls in that part of the world have not the same mainly com-
  2304
  mercial functions as Consuls of the ordinary kind. The Levant Service is as muck political as commercial. For instance, eight and six years ago the Consuls in Macedonia engaged in the melancholy task of compiling statistics of murder. It is only natural that, closely associated with their work, they should be given the charge of relief operations when crises occur. I would urge upon my right hon. Friend that the utmost use should be made of the Consuls. The test of all is the actual saving of as much human life and' preventing as much human misery as possible. Some of the members of the Consular staff have gained high honour in this connection, and nothing could be more appropriate. For instance I should mention Major Doughty Wylie, who was wounded in the massacres at Adana. Because of the magnificent work which some of these gentlemen did they should have the honour which justly belongs to them.
  May I say a word on the question of the settlement between the Allies which has taken such a strange form after all that appeared likely three months ago? There are three principles which, among all the principles which have to be applied to arriving at a settlement, may be urged by those who know the Balkans as of particular importance. Firstly, there is the consent of the governed themselves. If there is peace in view and permanence is desired, if the people themselves are to be considered at all, then it is very important to know what are the wishes of those people. It. is not denied that the population of Central Macedonia as distinct from those of the Coast, is, by the Treaty of Bucharest, coming under Governments which are alien to it, and which will be repugnant to it. I wish I could bring to the mind of the House what this actually means. Seven years ago I was travelling near Monastir—my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the o Treasury may remember the occasion. In a village on the edge of the plain we found ourselves in a district where, under the protection of the Turkish Government in those melancholy times, Greek bands had been allowed to force the population to call themselves Greek. Those people were Bulgarians. They could not, speak a word of Greek. In the little village school, a tiled building, with a mud floor, rather larger than the majority of the peasant houses, perhaps thirty children were sitting on very rude benches. They were sitting in a melancholy manner before their

  2305
  Greek books and learning, or professing to learn, from a Greek teacher and being made into little Greeks. The Bulgarian priest meanwhile had gone. The Greek priest had come. The notables of the village had gone. Those who were rich enough to move had gone away. The place was being forcibly made into something which it did not want to be. You had there a microcosm of what will obtain all over this enormous district of Bulgarian Macedonia, which will now by the Treaty of Bucharest find itself under an alien Government. Economically there is, of course, another argument for these people to refuse such a settlement. We have seen the Treaty of Bucharest in regard to the port of Kavala. I suppose my right lion Friend would not deny that it is very probable that the Bulgarian people, if they are to be progressive and economically developed, should have some port on the Ægean, and the only port which is possible for Bulgaria proper is Kavala. It has been placed in the very corner, and a narrow corner, of the new frontiers of the Greeks, and there is no hinterland which is Greek at all—the Bulgarian frontier coming immediately behind it. The district beyond will be drawn away by very expensive railways to the cast. That will be wasteful to the world. This is one of the greatest tobacco districts in the world. The tobacco goes over to Egypt to be made into Egyptian tobacco. It goes through the port of Kavala. But now you will have, as the Treaty stands, the extremely uneconomic influence of a particularly good port with no hinterland, and you will have a hinterland from which all the trade is drawn away to another port. No one can say that that is likely to last or to be of advantage to the world. Not only is the port of Kavala, taken away, but there is not even a port for Eastern Bulgaria, because there is no access to Dedeagach while Turkey holds Adrianople. I submit that from the point of view of the Concert and from the point of view of the permanence of peace there is practically no chance at all that the Bulgarian State will acquiesce in contemplating such a frontier between itself and a port which is, above all, of importance to Bulgaria. It is not at all impossible that the best friends of Greece are disappointed that some pressure should not be put upon her by the Concert's 'representatives in this respect. It is always impossible for a State to make concessions of territory,
  2306
  and it is the last thing to which reasonable argument can be applied. The last Bulgarian war probably broke out in defiance of the wishes of the chief men in the Allied States, and in spite of such men as M. Venizelos and in obedience to the noisy elements in their country and the military influence. These particular elements made it impossible for M. Venizelos and the leading statesmen of Greece to prevent the war, and they would not be unthankful if there was some pressure put upon them so as to save their face and make the danger of war remote in the future. But from the point of view of the Concert, to put it upon the plainest ground of self-interest, we know what the menace has been in the Balkans for years. The Concert wishes to put an end to that for the future. If the Treaty stands as it is, that certainly cannot be looked for for long.
  There remains the question of the invasion of Thrace, to which my right hon. Friend referred, and may I say I am very glad of the way in which he did refer to it? It is really the chief question before the Concert now. There were various arguments Used in connection with the queston of compelling respect to the Treaty of London. There is the question to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, the mere fact that the Treaty exists; but the prestige of the Concert is more important, and the fact that Bulgaria is cut off from the Ægean is another important fact. There is divergence of opinion upon the question because of the campaign of out rage, the campaign of calumny as it largely has been, which has been made a reproach against, the Balkan States, and particularly against Bulgaria. My right hon. Friend nut it mildly when he said that exaggeration is familiar in the Balkans. Anyone familiar with the Near East and the Levant will take statements in regard to these matters as not having exactly the same meaning as they convey in English. My hon. Friends opposite will support me in this familiar fact. Probably 80 per cent, of these statements may be true, and there has been, at all events, a most deplorable breakdown of human nature, as is bound to occur amongst populations long kept under savage conditions, prevented from advancing in education, and compelled to resort to mere violence in contrast with the use of reason or constitutional agitation in any form. It has been bad enough even at the smallest, but it is not fair that

  2307
  our condemnation should be visited upon these people because in this case, at the end of a war in which there were Allies, they should find that their natural difficulties, with their populations overlapping, excited war amongst themselves.
  There has been an outburst of horror against Christian nations fighting between themselves; but are we not perfectly familiar with war between Christian nations? Is that argument used when there is a question of war between ourselves and other nations? Is it not hypocritical to find so much fault with these people, not different from ourselves, who are of European stock and having the germs of progress, because they go to war with each other? What is essential is that on the very first opportunity of advancing their own affairs, they have advanced very quickly, and the marvellous thing is that they have always established order and that massacre has never been found under the Government of one of these smaller peoples when they are allowed their own way. There is ground for the hope of my right hon. Friend that there is very much brighter period in store for those peoples. These outrages are nasty and we would gladly ignore them, but I do hold that the question of outrages in connection with the nature of government is very fundamental to the question that my right hon. Friend has dealt with. The really final test that ought to be applied in all these things is this: What is the form of government which leads to the most order and happiness and prosperity? I cannot help coming to the conclusion—and I wish hon. Members who differ from me would persuade me otherwise—that the Turkish Government has been in the past, and we see no reason to think that it will be any different now—whether it is due to the character of the Turks or not—a Government which has led to disorders which do not occur under other Governments. And the ruin is not only economic; it is a ruin of property and lives, and the ruin of the honour of women, which we do not find, as a matter of fact, under any other Government. I challenge those who differ from me to give me a single case where under a Government which has been liberated from Turkish rule there have been in times of peace massacres and gross disorders comparable to what historically happened time and again under Turkey. What seems to me most
  2308
  melancholy is, in addition to massacres, the constant demoralisation of the population which lives under Turkish Government.
  We are absorbed in high political ideas and the glamour surrounding this business of the Concert's work, but we want to, recall our minds to what is really the most important factor — welfare in the homes of the people. Those of us who are familiar with these things—and I was familiar with them during the war—know that many Greek families who live in Thrace came under the Bulgarian Government. I wish to bring home to the minds of hon. Members the actual personal life of those people whose fate is in question There you have a highly educated Greek population. Their houses were requisitioned by the Bulgarian military authorities. You had there such of the population as had not fled; you had the old and the young, and you had there girls in schools who could well take their place in European circles, and who would not be distinguished from other people in London drawing-rooms, living in good order and personal security. Under the Turkish Government they had actually found it impossible even to move about with security and freedom in the towns in which they lived. What has happened since the Turks' return? There has been within the last fortnight, as we know from official and unofficial authority, most disastrous and quite cold-blooded massacres of these people. These are things which do not occur under so-called Christian government of the Balkans, and I challenge those who take the Turkish view to give any instance where there has been massacre in times of peace among the liberated States. After all, there is a question long settled in English opinion. Before the English Government began to take the Turkish side, before Pitt became convinced that in the interests of India we must take the side of Turkey, Burke had laid down, what nobody denied, that the Turkish Government in the Near East did not provide a decent existence for those who differed in faith from the Turks. I think probably the whole House is very glad that my right hon. Friend spoke with no uncertain voice as to what was the intention of the Powers with regard to the Enos-Media Frontier. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the responsibility of the Concert in a very interesting way. He said the Powers were entitled to give advice to.

  2309
  Turkey upon this point because they had saved her from a much more unfavourable frontier. I think that was putting it in a humorously mild way—to give her advice is certainly a very cautious expression—but may I put it in another way? If the Powers have saved her from a worse frontier it is due to the Powers that the Allies had a worse frontier than they would have had if they had remained in their impregnable position opposite the Chatalja lines, and there comes in the moral responsibility of the Powers to see that Thrace does not return under a Turkish Government.
  There are various objections constantly and rightly made to coercion. As a rule there is the difficulty that there is division among the Concert, but in this case the two Powers most likely to be divided, Austria and Russia, are the two most closely and immediately concerned in seeing that Thrace is not restored to Turkey. There is the greatest difficulty, again, in applying coercion when there is no one Power keen upon it, but here you have two Powers anxious for it. Another objection is that there is no convenient physical means of exercising coercion. That also is absent in this case. These are, of course, high matters of policy which unofficial persons cannot know much about, but the House will welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend that there will be coercion if suasion is not enough. What the House will look at is the prestige of my right hon. Friend and the success which has resulted from his work in helping to bring this long crisis to an end. There will be a general sense of dissatisfaction and disappointment if the edifice is not completed, and if, after all, there is to be an upsetting of the wishes of the Concert, and more trouble in Armenia, because that will mean a failure in the work of my right hon. Friend which looked like being attended with such magnificent success. It is a general question between a belief in order and a sentimental preference for a picturesque anarchy. My right hon. Friend's reputation and prestige has been built up on the basis of a general public opinion that Turkey, at all events in Europe, has been a nuisance to Europe, and there has been general satisfaction at her disappearance from Europe. No wonder my right hon. Friend spoke lately of the desirability of the Great Powers acting together as a police force. By sanctioning the Treaty of London they
  2310
  have played that part, and have enabled the course of events to lead up to a situation which was likely to mean peace and good order in the future. A final chance of correcting the mistakes of the past has occurred through the Balkan War, and, above all, we may congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that he has helped more than any other man to secure the saving of an enormous amount of human life. He has laid the foundation for a growing prosperity in the future, and has secured a great economic and moral, step in the progress of Europe.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I wish to make a few observations upon that part of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair's statement which dealt with Turkey and the situation in Thrace, and more particularly from the point of view of our Mahomedan fellow subjects in India, from whom I have received a number of communications. For these reasons I wish to represent their case to the House this afternoon. It is well known that there has been grave unrest in the Mahomedan world for some years past, for they have seen their territories encroached upon both in Asia and in Turkey. They have seen Persia divided as to the greater part of her territory into spheres of influence between Russia and England. They have seen Morocco occupied by the French, and they have seen Tripoli annexed by the Italians. Undoubtedly there is a very uneasy feeling amongst our Mahomedan subjects that they are gradually to be shorn by the nations of Europe of all their power and territory and be reduced merely to a religious community. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel that that is not a matter which the British Government ought to do anything to encourage. There have been serious Mahomedan riots in India lately, arising ostensibly for other reasons, but undoubtedly having at the back of them this feeling of unrest on account of Christian oppression. We have seen in India a remarkable approximation of the policy on the part of the Mahomedans of the National Congress and a tendency on their part to join in the demand for self-government in India. That, undoubtedly, proceeds from the same source, namely, the desire to obtain compensation in India for the losses which the Mahomedans have sustained elsewhere. Coming on the ton of all this we have the struggle in the Balkans. It may be right or it may be wrong, but, undoubtedly,

  2311
  there is a feeling amongst Mahomedans in India that our Government and a certain section of the public in this country have not shown impartiality towards the Ottoman Empire. Let me recall to the House the first step of great importance which our Government took in October last on o the very eve of hostilities. Declarations were made by the Foreign Secretary in this House and by Lord Crewe to the effect that whatever the outcome might be of those hostilities, in no case would the Powers permit any alteration in the status quo. Then followed the events of the latter part of October, and only a month later we had the Prime Minister's declaration at the Guildhall on 9th November, when he told the country that—
  "things would never again be as they were before in Turkey, that the map of Eastern Europe has to he recast, and I believe the general feeling of Europe to he unanimous that the victors are not to be robbed of the fruits that have cost them so dear."
  You cannot defend both those declarations, for if one was right the other must have been wrong. The effect of the declaration of the Prime Minister on 9th November upon Mahomedans in India was, undoubtedly, that they were not being fairly treated and were beginning to believe that when a Mahomedan country went to war, it was a, case of "Heads I win, tails you lose." No one will dispute that if the military operations had gone in the opposite direction the Powers would have maintained their original attitude and would not have allowed the Turks to annex a single strip of territory belonging to any of the Balkan States. I pass from that to the incidents of the second war and the reoccupation by the Turkish troops of Adrianople and the territory behind the Maritza. Another speech was made by the Prime Minister on 21st July almost immediately after the news came of the reoccupation of Adrianople by the Turks, and in that speech the Prime Minister did not give any pledge with regard to coercion, but he severely criticised the action of the Ottoman Government and denounced the course they had taken as ill-advised, while he had no word of reproof to offer to Bulgaria or any other of the Allies when they went to war with each other. That speech also caused considerable pain in Mussulman circles, because they felt that it did not show the traditional friendly feeling which this country had entertained towards the Ottoman Empire.
  2312
  There are three points in our attitude over this question of Thrace which I am sure the Government will bear in mind, and I should like to put them to the Foreign Secretary. The first is that Adrianople and Thrace were ceded to the Balkan League and not to Bulgaria, but since that time the Balkan League have ceased to exist and the Allies have themselves been engaged in a fratricidal struggle. I think that diminishes any blame that can be attributed to the Turks for having broken a Treaty which they have signed desire to ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in taking up the attitude he has taken up, he has made inquiries as to the character of the Bulgarian Government in Thrace during the Bulgarian occupation, because there have been very grave Turkish allegations made against them by the whole Turkish Press. The country has been devastated, massacres have taken place, and those not massacred have fled across the border, and, therefore, I think, we ought to be informed of the real facts, and we ought to know whether on investigation those charges turn out to be true. There is a third point which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know whether he has inquired of the Greek Government what their views are as to the future government of persons of Greek nationality in Adrianople and within the frontier of the Maritza. It would be very surprising if the Greek Government show any enthusiasm over the handing back of such a large number of men of their own race and religion to the Government of Bulgaria after the terrible charges which the Greek Sovereign and his Government have made against Bulgaria in Macedonia. It is interesting to know when we come to look at the country of Eastern Thrace from an ethnological point of view that there is a great Mahomedan majority in the territories recently reoccupied by the Turks, and that of the Christian minority only a minority of it is Bulgarian. I have had the figures very carefully made out of the population in the sandjak beyond the Enos-Media Line, and I find in every sandjak, except one, there is a substantial Mahomedan majority over both Greeks and Bulgarians combined, and that in every case there is a very large Greek majority over the Bulgarian population.
  Looking into a population composed in that way, and in view of the charges brought against the Bulgarians by Serbians, Greeks and the Turks, I think the

  2313
  facts call for an inquiry as to whether Bulgaria is strong enough and highly civilised enough to be permitted greatly increased responsibilities of empire and the government of alien population. With regard to the policy of the Government at the present juncture, the declaration made by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon will be received, so far as it goes, with gratitude in Mahomedan circles, when he gave a pledge that this Government would not take any separate coercive action. I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to extend that pledge, and to pledge the Government not only to abstain from separate action, but also to abstain from any joint coercive action against the Mahomedan Empire. The Mahomedans would be satisfied, in the first place, if there is no coercion on our part, and, in the second place, if our Government does not participate or consent to pressure upon Turkey, either direct or indirect, to the same end. Whatever may happen in Eastern Thrace it would be a good thing for our interests in India if the Foreign Secretary wore to give an assurance that there will be no less of goodwill on our part towards the Ottoman Empire. We cannot be responsible for, and perhaps we cannot influence, the Russian or Austrian policy in that regard, but if we do not at all events take up an attitude of that sort there will be a lasting sense of injustice among more than 60,000,000 of our fellow subjects in India, and a feeling that when Christian States come into collision with Mahomedan Powers the dice is unfairly loaded against them,
  Sir MARK SYKES: With regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton), who referred to the badness of the Ottoman Government on all occasions, I think, though it is not for me to take up a brief on behalf of a Government that has in the past been notoriously bad, there is one consideration which the House should bear in mind, and that is that there are very few countries which have had such very singular neighbours. I submit there have been persons with the advantages of some civilisation moving about in the various provinces of the Ottoman Empire with the object and intention of provoking massacres in order to enable people to protest against them afterwards. That is a policy which may explain some of the trouble which the unfortunate inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire have experienced in the past, but I think, after all the blood-
  2314
  shed and horrors which the past twelve months have seen, that we should try to look forward to the time when that policy will at least come to an end through natural causes, and that we should also look forward, not to a continuance of that kind of policy, but to a general co-operation in Europe and among the neighbours of Turkey to put the Ottoman Empire, both within and without, on its legs. I submit that as far as the Ottoman Empire is concerned Great Britain is in a double position: as part of the Concert of Europe, and as an individual State with very close ties with the Ottoman Empire. I would venture to submit that any event which happens West of Constantinople affects us as part of the Concert of Europe, and that such changes and such events as take place East of Constantinople affects us directly as a directly interested party. If there is one lesson which I think the Balkan events of the past two or three months can teach the world, it is that the exit of the Turk does trot always bring an immediate cessation of the troubles which people thought might end with his departure. Supposing by any untoward event there should be a second crusade started from very high motives, as the Balkan war started, for the benefit of the Asiatic subjects of the Ottoman Empire. I venture to think that we might have the same results and the same troubles only multiplied by a hundredfold, because in that case we should have to consider not the rivalry of Balkan States, but that of the Great Powers of Europe.
  I submit that as far as this country is concerned the ease for a determined effort to reform and to preserve the Ottoman Empire is absolutely overwhelming. The break up of the Ottoman Empire in Asia must bring the powers of Europe directly confronting one another in a country where there are no frontiers, because the mountains run parallel to the littoral, and because there being only three rivers, one moving in a circle, and the other running side by side over a level plain, it is very difficult for any Power to find a frontier. That very awkward geographical situation troubled the mind of Alexander the Great, the mind of Augustus, the mind of Diocletian, and the mind of Constantine, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has no wish to share in the troubles of even such distinguished and august company as that. In fact, even if the Ottoman Empire gave way, and I think there is a serious danger of the Asiatic

  2315
  Empire giving way at the present moment, there would be European frontiers in Asia Minor, and a European war from being an occasional remote possibility would become a probability which people would have constantly to bear in mind. I think one may say that the Ottoman Empire, bad as it may be within, has without got excellent frontiers. It has a good frontier with Russia, an impassable mountain range between itself and Persia, an admirable frontier with Egypt, a littoral in the Mediterranean, which threatens no Power, and provides an excellent guard to the Bosphorus, and the Dardanelles, besides offering an open market to Europe. If the Ottoman Empire goes to the wall, all those possible factors are removed from the world and another set of factors have to be taken into consideration. The result upon Europe must obviously be one of great danger. The break up of the Ottoman Empire in Asia must eventually mean a bad situation leading up to the probability of a European war, which everyone hopes may be finally staved off. The right Gentleman, I am sure, will admit that if a general European war can be staved off for fifty years it will be staved off for ever; but if we have a bad situation existing during the next fifty years it will be bad for the whole of Europe and the break up of the Ottoman Empire must affect us as a country.
  The Ottoman Empire in Asia must affect us as a nation very directly. If the Meditterranean littoral, the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles, and Smyrna passed into the hands of other nations with fleets our position there, which some people consider precarious at present, would be impossible. The whole position of Egypt with an efficient European Power armed on a European scale in Syria would be different. Egypt would have to have an army which Egypt finance cannot support; and there ends all our dreams of the prosperity of Egypt. Our commerce is excluded from Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, and our capital is probably hampered from sharing and participating in one of the last great pockets of material which are open for development in the twentieth century. Moreover, I think that the break up of the Ottoman Empire in Asia must add to our difficulties and our diplomatic relations with Russia and Germany. Russia would naturally have to have her share of the Ottoman Empire, and our diplomatic relations with her would
  2316
  consequently be more difficult than in the past. Germany would have to have her share, and any shadow of ill-feeling which may exist at present would certainly be accentuated. Supposing both those Powers had territory in what is now the Ottoman Empire, which they undoubtedly will have if the Ottoman Empire breaks up, we should be obliged to deny them access to the Persian Gulf, and that denial would naturally bring about friction and trouble and through the years another Eastern question.
  Lastly, there is the matter touched upon by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, the question of Indian moslems. He has gone into that very fully. I do not wish in the least to labour the matter, but I should like to repeat what he said as to how the trouble arose at Cawnpore. It was remarkable that the banners that was borne in that procession was the black flag, which is the black flag of the Abbassid Khalifs, and there is no doubt that what has been going on in the past year in Tripoli and in the Balkans has inflamed the passions of those people. One wants particularly to put that in its due proportion and to have nothing said in this House to give any encouragement to any agitator to go along on that line, or to think that we are the least afraid, but still I submit that if the Ottoman Empire in Asia came to an end the people who have used the trifles of the last year would have real cause. The Caliphate would undoubtedly come to an end, and the question of the advance of some great Power and protectorate over the Holy Places would arise. The last independent state of Islam would cease to be, and Christendom would for the first time be confronted with a united though subjugated Islam. I am certain that would result for us and all nations with Mussulman subjects in a long period of secret intrigue, agitation and disorder. I do not believe in Pan-Slavism, but I think the way to make it a reality is to put some justice on the Panislamic side. All this, I think, will come, if the present position of the Ottoman Empire is violated. You cannot violate part of the Ottoman Empire. If one Power goes in at one point, all must go in up to their final frontier position. One has always to bear in mind the saying of the Duke of Wellington that the danger of an Asiatic victory was that you never knew how far it would carry you. It is very difficult, once you go into an Asiatic country, to say where you can possibly

  2317
  stop. You are driven on by circumstances. We have found ourselves from a small trading station in India going right up to the Himalayas.
  6.0 P.M.
  I do not like to advance any permanent view, but I feel that the crux of the whole situation lies in Adrianople. The instinct of the Turk naturally was to go back, and it is not surprising that a primitive instinct is stronger than an unratified and an almost unobserved Treaty. That is not surprising, and when we remember that Adrianople was a Turkish town before Constantinople, before Damascus, and hundreds of years before Baghdad, one cannot be surprised at the Turks going back to a place associated with all the greatest of their very great past. People may say that I am a pro-Turk, but I do venture to say most definitely that any friend of Turkey would be doing Turkey a great disservice if he did not say plainly that to hold on permanently to Adrianople would be the height of consummate folly on the part of the Ottoman Government. I do not know the interior workings of Russian diplomacy, but of this I am convinced, that real Russia, that is Russian public opinion, which, when it makes itself felt is irresistible, has been fretted for long by the present war in the Balkans. It will require some outlet, and, when it sees that what a Slavonic Power has conquered has been lost by a Slavonic Power, there will be immense pressure on the Russian Government to invade Armenia, and with that the crash comes. Turkey will be out of sympathy with the Powers, and the Russian Government may not be able to restrain its own people. For what end? The sentimental 'feeling of the Turk for Adrianople and an absolutely untenable strategic position. Strategically I think for the Ottomans to hold Adrianople is to put themselves in the same position as the Serbs occupy in regard to Austria. If the Ottoman Empire is to survive, it is necessary it should stand fairly with the Powers, and on good terms with the Concert of Europe. Hitherto, it is the fact, if we go back to the Crimean days, every time there has been a crisis or a revolution or reform in Turkey the Turks of their own act have done something, not very bad perhaps, but something to irritate one of the members of the Concert, and so have lost the support of the Concert for their own Empire.
  2318
  On this occasion it is necessary Turkey should get the sympathy of the whole of Europe, and for that I think this country has a right to demand and insist that she shall make a sacrifice of sentiment, it may be but a sacrifice which will conciliate the whole of Europe—that she should evacuate the town which I know holds a very dear place in the Ottoman heart. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may, when he speaks again in this Debate, accentuate one point, and that is what Europe would be prepared to consider. If the Turks would make that concession—not perhaps a concession—they would get security and a sound frontier. Adrianople might even remain an unfortified town. But what is most important is that some Turkish family should be appointed to hold places which are held to be very holy by the Turks, places to which pilgrimages are made. These places should be a Vakuf—should be absolutely in their own posession under such an arrangement as was very wisely granted when France annexed Tunis and gave the Moslems their right over their own buildings, preventing Christians having the right to go into the Holy Places against the desire of or without an invitation from those Moslems, who were made responsible for their integrity. Naturally, religious liberty for the inhabitants, and possibly freedom from indemnity, would be great considerations for the Turks themselves, who lay great store by them. If Europe is conciliated it might allow the Ottoman Government a certain amount of liberty in the choice of the nationality of such European officers as they employ or desire to employ for the working out of reforms in their Asiatic territory. I hope I have not detained the House too long, but there were certain points I wanted to bring forward, and I think that after all that has happened, after all the sacrifices that have been made, and all the horrors that have taken place, it, will perhaps be found that they have not been in vain, and if Turkey and the Concert of Europe can come to a final understanding, it may possibly be that this year and the past year, which at the present moment seem to us so dreadful, may come to be looked upon by future generations as a year of reconciliation of two great branches of mankind who believe in one God, and the beginning of an equipoise which allowed the peaceful and progressive development of these countries for long unbroken ages.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: I shall endeavour not to detain the House by repeating any of the arguments that have fallen from other hon. Members. Very reluctantly I admit I am in agreement in large measure with what has fallen from the hon. Member who last spoke. I should like to say I am also in agreement with the non-political part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, who referred to the appeal he and I made to the Government some time ago to assist those who were starving in Macedonia. We were told by the Foreign Secretary that if the war cloud passed away and a new situation was created, that relief might be forthcoming. I hope the Government will now reconsider the situation, and, if they find it to be such that it is competent for them to do something, they will do so. With the rest of the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk I am in absolute disagreement. He and I do not seem to have interpreted what the Foreign Secretary said in the same way. When I heard the Foreign Secretary make his speech, I am bound to say that as a friend of the Turks—as a Turcophil of long standing, I heaved a sigh of relief. The Foreign Secretary, in his speeches, uses very few arguments. He states facts and draws conclusions. There is something inevitable and final in his speeches. I am not going to ask questions but I take his speech to-day to mean that in no event will England assist in the coercion of Turkey. I understood him to say that coercion might be employed, not only with regard to Turkey, but with regard to the Balkan States; but as far as we were concerned we did not contemplate it as a matter of policy.
  I am making no imputation against the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, because it is a policy I admire, when I say I agree with him in the sentence that fell from him, to the effect that the present settlement is very far from being a satisfactory one. It is said, I believe, that all taxation in the end must fall on the shoulders of the poor, and in the same way, when the Great Powers decide not to fight, somebody has to pay the bill, and when they do agree, it is the small people who suffer. That will certainly happen in 'this case. I am not going into the Albanian question at any length, but I want to make one or two points. It is a question which at the present moment is one of the people rather than of the country. There is starvation from two sources—one
  2320
  natural, and there perhaps we can do nothing. The other source is artificial. I hear from reliable sources that the people are surrounded by Servians, and, unless they submit to be converted to the orthodox faith, they are not allowed to go and get food, and food is not allowed to be brought into them. When this Commission goes out there, I very much hope it will do all it can, within the bounds of possibility, to give Albania a satisfactory economic life. If you do not do that; if you, so to speak, start a young man on his career with his legs amputated and his arms truncated, and at the same time you pick his pockets, what is he to do? He can only become a beggar, and, speaking for the Albanians, I say that that is the very last desire they have. I read the other day a letter from Mr. Nevinson, in which he described Albania as a lamb between wolves. If you take away her national life from Albania she will have to throw herself into the arms, of one of the Great Powers or into the arms of one of those neighbours who have recently been ill-treating her. The alternative you have given her is the alternative of the lamb, who has to choose whether she shall go to the wool merchant or straight to the wolf. That is an unhappy alternative. She will have to rely either on intrigue or on the sword. I am an optimist about the future. The provisional Government of Ismail Kemal Bey is doing very well, and I heartily congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the part he played in the creation of Albania. If Lord Byron and Garibaldi could have looked down upon this struggle I think they would have wished 'to stand by the side of the right hon. Gentleman and help him in the work he has been doing. I hope Albania will remember the occasion when Admiral Burney entered Scutari, and a well-known inhabitant said this was the best of days for the mountains since Christ was born.
  I come next to the question of Adrianople. One war has been finished. The war with the sword has been finished; but in the future we are going to have the war of the dagger in the Balkans, and it seems to me incumbent upon Europe to do-all she possibly can, not only to free herself from the anxiety to which these wars must in future give rise, but also to do-what she can to protect the unfortunate inhabitants who have already suffered so, much. This House, in the politics of the world, has the conscience of the consti-

  2321
  tuencies of England, and it is a conscience which is very sensitive. Whether you take the case of Putumayo or of the Congo or any case you like, this House responds to appeal, and the appeal I would make to it is this: Those who have read the history of the past war are sufficiently acquainted with the facts. They have read the history of mutilation and misgovernment in the North. They have heard the truth of crucifixions in the South. They could read the "Daily News" and what the "Daily News" correspondent had to say about the treatment of the starving Turks in Adrianople. Looking at all these things, remembering that these people, with the honourable exception of the Greeks, have polluted the present century and have defiled Christianity, is it fair to put the Greek and Moslem inhabitants of Adrianople under the one Government that they detest and loathe? I have said I was in reluctant agreement with my hon. Friend near me when he declared it would be wise for the Turks not to cling absolutely and definitely to Adrianople. But I must add this rider: I think it would be shameful on the part of the Turks to give up Adrianople or Thrace unless they got a guarantee for the lives and property of the people living there. If any Englishman puts himself into the position of the Turk, he will realise how very difficult it would be. Suppose this country had been attacked by a great Power and had been beaten, and Wales had been taken from her; suppose, too, that the Power which had beaten us was in his turn beaten by other Powers, and then we invaded Wales and took Carnarvon. Do you think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready then to resign that town? Of course not. Neither could any Turk be eager for the surrender of Thrace. This is what has happened within the last few months.
  You have seen the Bulgarians break faith with their own most intimate Allies. You have seen the conspiracy of the Bulgarians who went up and murdered Servians when they were sleeping. You have had a Crusade preached by King Ferdinand, in which our Lord has been made more implacable than was the car of Juggernaut and more vindictive than the God of Vengeance himself. If the Turks surrender these provinces to this egoist mammoth Bulgaria, do you not think they will run the risk of having an army walk into them at any moment? Will they not run more than the risk, and is it not
  2322
  practically certain that the remainder of the inhabitants are bound to suffer? I am going to try not to be irrelevant or to suggest things that are impossible. It always has seemed to me from the point of view of Europe itself, from the point of view of European inhabitants, and from the point of view of the belligerents, that really the best solution would have been to have had a buffer State in Thrace and Macedonia. You would then have taken away the bait for which the people are striving with all their energy; you would have relieved the Balkans of this tremendous complication, and you would have done something to soothe the unrest in Western Asia. On the question of Adrianople I would say that the ordinary Moslem cannot understand why, in all circumstances, the Turks must lose and the Balkans win. He cannot see why when the Turk wins he must lose, and why, when Bulgaria loses, she must also win.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I interrupt the hon. Member to ask him one question with regard to his charges, which are very exaggeratedly expressed in my opinion. Can he give a case where in any one of the liberated States there has been a massacre in a time of peace?
  Mr. HERBERT: I think the liberated States have generally turned out those who have disagreed with them. I am speaking from memory, but I think all the Albanians were turned out of Servia. I have certainly been told on reliable authority of numerous cases in Montenegro.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Have there not been half a million Turks living in Bulgaria up to the present time?
  Mr. HERBERT: Yes, but they are Pomahs of the same race as the Bulgars. I was about to say that there has been a very violent anti-Jewish campaign in this country and the Young Turks have also been made the object of that campaign. There are, of course, Jews amongst the Young Turks, but it is not true to say that all the Young Turks are Jews. Envers Bey or Mahmond Shevket are no more Jewish than I am. All these past events have led to consequences in India of which both my hon. Friends have spoken. I do not agree with my Mahomedan friends in saying that this country should interfere. England cannot be the knight-errant of the world. That is not possible; but their resentment will be very logical if we adopt an attitude of

  2323
  neutrality when Turkey is beaten, and depart from it when Turkey wins. What the average Moslem in Turkey says to himself is that Christianity is supposed to be the religion of mercy and of kindness, and yet that King Ferdinand preached the Crusade of the Cross against the Crescent, which his soldiers carried out with infinite brutality, and the Moslem sees above the Cross the shadow of the vulture's wings. The ordinary Mahomedan says, "I belong to the great British Empire, but I am not received in South Africa; I have trouble in Australia, and yet the other portions of the Empire owe a very great deal to me." Christianity owes two debts to Islam; first of all, the debt of the good things we have got from Islam; and, secondly, the debt of reparation. We have already had mentioned some of the good things we have got. If we want to prevent massacres in Pekin, if we want troops for Somaliland, and labour for many parts of Africa, where do we go? We go to India. It seems to me that the destinies of England and of India are inextricably bound up, and that you might just as well try to separate twins in the womb as to separate the two. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs has achieved peace, and, having achieved that peace, perhaps it would be ungracious to make any comment or criticism on some of the details. All I will say is that we here know that there have been more than battles in this recent Balkan business. We know that there have been changes in Europe. A great many of us look forward to a new chapter in which it should be possible to have a real understanding between this country and Turkey. If we are to have that new chapter I cannot see as its title "Peace upon earth and goodwill to men," but I can see comparative peace in the British Empire and relative goodwill among Mahomedans and Christians, who are the constituents of that Empire.
  Colonel YATE: I will not follow my hon. Friend with regard to the European situation, but I should like to direct the attention of the Foreign Secretary to Asiatic subjects connected with Tibet and also to raise the question of Somaliland. As to Tibet, a country which, bordering upon India as it does for over 1,000 miles, is of such vital importance to India. I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not long ago, to adhere to his stated determination that he would not recog-
  2324
  nise the Republic of China till, a satisfactory agreement regarding Tibet had been arrived at, but he stated that international negotiations were being carried on for the joint recognition of the Chinese Republic, and it would not do for England to stand out. Is there any reason why it would not do for England to stand out? Will England possibly lose by standing out? On the contrary, England, it seems to me, has everything to lose by giving way. We all know the shifty and dilatory methods of China, and how hopeless it is to get any satisfactory arrangement out of her. We have only lately seen Russia, tired of the continual procrastination about the agreement regarding Mongolia, closing the negotiations and taking her own steps to settle the matter. If we are to get a satisfactory settlement about Tibet we shall have to do the same. The withholding of our recognition of the Chinese Republic is the only diplomatic weapon we have. If we fail to use that there is nothing left but to follow Russia's example and use force to a certain extent. I do beg, therefore, in the interests of India, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to hold out and stand firm in this matter. What we require is the maintenance of the status quo in Tibet as we found it when the Younghusband Mission went to Lhasa in 1904. China has broken her Treaty Convention of 1906 by attempting to convert her suzerainty over Tibet into sovereignty. She has interfered in the internal affairs of the country. She has deposed the Dalai Lama and attempted to deprive him of all temporal power. The Chinese troops have been driven out by the Tibetans, and we have to see to it that in future no Chinese interference with the internal administration of the country is permitted, and that no Chinese troops are to be stationed in Tibet with the exception of the Amban's escort of say 100 men, or at any rate a force which would be too small to overawe the Tibetan Government.
  We also require to have an undertaking by China that no troops will be sent from Sechuan to attack the Tibetan border tribes. We cannot tolerate the States on our frontier—Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan—and the Assam arid Burmah frontier tribes being disturbed by the proximity of Chinese soldiers along our boundary. Our frontier marches with that of Tibet for over 1,000 miles, and if this long tract is disturbed by the action of China it will create enormous difficulties for us in the future. We have now come to know the Dalai Lama. He has thrown himself upon

  2325
  our protection and looks to us for assistance. We have become friendly with the Tibetans, both rulers and people, and, surely, we must not allow these friendly relations to drop. Our future policy, therefore, should be one of active sympathy and not cold neglect! The first problem is that of the Chumbi Valley. This tongue of land, projecting south between our two protected States of Sikkim and Bhutan, lies, we must not forget, on the Southern slopes of the Himalayas and falls naturally from its geographical position within the sphere of our political influence. It is essential to the peace of our Indian border that Chinese officials and influence should be entirely eliminated from this valley. Leaving the Chumbi Valley and going over the Himalayas watershed into Tibet itself, the question of the territorial integrity of Tibet naturally faces us. No one knows the boundaries of Tibet. I doubt if the right hon. Gentleman knows the proper boundaries. If grave disputes are to be avoided in future we must outline roughly the eastern boundary, beyond which the Chinese shall not be permitted to advance. This line, I take it, should run through Batang and should include Rima on the Tibetan side. We have the opportunity now of defining this boundary and we must not allow it to pass. We must not forget that in case of revolution in China it might be to the advantage of the Viceroy of Sechuan to despatch troops into Tibet, or should civil war break out, unruly troops might be sent there to keep them out of the way, and in either of these eventualities the Tibetans would look to us for assistance.
  Again it is conceivable, if civil war breaks out, that China may break up altogether, and that we may have no responsible Government with whom to deal. In that case it is possible we shall be compelled to take over the administration of the Chumbi valley and to proclaim ourselves as the Suzerain Power in place of China, so as to save Tibet from the disturbances that would certainly arise on the break up of China. In that case Russia is the only interested Power with whom we might have to deal, and the tranquillity of Tibet is just as important to us as the tranquillity of Mongolia is to her. Lord Morley in the other House, stated last week that a conference on Tibet was to meet at Simla, and that, though China has accepted the principle that she is to have no right of active intervention in the internal administration
  2326
  of Tibet, many points, however, are still open. We have not been told what those points are, but I do trust that the Republic of China will not be recognised till full satisfaction has been given for the manner in which she endeavoured to break through her Treaty engagements, and full guarantees have been given for her proper behaviour in future. At the present moment an upheaval in China seems imminent and a definite line of policy should be laid down at the conference at Simla. Turning to the question of Somaliland—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be very inconvenient to interpose that question. At present we are discussing foreign affairs. Somaliland would come under the Colonial Office. I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to address the House on matters connected with the Foreign Office.
  Colonel YATE: I will ask your permission, Sir, to raise that question later.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot give that permission, as the lion and gallant Gentleman will have exhausted his right to speak.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I would direct the attention of the House to the question of Putumayo, in regard to which there was an inquiry early in this Session. I wish to get, if I can, a statement from the Foreign Secretary on a certain aspect of that question. I cannot hope to raise the whole question, but in view of possible action next year, I hope that a statement may be forthcoming from the Foreign Office On our Committee was imposed the obligation of discovering, if we could, expedients and means by which a recurrence of such atrocities as we found to exist in the Putumayo might be prevented in future. So far as my information goes we can be satisfied that a very considerable improvement has taken place, and for that the Foreign Office is greatly responsible. I should like to know if the Foreign Office confirms that information. It comes, so far as I am concerned, from the Catholic Missions engaged upon the scene, and their presence is a guarantee, of course, that some of the deplorable abuses in the past will not be repeated. But at the same time a very serious situation was revealed before our Committee. We thought we had evidence that the abuses which have been established could be traced also in other parts of the Amazon River basin. We could not regard the Putu-

  2327
  mayo as an exceptional case. It was not a merely isolated phenomenon. It need not be thought that the worst barbarities which prevailed under the exceptional conditions in Putumayo can be found elsewhere; but at all events I think there is evidence that a system practically akin to slavery can be found widespread and rampant over a large part of South America. If a searchlight had been turned upon other rivers we might have found a state of things, if not quite as bad, at all events approximating to that which we found upon the particular river which we investigated. If that is the case, as the House imposed upon us the obligation of suggesting certain remedies, I think it becomes obligatory upon us and upon this House to see that this deplorable experience is not wasted and that proper methods are taken to prevent any danger of a recurrence in future. Everyone knows the extent to which British capital is already engaged on the Amazon River in rubber, and other raw products; and at the same time there is this tendency, which is probably an increasing tendency, for the raw products of tropical origin to be developed by international and absentee capital, concentrated perhaps in London and acting through boards whose acquaintance with the conditions of the industry is sometimes very superficial and in some cases nonexistent.
  Under these circumstances we thought the remedies were partly to be found by legislation and partly by administrative changes. The administrative side involves the action of the Foreign Office. We thought we could, by restating and extending the existing law for the suppression of slavery and slave-dealing by British subjects in foreign countries, effect an improvement. We were often told in conversation, and sometimes it was put in evidence, that this was mere busybodying and asking England to become a knight-errant to the world, and that it was the concern of the foreign countries in which these abuses were found. That is true primarily, but it was also put to us that at present it is the law that British subjects who are guilty of slave dealing or slave trading in foreign countries, and of some other exceptional crimes, are violating British law and are triable in British Courts. I doubt if that fact was known to the directors of the company concerned in this particular case, and I do not know that it is suffi-
  2328
  ciently realised by people other than lawyers and people who have given special attention to it. But on that account alone it might be said that this is a matter of concern to British subjects and to the Foreign Office. Besides that, here we have a case of directors who have been very indifferent to the great record of England in the past, and the great service which she performed in the suppression of slavery throughout the world. After all, one of the earliest exploits of the Concert of Europe was, wider the guidance of England, to devise means for the suppression of the slave trade, and to some extent slavery, throughout the civilised and uncivilised world. These traditions were ignored in this particular case, and I think we must see to it that the good name of England is not tarnished again by any similar occurrence.
  Therefore, we thought, apart from the legislative changes which I trust the House will consider next year, the other safeguard which could be properly devised could only be found in the administrative action of the Foreign Office. I am not quite certain whether the Foreign Office is willing and anxious to undertake the work of supervision. The representatives who came before us laid stress on the difficulties. They said, very properly, that the commercial department of the Foreign Office is not an administrative body, that British Consuls cannot be put in the position of spies, and they are not inspectors over the economical or industrial conditions of foreign countries. All that is perfectly true, but if improvement has been made either in the Congo or in Putumayo it is literally due to the action of the Foreign Office. It is the Consular Reports in the case of the Congo which, backed up by British opinion, have effected reform. In the case of Putumayo it was the pressure of the Foreign Office which secured, without any legal or statutory powers, an inquiry by the company with led up to the discovery of the truth, and it was their sending out of Sir Roger Casement with a special Consular Mission that fully brought to light the real abuses which existed and secured the improvement which has been made. If that is the case, I cannot but ask the Foreign Office to generalise the procedure. We have got evidence that through many districts in South America, perhaps in some districts in Africa too, there are uncivilised and undeveloped regions where abuses of native or colour labour are to be found.

  2329
  I think the Foreign. Office can help in two ways. So far as Putumayo itself is concerned, I would ask them at least to give their friendly offices to clear up the international difficulty which lies at the bottom of some of the crimes which prevailed there. Undoubtedly the abuses which were found there were partly due to the fact that sovereignty was nonexistent, and crime was facilitated because there was no machinery for punishment. It was believed that the two Governments concerned over that disputed territory would not be unwilling to adjust their differences by arbitration, and if the friendly offices of the Foreign Office could lead to such a result, I believe it would be very desirable and would conduce to making what we believe to be the present improvement lasting and durable. Further, in the undeveloped and uncivilised regions we do not believe that there will ever be any really satisfactory guarantees against abuses without the strengthen-of the Consular system and without the appointment of travelling Consuls, who would maintain more supervision than prevails at present. No doubt, if Consuls are paid small honorariums—£20 a year, or something of that kind—you cannot expect much. The Consular service is probably fully occupied at present, but it is already part of the duty of Consuls to report fully to the Secretary of State on the conditions existing in foreign countries so far as slavery is concerned. That is the legacy of the old nineteenth-century campaign against slavery.
  I do not think we can ask the Foreign Office to undertake the immense task of sweeping out of certain regions slavery, or practices akin to slavery, but I do think that, in view of the increasing number of instances where these regions are developed by British capital, there should be more supervision as to the conditions under which these companies and firms work. That is the recommendation which we would urge upon the Foreign Office, and I am very anxious to get to-night a statement as to their views on the subject. They have no doubt considered the point fully. They may be able to say that the practical difficulties, and that the possible friction with other Governments which might be entailed, make the carrying out of that recommendation a task of insuperable difficulty. They may say that it may be done within limits in their view when specific cases of abuse are alleged, but I should like to have a statement as to how far any
  2330
  action of that kind is possible. If it is not possible, if their view is unfavourable, then all I can say is that that increases the necessity for legislative changes. I think, judging from the comments made in the Press, it was thought that our suggestions for preventing the recurrence of abuses in future were somewhat timid and weak, and not sufficiently far-reaching to effect the object at which we aimed. We relied much upon the administrative action of the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office, after full consideration, says it can give us guarantees and can secure safeguards, perhaps it will not be necessary to go so far in legislative changes, but I do trust that the Government will be prepared to make legislative changes next Session. The character of these changes must to some extent depend on the action which the Foreign Office can take.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to take the opportunity of calling the attention of the Foreign Secretary to a matter which has excited a great deal of attention in this country, as well as across the Atlantic, and that is the attitude adopted by His Majesty's Government in refusing to participate in any way in the exhibition proposed to be held at San Francisco in 1915. Of course, primarily this may be a matter for the Board of Trade, but, as a matter of fact, I believe the Board of Trade have given their reasons for recommending the non-participation of this country in the exhibition. I think it is a matter which goes beyond the domain of the Board of Trade Department. It is a matter which, I think, really comes within the province of the Foreign Secretary. It is quite easy to under-estimate the strength of the feeling that has been caused owing to the action of the Government in this matter. There may be, of course, some questions of dispute outstanding between the British Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the Panama Canal. That is a matter upon which I do not desire to enter, but I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if the impression got abroad that the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to this exhibition was governed in any way by any matter in dispute between the two Governments with reference to the canal. It should be borne in mind that these exhibitions afford opportunities of showing goodwill between different countries, and that they are a very great means of promoting friendly relations. Therefore, I think it was some-

  2331
  what of a, surprise to the whole English-speaking world when it was suddenly announced that the British Government intended to take no part whatever in the great industrial exhibition in the city of San Francisco. The matter is rendered all the more unfortunate, because it cannot be forgotten that the relations between the Canadian people and the Australian people and the people of the United States are extremely close, commercially and otherwise. In to-day's papers we find that without the slightest hesitation the Government of the Dominion of Canada decided to take their proper place in this exhibition and voted the not inconsiderable sum of 500,000 dollars towards being represented at San Francisco. In Australia, some of the States have already taken steps to be properly represented, and I might point out that the connection between the Australian people and the people of America, especially of California, is a close connection. There is a great deal of trade done, and apart from that, for various reasons into which I need not go, there is a great deal of common sentiment between the people of California and the people of Australia. Two of the Australian States—New South Wales and Victoria—resolved to take part in this exhibition, but so far as I can gather, other portions of the Colonies have been thrown into a state of doubt and uncertainty in regard to this exhibition, because of the attitude of the Government of this country in relation to it. The attitude of the British Government places the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia in an awkward and unfortunate position when they find that a great exhibition in which their interests are involved, and at which they are anxious to be represented, is, to put it perfectly plainly, boycotted by His Majesty's Government in this country. I should have thought that, if it were only in the interests of the Government of Australia, it would be the clear duty of the Government here to take part in this exhibition. I have seen it stated that the money necessary might perhaps not be returned, and that there might be a loss. I have heard the estimated cost of this country being represented at San Francisco placed at £250,000. That is a considerable sum; but when you bear in mind that, according to the latest information, the Canadian Government have put up £100,000 to be represented, and when you
  2332
  bear in mind also the financial burdens undertaken by the Australian States in order to be represented, I do not think it can be suggested that it is an extravagant proposal that this country should expend £250,000 in having our arts and industries properly represented in the San Francisco Exhibition.
  What makes this matter more painful to a great many people who are well wishers both of this country and the United States is that there is a feeling that the decision with regard to the exhibition has not been come to altogether upon commercial lines, and on the real merits of the case. I think it would be admitted on all hands that it would be an unfortunate thing if the decision with regard to this exhibition were in any way influenced by any outstanding dispute between this country and the United States. Everybody is anxious that these disputes should be removed, and that good feeling should prevail, but it would be idle to pretend that the settlement of any dispute would be rendered more easy in any way if this policy of standing aloof with respect to the exhibition is persisted in. If it is not too late, I would strongly and very respectfully urge upon the Foreign Secretary the view that this is a matter which arouses far more attention, than perhaps he is aware of. I have myself reason to know that there has been a good deal of feeling aroused in Australia and Canada by the action of the Home Government. They want to participate in the exhibition, for commercially they stand to gain by it. They desire to take the opportunity of promoting friendly relations between the United States and the Mother Country. I have no doubt that the reasons that presented themselves to our Government for standing out may have appeared to them perfectly good reasons, but they are not easily understood abroad. It is not easy to convince Australian merchants and gentleman connected with the industrial development of Australia and Canada that the reasons are sufficient. If you say that £250,000 is a large sum, and that possibly the returns might not justify the immediate expenditure of that money, that will not appeal to the average Australian or Canadian. They will say that the worth of the exhibition on an occasion like this is worth that expenditure even if there was no financial return at all.
  7.0 P.M.
  This is not a matter in which I am speaking personally for myself. I believe that

  2333
  in this matter my views, be they right or wrong, represent the great volume of opinion, not only in Ireland, but in Australia and Canada. Moreover, the columns of the Press every day bear testimony to the fact that, there is very widespread dissatisfaction in England itself at the action of the Government. In the "Times" to-day there are two very strong and weighty letters protesting against the decision of the Government. I also saw a letter from a leading merchant who represents a business firm which has been immensely successful in which he voices the discontent felt in business circles with respect to this matter. He says that no matter what may be the decision come to by the Government, lie will be no party to placing a slight upon the promoters of the exhibition, and that he will be represented there. There can be no doubt as to the feeling on the matter, and I would ask the right lion. Gentleman to consider whether it is not too late to revise the decision that has been come to and remove the unhappy feeling which exists. The reasons so far given have not been sufficient to justify this country in standing out from this exhibition. I know America very well and I know that the result of this country not participating is to create a most unfortunate impression. We hear a great deal of the desirability of promoting good relations with the United States. Surely if ever an opportunity was offered, it is offered upon this occasion! I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, on consultation with the Board of Trade, will be able to arrive at some other decision and remove the feeling of dissatisfaction which is felt in the United States of America and in our self-governing Dominions as well.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As other subjects are coming on for discussion it may be for the convenience of the House that I should reply to the remarks of the last two hon. Members who have spoken (Mr. C. Roberts and Mr. W. Redmond). First, with regard to the Putumayo atrocities. There is no doubt whatever that the very careful Report which we had from the Committee, of which my hon. Friend was Chairman, deserves fullest consideration with the object of seeing if action can be taken on the recommendations that have been made. It cannot be denied that the subject is a difficult one. The fact that we
  2334
  were able to hold the investigation which we did was largely due to two facts, first, that British subjects were involved, and, secondly, that the matter was under the control, or ought to have been under the control, of a British company. It is clearly much more difficult that our Consuls should act as a sort of roving commission with regard to conditions existing in extremely out-of-the-way places, but I should be glad if my hon. Friend could come to the Foreign Office and talk over with us, in the light of the recommendations of the Committee, what it is he thinks that we have omitted to do and what he thinks might be done, and when he has seen the difficulties and perhaps more fully grasped from his point of view the possibilities of the case, we might be able to reach some agreement as to what it is possible to do, and any announcement of policy or new departure might be delayed until further consideration was given to the matter in that way. In reply to the hon. Member who has last spoken (Mr. W. Redmond), as was said in answer to a question the other day in this House, this matter was not decided on the merits of questions which might be again the subject of debate as between the two countries. It was decided and considered merely on its own merits, namely, whether we were justified in asking the British taxpayer to vote as large a sum as a quarter of a million in order to participate in this exhibition, having regard to the advantages which were likely to ensue to our trade or traders. That matter was extremely carefully and fully gone into by the representative of the Board of Trade, and in view, first, of the large cost, and, second, of the fact that the exhibits to be shown as a result of this large cost would have had to be scattered in a series of international pavilions, and that we could not have made a combined central: show which would have impressed those who attended the exhibition as being really representative of what we could do—
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Why not?
  Mr. ACLAND: Because the rule made by the authorities of the exhibition was that the exhibits must be shown in a series of different pavilions, and could not be all grouped in one general national pavilion. That rule would apply to all exhibits of all countries, and it was one of the reasons why it seemed to us not justifiable to ask the taxpayer for this very large Grant.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If the decision to show the exhibits in separate pavilions were altered in the case of British exhibits, would the Government reconsider their decision?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think so, because that is only one of the reasons. The representative of the Board of Trade made full inquiries and reported that there did not seem to be very much probability of the expansion of our trade on that side of the United States, and after very careful and extensive inquiries in our own industrial centres in England we could not find any spontaneous desire on behalf of our manufacturers to take part in the exhibition from the point of view of any results which might accrue from it to their industries. Then as to the cost, we should have had to ask the taxpayer to give a Grant greater than the total cost of the last six International exhibitions all put together. There can really in this matter be no possible question of our desiring to show ill-will, because in all the relations between this country and the United States we have been in every matter that has come up most anxious to be on the very best terms with them, and in every possible way to act in accordance with their desire. I would like to put this point: If we were holding an International Exhibition of our own, would Congress in America be anxious to vote a million dollars in order that the United States might participate in that exhibition? I believe it is true that they have only granted £100,000 as a grant for this exhibition, and we are asked to grant two-and-a-half times that sum for it.
  Major COATES: Who asked you to make this Grant?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is the amount arrived at after a very careful estimate of what we should have to grant in order to participate in the benefits of the exhibition. It would be a most costly matter. There would be the great cost of transport to San Francisco, and then particularly the cost of labour in transferring the exhibits to the grounds and having proper buildings put up to house them. At any rate, I do not think that we can go behind the estimate formed after very careful inquiry, and if it is a fact that Congress have only voted £100,000 themselves for their own participation, and if, therefore, it is unlikely that they would be inclined to vote this sort of sum to participate in any exhibition which we might be having,
  2336
  I think that they hardly have any real justification for being aggrieved at the decision that we have reluctantly come to. It would have been very difficult in face of the very definite report of the Board of Trade that this was not going to be in any way a paying thing from any sort of commercial point of view to have asked the taxpayers of this country for a Grant of the kind, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that in no possible way do we wish by that decision to show any sort of or disinclination to do everything we can to encourage those who may wish to participate in the exhibition that is going to be held.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to direct the attention of the House from foreign and far-distant affairs to matters nearer home which come under the Home Office. I first desire to ask the Home Secretary for some further explanation concerning the apparent favouritism shown to certain Women Suffrage prisoners and the action of the Home Office in connection therewith. Recently four prisoners were arrested for disturbance within the precincts of this House in St. Stephen's Hall and, on being tried, were sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. Subsequently the magistrate reopened the case and reduced the sentence from fourteen days to four days. One of the prisoners was Lady Sybil Smith, daughter of the Earl of Antrim. This day in reply to a question of mine as to whether the magistrate had taken this action after consultation with the Home Secretary, I received this reply:—
  "No direct communication passed between the Home Office and the magistrate. As was explained to the hon. Member last Thursday the solicitor who appeared for the police represented to the magistrate, with my right hon. Friend's (the Home Secretary's) cognisance and approval. Mrs. Pethwick Lawrence. Lady Sybil Smith, and Miss Evelyn Sharp were not militants habitually engaged in the use of criminal methods. The magistrate assigned this fact as his reason for reducing the sentence from fourteen days to four."
  I ask the Home Secretary whether he has any precedent for the Home Office intervening to invite a magistrate to reduce a sentence which had been passed and was in process of being carried out. I do not know who supplied the Home Secretary with the information about her ladyship, Mrs. Pethick Lawrence, and Miss Evelyn Sharp, but all three of them have been, and Lady Sybil Smith still is, actively identified with the most militant section of the Women Suffrage movement. They had proclaimed the hunger-strike after they were arrested. Four days is about

  2337
  the limit of endurance which they are called upon to bear in the hunger-strike before being liberated, and I ask the Home Secretary whether the real reason for approaching the magistrate and securing a reduction of the sentence to four days was that he was not prepared to submit the daughter of an earl either to being forcibly fed or released upon licence. Those who are acquainted with the facts of a former case, that of Lady Constance Lytton, will remember that Lady Constance was arrested and the doctors found that her heart was weak and that she was unable to undergo forcible feeding. She was arrested as Jane Wharton and was actually forcibly fed under that name; and, therefore, there is reason for suspicion that in the treatment of these prisoners favouritism is shown to those who are able to bring great pressure to bear upon the Home Office.
  One further point in that connection. I ask the Home Secretary whether he is considering the cases of Mrs. Lake, M. Saunders, and others who were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in connection with the Women's Social and Political Union. They were paid servants of that organisation, and they were not actively engaged in participating in the militant side of the movement; they were not themselves guilty of committing o the offences described; they were probably in complete ignorance of what was being done; and I ask whether the case of these women who were paid servants of the organisation, and employed inside the office, does not call for special treatment and for special consideration. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) intends to raise the special case of Mr. George Lansbury, and the position he now occupies under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act. I will not, therefore, go into that further than to say that every argument that applies to the case of Mr. George Lansbury equally applies to the case of Mrs. Pankhurst, Miss Annie Kenny, and others of those prisoners out on licence. The period of the licence having expired, and those prisoners not having been rearrested, it means an indeterminate prolongation of sentence. They are neither bound nor free as the matter stands at present, and either a free pardon should be granted or they should be made to serve the terms of the sentence without the cruelty and indignity of what is called very effectively,
  2338
  the "Cat-and-Mouse" methods—torturing them while in prison, and perpetuating the torture when they are permitted to be out on licence. The case of Sylvia Pankhurst, especially, is identical with that of Mr. Lansbury. They are not convicted of having committed crimes, but of having made speeches, the tendency of which was to incite to crime, and therefore I submit that until they are tried and convicted of actual criminal acts they should not be treated in the manner in which they are being treated at the present time, and against which I believe the best feeling of the country is in revolt.
  I turn to what is known as "The Piccadilly Flat Case." This case came before Mr. Mead at the Marlborough Street Police Court on 20th June. In the early stage of the proceedings, Mr. Beyfus, who appeared as counsel for the accused woman, asked that the real name of the woman known as Queenie Gerald, which had been just disclosed in evidence, should not be published. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Here is the report of the proceedings as it appeared in the "Times." I shall read a portion dealing with that particular point to which I have referred:—
  "A hairdresser, who stood bail, asked by Mr. Muskett how long lie had known the defendant, replied ten or twelve years lie knew her in the name of Gerald. Her proper name was Mrs. — and she was a married woman. Mr. Beyfus asked That the correct name of the defendant, should not be published and the magistrate remarked that it was a secret inquiry. The Press were present as a concession and to the representatives of the Press Mr. Mead remarked, 'you fully understand you are here as a privilege.'"
  There is the "Times" report showing that the name of the accused woman was mentioned in Court, and that the counsel asked that it should not be made public, the magistrate assenting to that request. That was a bad beginning. On that same occasion Mr. Beyfus, speaking for the accused, said, she would plead "Not guilty." He reserved her defence, and he called her witnesses at the trial. That also has an important bearing upon what followed. The accused pleaded "Not guilty," but the counsel did say, on her behalf, that she reserved her defence until the trial. Then came the trial itself. Chief Inspector John Curry, who made the raid and the arrest of the woman, testified to having found large sums of money in the house, and in the woman's possession. That point has also to be raised subsequently, and I will not go into it now. I desire to call attention to one fact, and ask a question upon it. Amongst the objects found in the house, accord-

  2339
  ing to Chief Inspector Curry's testimony, were sixteen dozen arum lilies and a penny copy of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and a revolver. Evidently they had been studying the Act to find how far they were free to go. But it was also stated other things were found, and I put the question to the Home Secretary now, Whether, amongst other things found, there were whips or lashes? The statement, I understand, was made on the authority of one of the girls, that flagellation was, amongst other practices, carried on in this revolting den. I ask the Home Secretary to say Whether, amongst the other things found, and not disclosed by the police authorities, were whips and other lashes of a similar kind? I now come to the trial itself. At the London Sessions, on 10th July, before Mr. Allan James Lawrie, who presided, the case came on for trial. Once more the question was raised about the publication of the names. Mr. Lawrie ordered the Court to be cleared, with the exception of a few privileged persons and some members of the Press. He made this request to the reporters who were present, and again I ask for special attention. He asked the Press not to publish names where it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Note that he did not ask that the details of the case should not be published, but the public were ostensibly cleared out of the Court because the details were too revolting to be disclosed to the public. The magistrate did not ask for the details to be suppressed, but only the names and not the facts. Very full reports of the details have been published in more than one paper, but in no single case, except one name that was' given by Mr. Humphreys, has any name been allowed to appear. To show the way the case has been conducted, I shall read to the House an extract from a statement supplied to me by a gentleman who had been empanelled as one of the jury. The jury was not sworn, but had been empanelled. He says in his statement:—
  "In the course of the morning we had several cases dealing with various crimes, and we were sworn in every case. I have been foreman of the jury and was expecting to be foreman in this case also. We were already seated in the Court waiting to be sworn. We noticed that whereas in the other cases there had not been more than three or four counsel present in Court, when this case of Qucenie Gerald came on, fourteen counsel were sitting opposite to me. We at once saw that something exceptional was taking place, and on inquiry found that it was the Piccadilly Flat case. To our amazement we were not sworn, and through these and other facts concluded that the authorities wished as little as possible to leak out. Counsel for the prose-
  2340
  cution and for the defence co-operated with the judge in the suppression of all names and addresses"—
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Do you say counsel for the prosecution?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not hear. I will repeat:—
  "Counsel for the prosecution and for the defence cooperated with the judge in the suppression of all names and addresses, although Mr. Travers Humphreys had a number of letters in his hand which he told us were those of persons involved in the matter, evidently persons of standing. He gave one address only and that quite useless, the name of a man at the Ritz Hotel."
  That is a statement from a person who was present. Now I come to the further question to the Home Secretary, whether it is intended to institute proceedings against this woman for acting as a pro-caress? In the opening of the case Mr. Travers Humphreys made this statement, and I am now quoting from the "Times" report, and I hope hon. Members present will give this serious attention, because it appears to some of us to be a very serious Matter:—
  "Letters found on the premises made it clear that the, accused was carrying on the trade of a procuress. One-man, whose name he would mention in public. …"
  and so on. The point. I want to call attention to here is that the prosecuting counsel in his opening statement declared that letters found on the premises made it clear that the accused was carrying on the trade of a procuress. The "Daily Telegraph" report gives a slight variation on the "Times" report, and reads as. follows:—
  "There There were a large number of letters continued Counsel, which made it quite clear that apart front that the prisoner's earnings herself and apart from what she-received through the girls, she was carrying on the trade of a procurers."
  There we have it stated in the most emphatic manner that evidence was in the hands of the authorities to show that this woman was carrying on the trade of a procuress in addition to the offence for which she was being charged. The Chairman of the Sessions, in giving his decision, made this statement:—
  "If I thought I was justified in punishing you for carrying on the trade of a procures,: of which there is some evidence, I should have had to deal more severely with you, but that is not charged in the indictment."
  I want to ask the Home Secretary why it is that this charge of being a procuress was not included in the indictment? I have quoted from the prosecuting counsel acting for the authorities in his opening statement that there was clear evidence that she was so acting. The Sessions

  2341
  Chairman made a similar statement, that there was some evidence, but that she was not being charged with that offence. The explanation which I put upon this might be deemed uncharitable, but I want to get to the bottom of it. The explanation I put upon it is this, that if the woman had been charged with being a procuress, the names of the men which were being concealed would require to have been revealed. She would have put forward as her defence that she was only acting as an agent, but behind her were the men who were paying large sums to her for carrying out their desire. Therefore, the whole plot to conceal and shield the men who were the principal guilty parties in this affair made it impossible for the authorities to proceed with the charge of the woman being a procuress. I now ask the Home Secretary whether it is too late to raise that charge against her. She has not been tried upon it. According to the Sessions' Chairman's own statement, no judgment has been pronounced upon it. Public opinion outside will go on believing as it does to-day, that the reason why that charge is not being proceeded with is because if it were the names of the real guilty parties could not be any longer concealed. I raise this question with no desire to perpetuate or to spread further the unsavoury details of what appears to be a most revolting case; but when we remember that the very Act under which this woman was charged was passed by this House to give the authorities more power to grapple with this terrible evil, surely we are entitled to ask that the law if need be shall be strained not to shield, but to reveal the really responsible parties. It is said, on good authority, that there are 80,000 prostitutes on the streets of London, and who can tell the misery a fact like that implies to the girls themselves, the mothers who bore them, the fathers who loved them. Are we to stand by and see a system being shielded in which rich men are allowed to debauch these girls, and then turn them adrift to swell the ranks of those who go upon the streets?
  I stand here to give it as my opinion that a hugh conspiracy is afoot to defeat the ends of justice. There are two courses open to the Home Office now. The first is to publish papers on this question, and make a full reservation of all the facts. If that be not possible then the second course is still open to them, namely, to institute proceedings against the woman known as Queenie Gerald, for having
  2342
  acted as a procuress in addition to the offence for which she has been charged. In the course of my public life I have been the recipient of many, many communications, most of them denouncing me for action taken. On this occasion, from the vicarages of England and Ireland, from the manses of Scotland, from various parts, most parts of the country, letters come day after day praying that this thing may be pursued and praying that the veil may be torn aside, so that those who may be inclined to follow in the footsteps of the men who are the chief offenders in this case may be deterred from doing so through the danger of exposure.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member, who has so admirably stated the case for further investigation into this extraordinary Piccadilly fiat case, further than to say that all decent men know perfectly well that the best cure for the practices which seem to have gone on in that flat is publicity. If the names were known it is quite unnecessary to punish them by law, because they would be cut by every decent man and woman in the country, and that would be sufficient punishment. I do not trust so much to the law as my hon. Friend does. I believe public opinion is strong enough as soon as those names are known. I pass from that to a subject which it is extremely difficult for me to deal with. I am here to plead for my friend, George Lansbury, and I believe, in doing so, I am pleading for a man who is the friend of everyone who knew him in this House. He is, as we all know, an impulsive man, some people would say he was a rash man, but we all know that he is an absolutely upright, honest man, and a man who, if carried away sometimes by his feelings, is only carried away by the most generous of feelings. This man some months ago, now over six months ago, made a rash speech in the Albert Hall, in which he used words, and who amongst us has not used words which he has not regretted, and which could not be brought up against him if everything said was written down. He used these words, and they are some of the words for which he is being punished, and they are words in which, I believe, every one of us will join him. He said that human life was more sacred than property. Everybody knows it is. That was one of the sentences which was reported by the police and solemnly brought before the magis-

  2343
  trates to show what a dangerous remark it was for anybody to make. I do not know what the other remarks were, but if they were all as innocent as that, no charge could properly be made. Granted that that man did say things which were technically an incitement to riot, granted that he said things which no man in this House would ever say or ever had said, I still think that he has met with an extremely hard measure of justice, that he has paid the penalty and that he ought now to have that petition, that humble petition, which I presented for him to the House to-day, receive careful consideration by this House, and a remedy for the injustice under which he is suffering at the present time.
  The case of George Lansbury differs from that of Sylvia Pankhurst, although the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) said they were the same. I think the summons in this case of George Lansbury was under the Act of 34, Edward III., which gives the magistrate power to bind to the peace. I will not go into the question of the recent extension of these powers of binding to the peace for political offences, nor will I deal with the question whether the Act 34, Edward III., gives these powers, or whether magistrates are not now after the recent decision, when they bind to the peace, acting under judge-made law instead of Statute law. The extension of these powers to political cases, although old so far as Ireland is concerned, is new in this country. The binding to the peace of people who use somewhat violent arguments in political work is an extension which ought to be very carefully watched in the interests of democracy. It is so easy to extend it from dangerous political arguments to dangerous sociological arguments, to the man who advocates a strike, to the man who advocates the solidarity of labour, to the man who advocates sabotage, or to the advocacy of any doctrine whatever which those in power consider dangerous. But I do not rest my case on that. It is evidently within the law that magistrates should have the power of binding to the peace a man who has not only not been convicted of any crime, but who has not been charged with the committing of any crime whatsoever. All that is charged is the using of certain words without any consequences being attached to them. These words are reported and read out to the magis-
  2344
  trate, and the magistrate without hearing any evidence whatever from the man charged, except on the particular words used, can say to him, "I do not find you guilty of having committed a crime, but I bind you to the peace, and in default of your finding sureties you will have to go to prison."
  We all know George Lansbury. We know that he is not the type of which criminals are made. Anybody less like a criminal it would be difficult to find. But he is a man with a very high standard of honour, and he considers that, when he is fighting for what he believes to be freedom, he would be betraying his cause if he did not refuse to bind himself never to use arguments which any magistrate might consider to be dangerous. Many Members on either side of the House believe sufficiently in the cause for which they are fighting, and are sufficiently convinced of the justice of that cause, to go to any length, even to prison, rather than cease to advocate the principles for which they stand. To put the position in a homely phrase, George Lansbury refuses to put his tongue in such a position that any magistrate can hold it for him. He prefers to go to prison. Having gone to prison, he goes on hunger strike—very inadvisedly, I think, but still, he wanted to get out of prison as soon as possible and to carry on his work. He is a business man, and has a large family. He went on hunger strike, and the Home Secretary let him out. He was clue back in prison yesterday; he has not yet been rearrested; he is waiting in Bow to be arrested. I do not know whether or not the Home Secretary intends to rearrest him. I hope he does not. What is the position of this man if he is not rearrested? For all the rest of his life he has hanging round his neck the risk of being rearrested if he says anything distasteful to the police. That is not a position in which any citizen ought to be put. It is extremely undesirable that the law should be brought into contempt, as it is being brought at the present time. This man is due to be arrested; he ought to be in prison at the present moment; he is out of prison because the Home Secretary as a man is different from the Home Secretary as a machine. Therefore George Lansbury is at large, and I hope likely to remain at large. But let the House take the opportunity of the humble petition of George Lansbury to put him right with the law, and to put the Home Secretary right with

  2345
  the law also. All we ask is that mercy should be shown to a man who, in that petition, indicates that he did not know that he was breaking any law, that he has not been convicted of any crime, and even—I forget the exact words—that he has no intention of committing any crime or of breaking the law—a man who, far from riding the high horse and refusing to have anything to do with Parliament or with the law, deliberately asks the House of Commons to afford him relief, so that he may again come within the pale of the law. I submit that, however much we may disagree with him, when we are dealing with a man of extremely high character, of high aims, who comes to us and asks to be put right with the law, a man whom we know to be a man of high honour, the Home Secretary ought to take advantage of the opportunity to make that man once more a worthy citizen.
  Mr. MORRELL: I want to join in the appeal made by my hon. Friend to support the petition presented by Mr. Lansbury. I do not want to go at any length into the personal question. Everyone who sat in this House with Mr. Lansbury must recognise, not merely his sincerity and courage, but also the true love of humanity which guided his actions throughout. Whether you agree with him or not—and I did not always agree with his opinions, still less with his expression of them—you must respect Mr. Lansbury for the convictions he held. But I am certain that my hon. Friend would not wish to put his appeal to the Home Secretary upon any merely personal grounds. We are not entitled to do so. We are not entitled to ask for a man whom we happen to know as a colleague, different treatment from that which we would ask for any other person in the same position. I wish to press the appeal on the ground that in my judgment, and in the judgment of many other people who inquire into these cases, the procedure under which Mr. Lansbury has been proceeded against is a bad and dangerous procedure, and contrary to the best traditions of English liberty. I submit that the only safeguard to individual liberty in this country is that no man or woman shall be brought before a Court of Law, still less committed to prison, unless there is a definite charge of breaking the law. I do not believe that with regard to this binding to the peace you can say that that is so. Mr. Lansbury is not charged with any definite breach of the law. All
  2346
  that has happened is that the police say, "We believe he is going to break the law; there may be a danger of his breaking the law; we therefore bring him before the magistrates." The magistrate inquires into the allegations of the police; the defendant cannot bring evidence rebutting the charge; he is told that unless he finds sureties he will be committed to prison.
  It may be asked, "What is the objection to Mr. Lansbury's finding sureties?" I think that that was the effect of the Under-Secretary's reply the other day. Why should a man give sureties when he has committed no crime? In the first place, he may not be able to. Cases have arisen already in which men have been asked to give sureties which they could not afford—for instance, there is the case of Mr. Boulter—and of being committed to prison in consequence. Mr. Lansbury may be able to do so as he has many friends. But he is also entitled to ask, "Why should I incriminate my friends in regard to my own good behaviour?" No man can be certain that he will not break the law or be guilty of a breach of the peace—not oven the Home Secretary himself. Why should a man put his friends in the position of standing surety for his good behaviour if he has himself committed no breach of the law? This procedure leads in effect to the prosecution of opinions. We have had too much prosecution of political opinion lately. I was one of those who protested very strongly against the action taken by the Attorney-General in the Aldershot case, and also in the case of Mr. Tom Mann. I said then, and I still think, that the action taken was very much against public policy. It had the effect of converting Mr. Tom Mann, of whom I know nothing myself, into a martyr. I think the action with regard to Mr. Lansbury is equally ill-advised. On these grounds, and in Mr. Lansbury's case on the further ground that the procedure is bad, I support most earnestly my hon. Friend's appeal, and I hope the Home Secretary will indicate that he is prepared to do something in the matter.
  8.0 P.M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not agree with many of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) or the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), and I feel that it is very objectionable indeed to ask the Home Secretary to treat Mr. Lansbury in a different way from that in which he would treat anyone else. I also feel it

  2347
  very difficult to ask him to extend clemency to the only man who is being imprisoned in this way while there are many women being imprisoned also. I do not wish to say anything to indicate in the slightest degree that I think it improper, speaking generally—I do not pretend to be familiar with every case—that most of these women should be in gaol. I think they ought to be, as far as I am capable of forming a judgment. All I want to say about Mr. Lansbury's case is that if the Home Secretary, after considering all the circumstances, should think it a case in which the prerogative of mercy might be fairly exercised, I, personally, should be glad, merely because of my acquaintance with Mr. Lansbury in this House, just as I should be glad in the case of any other friend or acquaintance in a similar position. I cannot put it higher than that. If the Home Secretary thinks that under the circumstances he cannot exercise the prerogative of mercy, I shall not have one single word of criticism or complaint to make of his decision. I must say that I feel, as I have often felt as the time went on, that the operation of the "Cat-and-Mouse" Act does not seem to me to be working as it was intended. The Home Secretary may be in possession of facts unknown to me, but the Act appears to be working almost as badly as a criminal statute could work. It seems to me that there has been organised under it a series of dramatic and theatrical incidents of the exact kind that ought to be avoided. I do not like, and I say so quite frankly, the fact of a prisoner who has been sentenced to three years' penal servitude being out and about, making speeches, and so on. It may be inevitable. I do not know. There may be some explanation of it that I am not aware of, but it appears to be a condition of affairs that is as likely as anything to bring the law into disrespect. I do not wish to say more about it. The Home Secretary passed the Act, and he must take the consequences.
  I desire to say only one word about the matter raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, the matter that is known as "The Piccadilly Flat Case." I do not wish to say that letters which have been produced in a criminal case should be published merely because they show that the writers were guilty of immoral acts. I do say this: that if there is any evidence upon which the woman concerned
  2348
  could have been tried for procuration, and she was not tried for procuration, that is a very grave scandal indeed. What the evidence was I do not know. The case was very imperfectly reported at the time, and I did not even read the newspapers when it was reported. I should very much like to be assured that the Home Secretary has submitted to his legal advisers—the question as to whether or not this woman could have been charged with procuration. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree, as everybody will agree, that it would be very unfortunate to allow the impression to get abroad that this woman was not charged with everything of which she might have been found guilty. I quite acknowledge that in a case of this sort there are great difficulties about the evidence. The letters of themselves would not have been evidence against the woman legally. It might, obviously, be very difficult to procure the evidence of those who wrote the letters. It may be that there is not any evidence, and that nothing more could have been done. I can quite understand how that may be so. I personally, however, appeal to the Home Secretary to make as full, clear, and explicit a statement as he can upon a case which has caused a great deal of feeling in the country. It is really very deplorable that at the present it does at any rate have the appearance that a woman who has been guilty of a crime which we all reprobate profoundly, and about which Parliament has quite recently legislated, should in fact have been punished much less severely than women who, however plentiful and guilty, are certainly not, to put it colloquially, in the same street as this woman.
  Mr. J. WARD: I am delighted to hear what the Noble Lord has said. I would appeal to the Home Secretary to go a little further in reference to the case brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil. We have had statements alleged which seem really to support the contention that was made at the time this Act was before the House. The Noble Lord will remember that there was criticism passed upon the suggestions contained in this Criminal Law Amendment Act from this quarter of the House, because we were of a decided opinion—I do not know whether it is a constitutional weakness of ours, or what may be the reason—we did have a certain impression. The reason that we opposed some of the

  2349
  more severe penalties connected with the Act was not because we were not averse to crimes of the sort that the Act sought to deal with, but because we felt certain—and we said it—that these pains and penalties were intended only for poor people. We felt certain that at the moment a case was obtained where wealthy people were involved, people of influence—and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham particularly made a speech on this one point—there would be no attempt whatever to secure a proper punishment, and the case would be held up. We said that really all you were passing was an Act of Parliament to punish those who committed these crimes—if they happened to be sufficiently poor and inconsiderable! Here is the first illustration. We suggested much the same in reference to the Mental Deficiency Bill and other measures of that sort. We suggested that really the House was legislating for poor people, and that by some means or other there is always sufficient influence behind the authority when people are "collared," to use a colloquialism, who have sufficient wealth and influence behind them. The law is never stretched in the way it has been in the case of poor people.
  I was delighted with what the Noble Lord and other Members said in reference to the appeal for the release of our old friend and late colleague, Mr. George Lansbury. I must confess that the Noble Lord stands much higher in my estimation than he did, because, at least, he showed that he does not wish it to be held, to be practically understood by the public, that there is one law for the rich in regard to these cases and another law for the poor. Does any hon. Member mean to tell me for one moment that if this had been Tom, Dick, or Harry attached to the navvies or the dockers, or people living in a mean street, that the names would not have been given, or that the letters would have been suppressed? Nobody would ever have dreamt of such a thing! Instead of protesting that there was no evidence to support the case, even when counsel for the prosecution, acting on behalf of the Government, in opening the case, declared that there was practically sufficient evidence to make the more serious charge—
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no; counsel in opening said exactly the contrary.
  Mr. J. WARD: All I mean to say is that that was the statement made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. But what has the Home Secretary to say as to the statements published in the "Globe" newspaper, the report of the trial, and the statements that were made by counsel at the trial? If these statements were true, then unquestionably there was a suggestion—
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I say, in view of the reply of the Home Secretary, that I was not making any statements on my own authority? I was quoting from the "Times" and the "Telegraph" reports of what the prosecuting counsel said.
  Mr. J. WARD: What I was venturing to suggest was that here is the first case where the Home Secretary had the chance of showing whether there is the same process of law against the wealthy and the influential who break the law as there is in the case of the poor man or woman who happens to break it. Does anyone for a moment imagine that even the chief criminal in the case of a poor man or woman would have appeared in Court without giving their proper name? Nobody would ever believe it, even if the Home Secretary were to stand there and state it until he was black in the face. 'If it had been Mrs. Brown, a charwoman or washerwoman, or a person connected with that class of society, the whole thing would have been laid bare. There would have been no question of not interfering with their social relationship—which by the way are quite as important in those classes of society as in the higher—this aspect would never have been considered of the slightest importance in deciding this case. Therefore, I do most certainly second the appeal of the Noble Lord that a clean breast should be made in this case. I do not suggest that where men who had had perfectly innocent relationships with this woman, as was suggested by the Home Secretary the other day as to the investment of her money in various business transactions, that their letters shall be published; but I suggest that the names of those who can be shown to have had the slightest connection with her traffic as a procuress should most certainly be stated, because if the law cannot touch them, at least public opinion can. That will be sufficient deterrent to others to prevent them from committing similar crimes.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I wish to say a few words on the case of Mr. Lansbury, a man whom everyone in this House who had the privilege of knowing recognises to be a man of absolute honesty and integrity. I do not think that view will be dissented from by a single Member of the House. The last speaker said something about one law being made for the rich and another for the poor. I think that no more improper proceedings have ever taken place during the time I have been in this House than for Member after Member to get up in his place and ask that special privileges should be accorded to a gentleman merely because he had been a Member of this House. Why should we accord special privilege to Mr. Lansbury who is really setting the law at defiance? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Really the question has resolved itself into this: Is Mr. Lansbury to he above the law or is the law to be above Mr. Lansbury? When the "Cat and Mouse Bill" was passing, I did my utmost to prevent its becoming law. At the same time, if Mr. Lansbury is to be released from the provisions of this Act it simply shows that it has become an absolute failure.
  Mr. W. THORNE: The sooner the better.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If Mr. Lansbury is to be released then I think my right hon. Friend will admit that the "Cat and Mouse Bill" has failed as far as the Home Office view is concerned. If this had been the case of a poor man it would not have been brought up in this House. It is only because Mr. Lansbury is an influential and honest man, a man whom we all admired, that this appeal has been made. It will put Mr. Lansbury above the law. My complaint against this law is that if Mr. Lansbury had known when he refused to enter into his recognisances to keep the peace, and went to prison, he would have to die if he did not take the food given to him, he would very soon have entered into those recognisances, and the law would have been maintained. It was because he knew how the matter would turn out that he set the law at defiance. I should say this, in justice to the Home Secretary, that one of his colleagues recently told me that the whole Cabinet are responsible for this Act. The matter was considered by the Cabinet, and it is not fair to place the whole burden on the shoulders of the Home Secretary. The Cabinet., as a Cabinet, ought to bear the full burden for this failure which undoubtedly it is. I did not
  2352
  know the responsibility was that of the whole Cabinet when I have attacked the right hon. Gentleman. I was not aware at that time that the Bill was one which was decided by the Cabinet. Mr. George Lansbury—
  Sir W. BYLES: Was not the case of Mr. Lansbury under an Act of Edward III.—that is the mischief of it?
  It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I think we are in a somewhat difficult position in opposing this Bill, because I know full well it has been very carefully considered by a Committee upstairs, and, naturally, every Member of the House pays the greatest care and attention to the decisions that may be come to by Committees of the House. But I think that even before Committees of the House of Commons sometimes various facts are not prominently brought forward which would help them to come to a decision that might be to the advantage of those interested. I think I am right in saying that, although the Committee that considered this Bill was a small Committee, nevertheless, the result that was originally arrived at was not unanimous. It is in these circumstances that I crave the indulgence of the House in bringing forward a Motion which stands in my name. This Bill intends to make an increase in the cost of shipping, both for wharfage and for dock use. It may be asked what is the meaning of this, and I call the attention of the House to the fact that there are at the present time statutory charges which are now charged upon the various tonnage entering the port of Cardiff, and for the use of the appliances by which cargoes chiefly of coal are placed on board these

  2353
  steamers. It is proposed by this Bill that there should be an increase in the charges, ranging from 22 to 37½ per cent. It may be assumed that for this increase in the cost there is to be given to the shipowners some compensating advantages in regard to improved facilities for loading or other matters.
  In this case—and I think I am safe in saying it almost forms a precedent—there is no improvement to be given for the increased charges. It has been argued, if these increased charges are placed upon shipowners coming to load their cargoes at Cardiff they will be able in the natural course of events to protect themselves by going to other ports besides Cardiff, but that cannot be done because there is a form of charter by which steamers coming into South Wales District must go to Cardiff, Penarth, and Barry, and the shipowner has to send his ship to either of these places, and the reason is that the cargo may be placed on board as quickly as possible in order that the colliery proprietor should not run the risk of additional charges for demurrage incurred in consequence of the delay of the steamer for a certain number of days. Therefore, the House will realise that the power of shipowners in this direction is entirely gone, and that they will be at the mercy of the shippers as to whether their steamers are to be loaded at one port or another, and that if the shipowners had the misfortune to be sent to various other ports he would be mulcted in additional charges for loading which he would not have to pay either at Penarth or Barry. I should like to direct attention to the importance of this matter because of the enormous amount of tonnage which leaves the port of Cardiff during the year. According to the 1912 figures, there were nearly 8,500 steamers carrying 10,000,000 tons of coal that left Cardiff during that year, and the House will at once appreciate the importance primarily to the shipowner of any increase in the due. It may be said that as far as this House is concerned we are not here for the protection of any specific industry. I grant that that is the case, and although this Bill has been opposed by practically all the leading shipowners throughout the country, I cannot help thinking it would be very detrimental to the interests of the country at large if these additional charges were allowed to be placed upon the shipownsrs which might necessarily lead to an increase in the price of the commodity they are desirous of shipping.
  2354
  I know full well that steam coal we get from the South Wales District is utilised enormously, and some people may say that an additional ¾d. per ton would be neither here or there; but I would point to the increase that has taken place in the coal that has been supplied from Westphalian coal fields, and I am sorry to say that an enormous amount of the coal that used to be shipped to the German ports before o troubles arose, which I am not desirous of discussing here to-night, is now taken, to a very large extent, from the Silesian coalfields. I believe it was argued in the Committee upstairs that the shipowners at the present time are enjoying peace and prosperity, but we have often heard of the seven fat years and the seven lean years, and I think anybody who knows anything about shipping at all must be conversant with the fact that from 1902 to the middle of 1912 the shipowners in many cases were not able to send their steamers from one port to another and to pay the expenses that were naturally incumbent upon them. It was not: a question of saying what profit was going to be made, but a question of finding the smallest loss that was to be incurred in sending from one port to another. Shipping is not in the miserable state it was in 1912. It has been stated in Committee that in consequence of prosperous times the shipowners can afford to pay an increase in the dues. It was during those times of prosperity that this Bill was promoted. Had it been promoted in 1911 there would not have been the smallest chance of getting it through. With the ordinary business aptitude prevalent with the promoters of these Bills, they have waited until better times, but even at the present moment the condition of the shipping trade is not as happy as it was in the autumn of last year, and the freights from Cardiff to ports in the Mediterranean are between 3s. and 4s. a ton less than they were at this time last year. The increased dues would have to be paid by the shipowners themselves, and in the ordinary course of events they have been asked to contribute towards the expenses of lighting round the coast and other matters, and they have borne their fair share of those charges.
  With regard to these docks, powers have been given by which they can charge a maximum amount. In 1894 power was sought to construct the Alexandra Dock. This had been found necessary in consequence of the large increase of shipping in Cardiff and the South Wales district, and

  2355
  it was decided to go ahead and build another large dock, for which the necessary powers were obtained. When one goes into such matters as the construction of docks it will be readily understood that often the original estimates are wrong, but they adopt the designs which are deemed best in the general interest. It o so happened in the case of this new dock, because the estimates contemplated for the construction were exceeded by over 100 per cent. This was not entirely in consequence of the required alterations, but a difficulty was experienced with regard to sinking the dock, and the depth of the foundations had to be increased from fifty-four feet to seventy-two feet. In 1907 this dock was completed, but various anticipations in regard to it were not realised. Whether they were genuinely expected or not I am not able to say, but, at any rate, the revenue expected has not been realised. When you construct a dock you cannot expect that the full revenue will be realised from its inception, because you cannot utilise the whole of the dock from the first. Besides, one has to look to the natural expansion of trade, and this has been so regarded in the case of the Alexandra Dock, and although large sums of money have been expended upon it, the whole of the slips have not been utilised to the full extent. According to the drawings it is the intention of the Cardiff Dock to complete fourteen of these appliances, and only ten have been installed, and there are four more to be fixed.
  The House will realise that the promoters could not possibly expect to be receiving the full benefit they had anticipated under these circumstances. From 1910 to 1912 various difficulties arose with regard to the loading of ships through labour troubles, which I am glad to say do not exist at the present time. It is not my intention to go into those disputes, but I wish to say 'that during the second half of 1912 I find that according to the figures the revenue was sufficient to pay a return of 3 per cent. on the money invested in the ordinary stock, the whole liabilities having already been met on the preference stock and the debenture stock. I admit that there has not been a reasonable return on the money up to the present time invested in the ordinary stock, but although the whole of the arrangements contemplated have not yet been completed, the result shows that it was possible to pay 3 per cent. on the investment.
  2356
  I do not say that 3 per cent. on an investment of this description is as much as one could reasonably expect, but you have to weigh against that what will be the ultimate result of the benefit that will accrue to the ordinary shareholders. I think we are justified in comparing the figures of the Taff Vale and the Barry Railways, which are able to earn from 8 per cent. to 10 per cent., and they pay a dividend to that amount, and I do not see why the same results should not be eventually forthcoming to the shareholders of the Cardiff Railway. I do not think that this House is justified at the present time in placing an additional charge of £60,000 per annum on the shipowners of this country, when it is admitted that they cannot possibly obtain anything in return. The whole of that £60,000 is going into the pockets of the shareholders of that company, to the detriment of the shipowners, without any limit as to the eventual interest that is to be obtained and paid to the ordinary shareholders. I cannot help thinking that is rather an important fact, and it is one to which I hope the House will give its most careful attention. It was stated in Committee that there was a question with regard to the increased cost of wages. I am entirely in favour of an increase in the charges that a railway company may make if it has been satisfactorily proved that increase is in consequence of the increased cost of labour. We all know full well that during the past three or four years there has been a general rise in the cost of living, and that has naturally, to a certain extent, been met by additional wages to the working classes.
  I am not one of those who say that the increased cost of wages should not be recoverable from those who utilise the railways. I have, therefore, carefully gone into the question to see whether the additional cost is justified by the wages bill. I find that in 1895 the Cardiff Railway Company paid £111,000 odd in wages; in 1900, £127,000; in 1905, £136,000; in 1910, £161,000; and in 1912, £154,000. I am afraid those figures do not give much information to the House; but, when I say that the amount paid in wages per £100 of earnings was 29.4 per cent., 29.4 per cent., 32.2 per cent., 31.7 per cent., and 30.1 per cent., respectively, I think that the information will be of great assistance to the House. It will be seen that, as compared with 1895, the wages have only increased from 29.4 per £100 of earnings to

  2357
  30.1 per cent., and that as compared with 1905 they have actually fallen from 32.4 to 30.1 per cent. Therefore, so far as the question of any increased cost in consequence of increased wages is concerned, I do not think that the promoters of the Bill have any locus standi. It will be readily realised that if this increase is placed upon the shipowner he will not be able to recoup himself in any way whatever. In view of the enormous amount of British money that is invested in British shipping and the small revenue that has been obtained from that money over a period of years, I certainly hope that this House will not agree to any additional charges being placed upon shipowners to the possible disadvantage of the country in general. The importance of the industry has been admitted to the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty, only a few months ago, stated that he had agreed that certain steamers of the mercantile marine should be adapted as cruisers. We want to do everything in our power to increase in a reasonable manner the shipbuilding of this country. It is of the utmost importance that we should do so. It is of the utmost importance that we should remember that we have, practically speaking, to bring the whole of the foodstuffs of this country in our steamers across the seas, and when the percentage of profits over a period of years has been so small, I do hope that this House will by a large majority say that they are not prepared to agree to the increases that have been proposed in the Cardiff Railway Bill, and against which I think I am right in saying even the Chairman himself protested.
  Mr. WALTER REA: In seconding the Resolution which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite, I recognise at once that I am taking a somewhat unusual course in asking the House to reverse the decision that has already been come to by a Committee upstairs; but, if the Motion is an unusual one, I think that it is justified in that the Bill which we are now considering is not only unusual, but almost unique. It is unique intrinsically, and I think in its Parliamentary history, for I am fortified in the action I am taking to-night by the knowledge that I have beside me ready to support this action the hon. Member who presided over the Committee which heard this case this year, and, more than that, by the support of the hon. Member who was Chairman of the Committee which rejected this measure last Session. I speak with even
  2358
  more confidence in that I know I am voicing the views of the vast majority of the commercial classes in South Wales. I am, I think I may say, authorised to speak for the Chamber of Commerce of Cardiff, for the colliery proprietors of South Wales, and for the Cardiff Steamship Owners' Association, who are supported in their views by ten other steamship associations representing practically all the ports in the United Kingdom. I may therefore say that opposed to this Bill is practically the whole of the commercial community which knows anything about it. I said that this Bill was intrinsically almost unique, and my reason for so saying is that so far as I can ascertain, its sole aim is not to provide extra facilities for the public at a fair charge approved by this House, but to increase the charges to be placed upon the public without giving any return in additional facilities. It is true that as the Bill stands at present there is a small concession in regard to the provision of certain sidings for the storing and sorting of coal. But these are very insignificant in comparison with the main object of the Bill They were only introduced in the Committee stage to meet the wishes of the Committee, and, therefore, I am correct in saying that the sole object with which the Bill is introduced is to place increased charges on the public, and not to provide increased facilities.
  It is sought to be shown under this Bill that the Cardiff Railway Company has incurred considerable loss, which it ought to be reimbursed; but I am prepared to argue, taking everything into account, and considering the matter from a judicial standpoint, that it is not possible to show that a real loss has been sustained. We have heard from the Mover of the Motion that the Bill arises out of the construction of a new dock, but we have to go a little further back into the history of the company when we consider its present position. At the time when this dock was opened, and when it became a charge upon the company, the company was able to pay over 4 per cent. on its capital, not a very handsome return, but still one not altogether unremunerative. If these new docks are not paying a profit return on the capital, that is only the experience that is to be expected by everybody who undertakes a new enterprise. When a man builds a house, he does not expect to get rent before it is finished, and it is unreasonable for the Cardiff Railway

  2359
  Company to expect to receive a full revenue from the dock before it is fully occupied, and, indeed, before it is fully completed. It ought to be brought to the attention of this House that although the dock has been nominally opened a very long period it is not satisfactorily completed, and it is very far from getting the trade for which it was constructed and which the dock, when fully occupied, may be expected to have. I have not the least doubt that when once it is in full working order a proper return will be obtained upon the capital expended upon it.
  Before it, is stated that a loss has been incurred, we must see that the accounts are properly kept. I have some knowledge of docks in various parts of the country, and I know that, as a rule, they do not depend entirely on dock dues. They also derive income from subsidiary industries, and rents from lands and warehouses. But in this case all these rights have been reserved. I have not a word to say against the Marquis of Bute or his ancestors, who have done a very great deal for the development of Cardiff, but we are bound to bring into the account the revenues which are received by the Marquis from this dock estate, revenues which, under ordinary circumstances, are received by the dock company. Again, there is a royalty, amounting to £42,000, payable to the Marquis of Bute, and such payment, if the docks were at Southampton, Liverpool, or Newcastle, would be brought into account in calculating the revenue and profits of the estate. It is not fair, therefore, to say that this company is making a loss, unless you take into account all the revenues which do not go into the Cardiff Company's profit and loss account. This so-called railway company, which is in reality a dock-owning company, has been ambitious, and has attempted to build a railway within the past fifteen years to connect its docks with the mines. I am told it has spent a sum of no less than £700,000 on this railway, which has not yet been brought into use. Therefore, before we consider that this company has made a loss, we ought to deduct from the capital upon which a return is expected the £700,000 invested in this railway, which, for reasons best known to the Cardiff Railway Company, has not been brought into profit earning, although some fifteen years have elapsed since it was authorised.
  2360
  I notice in the statement circulated in support of this Bill it is said that labour is costing more, and, therefore, the company should be entitled to additional rates. I entirely agree with the hon. Member opposite that if that were the case everyone in this House would be very willing that the consumer—the user of the dock—should bear his share of any extra wages that may have to be paid, and nobody would begrudge it. Although, undoubtedly, there is an increase in the amount of wages paid, the percentage that the wages bear to the total amount of revenue earned is a diminishing one, and, therefore, the dock company is carrying on its undertaking at a less and not a greater cost for labour. That argument consequently falls to the ground. Even if we were to admit that this company is making a loss at the present time, I would put it very strongly to the House that it is not our business to provide dividends for private or public companies, although they may have made a bad investment. There are other companies in South Wales owning docks very simliar to the Cardiff docks. They receive the same amount in dues, and yet these companies, the Taff Vale Railway Company and the Barry Railway Company, which own docks close to the Cardiff Dock estate, and are doing precisely the same kind of trade are able to make a handsome profit and pay dividends amounting to 10 per cent. per annum. If these companies can pay dividends out of the existing rates, I submit it is evident that there is mismanagement in connection with this Cardiff Company, and they should set their house in order before they ask us to authorise an increase in their charges to the public.
  If it was desirable that these dues should be increased, I put it strongly that the fair and honourable course to-take would have been, when powers were asked for the construction of the new dock, for the House to be told honestly and straightforwardly that, while the company was prepared to construct the dock, they would require additional dues. But it was told nothing of the sort, and the House should know the reason why. Of course, one cannot read the minds of the promoters of a Bill. In this case the facts point very strongly to the assumption I am going to make. At the time this dock was under consideration, at any rate, before its construction, there was a rival scheme for the construction of another

  2361
  dock, which would have robbed this dock of a large part of its trade. The rival company were perfectly willing to construct the dock without asking for any extra dues. It is perfectly obvious, if the Cardiff Company had come to this House and said they were prepared to construct the dock, but would require to impose extra dues, this House would have given the concession not to the Cardiff Company, but to the Windsor Company, their rivals. But, as a matter of fact, the Windsor Dock scheme is dead. There is no possibility of competition, and so the Cardiff Company now come and ask Parliament to permit it to increase the dues and thereby place a burden on the community, so as to enable them to earn a dividend. Furthermore, I should like to point out that the £60,000 which it is proposed to raise by this Bill is not the limit of the amount the public will have to pay. If the Cardiff Railway Company are to be allowed to increase the dues, it is only to be supposed that their neighbours the Taff Vale Railway Company, the Barry Railway Company, and the Newport Docks Company will demand that they too shall be allowed to raise their dues, and I do not see how this House, in justice, could refuse that demand, although the companies are making a profit at the present time, and are not at the moment asking for the increase. It is admitted that the money has been spent and somebody has to bear the loss. Someone has to pay, and this Bill is an attempt to make the community and the shipowner pay. I am aware it is a popular thing to make the shipowner pay at the present time, because, admittedly, he has had a rather good time lately. After all, good times come and go. I regret to say that for the shipowners the good times are passing away much too rapidly. When the good times have passed away, these increased dues will still remain. There is no sliding scale by which these dues are to be reduced in bad times, and, from our experience of the Cardiff Railway 'Company, we may confidently assume that once this Bill has been passed the dues that will be charged will be the maximum dues and nothing less.
  It is surely not a fair thing that because one section of the community, after ten lean years, has had one or two good ones that it should be asked to bear somebody else's loss. There is more rough justice in Robin Hood than one would expect from this House, at least. Even if it
  2362
  should be stated that the shipowners and the community to whom the shipowners will endeavour to pass on this charge are to pay a part of this cost, when we look into the details and find that the increased dues mean an additional 37½ per cent. on a considerable portion of the trade, I submit that is not a fair proposal to bring before the House. It may be asked, "How is this Company to make ends meet?" It is suggested that it will be unable to raise further capital unless we pass this Bill. But this Bill does not propose to give the company powers to raise further capital. If revenue is required for this company, I would venture in all earnestness to suggest to them that they should drop these expensive Parliamentary fights in which they and everybody else in South Wales have been so prone to indulge during the last few years, and that they should devote the time, energy and money they have wasted in the Committee Rooms upstairs to developing their estate and looking after their own business. In fact, I would suggest they should cease to rely on spoon-feeding by Parliament and attend to their own business. I am aware that in this House it is sound practice to trust to Committees upstairs and to be very slow to reverse any decision arrived at by them, particularly when the decision has been arrived at after hearing evidence upon a. great deal of detail which cannot properly be placed before the House. The point I submit is that this is not a question to be judged on minute details of evidence, but that it raises a broad new principle, in that this Bill asks statutory authority to increase charges upon the public merely because the promoters have failed to invest their money with common prudence. This House does not exist to guarantee dividends, but is here to safeguard the interests of the public, and in this case, at any rate, it is their sole protector. It is in the interests of the public that I ask the House to refuse to sanction what I cannot help considering in this case is an imposition upon them.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: The hon. Members who have moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill have spoken from a point of view somewhat different from that I take up. I oppose tins Bill from the point of view of the working community at Cardiff. That community is represented by the Trades Council of Cardiff, which, by a very considerable majority—that so far as the executive committee of the

  2363
  council is concerned is something like thirteen to one—is strongly opposed to this Bill being proceeded with. The council takes the view that if the powers which are suggested are given to the company the effect may very well be to remove some of the trade which at present comes to Cardiff to other ports on the Bristol Channel. The point has been made and is worthy of reiteration that the dues charged at Penarth, Barry, and Newport on this channel are identical with those charged at Cardiff. It is evident, if Cardiff increases its rates, that Newport, which is a competitor in the coal-exporting industry, may very well annex the business which at present goes to Cardiff. That will entail upon a considerable portion of the working community of Cardiff the necessity of transferring themselves, and possibly their families, to another sphere of industry—if not their families at least themselves, with a rise in their outgoings which at present they are not called upon to meet. They would of necessity have to travel to Newport and back, even if they did not remove their families to Newport. I can well conceive that we should have a great disturbance in that South Wales area, first, because of the removal of the business to Newport, and then there would be a sort of battledore and shuttlecock game as between all the ports of the channel, each being in competition with the other to get the maximum rates from the ship-owning community. I am not so much concerned with the shipowning community as I am with the people they employ. If the shipowners are to be called upon to meet considerable increases in dues charged by the owners of docks, there will of necessity be very much less with which to pay their seamen and firemen. From the point of view of the seamen and firemen their appeals to their employers for increased wages will pass unheard or, at least, unnoticed, if the dues are increased and the shipping community have to meet charges which at present are not placed upon them. The working people of Cardiff as represented by their trades council, which is entitled to speak for several thousands of the working men and women in that place, feel that even if the trade does not pass from their town it will possibly result in the passing on of the increased dues to the working classes.
  What will, of course, happen will be that those who have to meet the increased dues
  2364
  will charge more for their commodities. It' will not only be the £60,000 which is anticipated, which is the problematical figure, but supposing we assume that the trade does not go and that this dock company—it is a dock company passing under the name of a railway company—will first of all take the £60,000 it estimates it will receive, and those who meet it will pass that £60,000 on to some of the commodities. We know from experience that that passing on of amounts which have been collected at the source tends to very largely increase the cost of the commodities when they are retailed. The ultimate result will undoubtedly be that the cost of commodities as sold in the retail shops of Cardiff and other towns which are served by the Cardiff Docks will be increased and the consumer will undoubtedly pay. Let us see for whose benefit. So far as I understand the position, the ordinary stock of this Cardiff Dock Company is in the hands of two per-.sons, and, in the main, in the hands of one person. The whole of this £60,000 will go to augment the income of a nobleman who is at present passably rich.
  It seems to me that the case which is made out on behalf of this company is not sufficiently good to warrant the £00,000 which, it is anticipated, will go into the pockets of these shareholders so limited in number. The disquieting aspect of the question is that the Committee upstairs did not seem able to get at the correct figures as to the income from the subsidiary concerns associated with this new venture, and it may very well be that by a clever process of bookkeeping these new concerns may only be paying 1½ per cent., but there may be figures not disclosed to the Committee, which we have not been able to reach, which may show on the subsidiary concerns a very high percentage of profits, and probably that is the case. What ought to be done, it seems to me, is to lay the facts and figures clearly before the House so that we may know without question what the dividends of this concern are if you lump the various capital accounts together, and take the whole as one complete concern, instead of by a process of differentiation and clever bookkeeping, showing a 1½ per cent. return on this particular dock concerned, while not disclosing the larger profit which is made on the subsidiary account. It would appear to me, therefore, that on that ground, because the House has not been taken fully into the

  2365
  confidence of those who are promoting this Bill, there is no good reason why we should give our assent to it, and, on behalf of the working community of Cardiff I oppose the Bill.
  May I adduce an additional reason. It is urged on behalf of the promoters that railway companies generally, under the conciliation scheme, recently adopted by this House in the settlement of the strike of two years ago, with the exception of this particular company, are being empowered to pass on their charges for increased wages to the community, and it is urged on behalf of the promoters of this Bill that they are the exception in this matter and are not allowed the power to pass on the increased amounts they have spent in wages to the community. But this is not a railway company primarily. It has a length of rail which it does not work, I understand. Primarily, it is a dock company. In the second place, it has not been able to show any rise in wages of any considerable amount which would warrant the charges being increased as it is now proposed they shall be increased, and in fact under this Bill we are just reversing the process which a railway company ordinarily, under the conciliation scheme, is expected to follow. Under that scheme a railway company which proposes to increase its rates must show clearly that it has first expended in wages an amount which warrants its getting powers to increase its charges. We are just having the exact reverse in this case, and we are having a suggestion of increased charges in order possibly that there may be some slight increase in wages. I believe it is urged that the workers who are the employés of this concern may expect some slight addition to their wages if this Bill is allowed to go through. In my view that is the wrong way to begin a process of that kind. The increase is problematical, and I doubt whether, in view of the past experience of the employés of this company, any considerable proportion of that £60,000 which is expected in additional revenue will be expended in wages. But I object to the reversal of the process which the ordinary railway company has been compelled to follow, that of showing an increase in wages before it secures an increase in rates. Now this company asks for an increase in rates as an excuse for possibly, but with no guarantee, increasing the wages of their employés to some small extent. I join with those who have asked
  2366
  the House to reject the Bill, speaking, I believe, on behalf of a majority of my colleagues on these benches.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDER: I appeal to the House to treat me rather gently, because I happen to be in the rather unenviable position of addressing the House for the first time. I certainly should not have done so on a subject that is so controversial and so complicated as this Cardiff Railway Bill had I not happened to, be a Member of the Committee which considered it. I am rather glad my first remarks in this House should be devoted to a Bill which, as the very names which are down opposing it show very clearly, is by no means a party question. The Cardiff Railway Company, I might almost say, have been forced to bring the Bill to the House to amend the rates which were authorised as far back as 1865. Since those rates were authorised very great changes have come over the conditions that prevailed at these docks. This, I think, puts in very few words the reason why this Bill is before us to-night, as the change in these conditions has very naturally favoured the coal owners, the freighters, and the shipowners, but the owners of these docks have not shared in the general rise in prosperity. Let us take, in the first place, the actual cost of construction of to-day, and compare it with the cost of those days gone by. In 1865 the price of the West and East Docks, at the time they were constructed, was £37, roughly, to the 100 ft. of quay space. The next docks to be constructed showed a very big increase—in fact, the figure reached was £104 per 100 feet. Then we have the final case of the Queen Alexandra Dock, and there they rose to £194 per 100 feet. These enormous increases have been rendered necessary by the very big increase in the size of the ships. The following figures will show the very big rise in the tonnage of these ships since these first powers were authorised. In 1875 the biggest ship that came into those docks was not bigger than 3,000 tons. In 1912 they got to the figure of 16,000 or 17,000, and that is immensely to the advantage of the coal owners, shipowners and traders, but, again, it puts the dock company to a very great expense. I cannot but help seeing that they are quite right in taming to the House and asking for an amended rate according to these different conditions. Besides the original outlay and the very big expense for building these new docks,

  2367
  because of the enormous depth of water required, and the big quay walls which have to be built, there is the very much higher cost of maintaining these big docks.
  Having finished with the construction, the troubles of the Cardiff company have only just begun. With bigger ships it means that you have got to hoist your coal to very much greater heights, and whereas in the old days that did not entail very big expenditure to the company, a few years after they had to go to a height of 50 feet, and recently the height is 50 or 60 feet. Everyone knows that if you wish to get an extra knot out of a ship's steaming it means that every extra bit of speed requires so much greater consumption of coal, and a very big increase in the cost. It is exactly the same in this case, where you have to lift to these greater heights. Every little bit tells, and increases the cost to the dock companies. That has been rendered necessary. But I should like to point out that that has all been for the extra convenience of the shipowners. An hon. Member in the course of his speech to-night alluded to the fact that if these new rates were imposed, the people of Cardiff were afraid that the trade would go from that port. All I can say is that the Lord Mayor of Cardiff came before the Committee and gave evidence in support of this Bill. Can you conceive it possible that a man in the position of Lord Mayor of Cardiff would come before the Committee and give evidence in support of the Bill, if he thought for a moment that the trade would leave the city with which he is connected? I do not intend to go very deeply into the details of the evidence given before the Committee, but I should like to refer to one other remark which was made by the hon. Member with regard to the principle at stake in this Bill. I submit that there is no principle of any sort or kind at stake in this Bill. That there is no precedent I grant, but I think the objection to this Bill of a great many people was got over—I mean the view that the House has never granted powers to any concern which does not grant special favours in return to the public. I know that the Committee intended that the objection should be removed by their imposing sonic very onerous conditions on the Cardiff Company. I may say that it was some little time before that company accepted the
  2368
  conditions imposed, but eventually they did, and the Committee passed this Bill which the House is asked to consider tonight. I should like to add that I wish this task had been undertaken by a Member who has more knowledge of the subject, and who could have clone more justice to it than myself, but I can only say that the reasons which induced me to give my vote upstairs in support of the Bill will lead me to support it in the Lobby to-night.
  Mr. R. THOMPSON: I should like to express my sympathy with the promoters of this Bill. I have been associated with the Harbour and Docks Board of the City of Belfast for a good many years, and I have been for a number of years chairman of that board. I can testify to the enormously increased expenditure that has been entailed during late years owing to the greatly increased size of ships using the ports. I think it was in 1865 that the scale of charges at Cardiff was regulated by this House. Since then the conditions have very much changed, and I am greatly mistaken if hon. Members on both sides of the House do not recognise that change. We, in Belfast during the past few years, have expended over £500,000 in improving and extending our docks. I can very well understand the enormous expenditure that has been entailed in connection with the docks at Cardiff. Two years ago I had the honour to be appointed an arbitrator in a question that arose between the Docks Board at Cardiff and their employés. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) was associated with me in that arbitration. We gave a very substantial advance to the employés, and I am pleased to say that the Cardiff Dock authorities, whom I represented on the occasion, met the award without a murmur, and paid the increase in a manly way. The employés were most thoroughly satisfied with the decision arrived at. I understand that the conditions are so different; now from what they were in 1873, that the revenue of the Cardiff docks then would show a profit of £61,000 more than the same tonnage in 1912, with absolutely the same rates, charges, and tonnage. I think that is a very strong argument in favour of some increase in the dues of the Cardiff docks.
  I understand that a Committee of this House sat for nineteen days investigating the evidence brought before them, and voted in favour of this Bill going through the House by a majority of three to one.

  2369
  The House of Lords also examined the evidence in favour of the Bill for seven days, arid ultimately decided in favour of it. An hon. Member has said that the Lord Mayor of Cardiff had given evidence, but the city of Cardiff has gone further. The corporation of Cardiff have passed, I think, a unanimous vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] A vote of twenty to seven. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen."] At all events, a vote in favour of this Bill. The Bill provides an advance of only ¾d. in the £ on tonnage dues, and seven-sixteenths of a penny on dock dues. These are very small charges considering how the position has changed since 1865. Further, I understand that the Marquis of Bute, who I believe is the principal owner, has borrowed a large sum of money which was spent on these docks, for which he pays 4 per cent., and on which up to the present he has been receiving less than 1 per cent return. I do not think that anyone can accuse the Marquis of Bute of unfairness in trying to get this remedied. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to support this Bill, because it will be in favour of the workmen of Cardiff. The dock authorities have shown in the past that they are prepared to pay good wages to their workmen, and I have a promise from the same authorities that if this Bill passes so as to put them in a better position with regard to finance, they will give a still further advance.
  Mr. SOAMES: I am in a somewhat unusual position. In the first place, it is unreasonable for me to ask the House to reverse the decision of a Committee given upstairs, but in this particular case this decision, in my opinion, involves a very considerable departure from the settled practice of Parliament, and, therefore, I think it a very exceptional case. One other unusual feature about the decision is that, unfortunately, I am not in accordance with other members of the Committee, and for that reason I feel it my duty to give the House my reasons for differing from them. The duty of a Private Bill Committee upstairs, which has a scheme brought before it, is to constitute itself the guardian of the interests of the public, and, so far as I know, it has invariably been the practice of Parliament, when a corporation or a company, or a public utility, or any other body has come before Parliament and asked for compulsory power for the purchase of land or the, charging of rates, that they do so because they are able to
  2370
  show that they are providing better facilities or benefits for the public. It is because this Bill does not conform to that general principle that I have not found myself able to vote for the Preamble. This Bill only enables the undertakers to raise their charges. It simply asks for that power and for nothing else, and it does so on the plea that the capital invested in the company has not earned a sufficient dividend on the ordinary shares. In my opinion it is the duty of the Private Bill Committee to see in all these cases that there is a substantial quid pro quo, and inasmuch as there is no quid pro quo whatever—it is true that there was a small duty imposed on the railway by the Committee, but that was not a real quid pro quo——I do not feel myself able to support the Bill. The principle appears to me to be a dangerous one. We might have any railway company, train company, water company, or any other public company coming to the House and applying for leave to increase their charges because they are not earning what they consider a. sufficient dividend.
  In my opinion it is not the duty of Parliament to see that persons who venture their money in these undertakings receive sufficent dividends. In any case it appears to me that this application is premature for the reason that the Queen Alexandra Dock is not working nearly up to its full capacity, and until that dock came into existence, the company was earning a very reasonable dividend. It is only since upwards of £2,000,000 were spent on the new dock that the dividends on the ordinary shares have come down. We have no proof that when the dock is earning to its full capacity and when the railway, representing a dead sum of £750,000, is also brought into work, that the company will not again pay a decent dividend. I have been somewhat confirmed in that idea that it is capable of earning a good dividend by the fact that I have seen in the papers since the decision of the Committee was given, in fact, I think it was the very next morning, that the company have announced a dividend for the first half of this year of 1 per cent more than for the first half of last year. This Bill was considered last year by a Committee of the House of Commons, of four Members, who unanimously rejected it. This year it has been considered by another Committee of four Members. Three were in favour of it and one against it. Therefore, of the eight Members of the

  2371
  House of Commons who have considered this Bill, five were against it, and three in favour of it. Therefore, in this particular case, there are special reasons for this House to reconsider the decision of the Committee upstairs; but the principal reason to my mind is that the principle which is admitted by this Bill is a new one in the practice of Parliament, and one which to my mind is quite unsound, and would lead to endless trouble in the future.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I rise to support the Motion for the rejection of this Bill. I do so as representative of a great area in Glamorganshire, which will, in view of those able to judge, be affected very seriously by the Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. I also desire to say certain things with regard to what I may call the merits of this measure. Within the memory of the oldest Member of this House there has not been a more impudent attempt to seek legislation which was unjustifiable. The hon. Member who made such an admirable maiden speech to-night spoke of the difficulties of the company by reason of the large price that had to be paid for the railway. There was some allusion made by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Thompson) to the fact that there has been a serious outlay in other directions, but from the beginning to the end the whole thing is the purely personal affair of the Marquess of Bute. To begin with, the ordinary shareholder is only a synonym for the Marquess of Bute, and it applies to one individual who, I understand, owns a single share. The person to whom such a large price per hundred feet is to be paid for the land of this company is the Marquess of Bute. The person, by reason of whom this company is so seriously handicapped because of royalty to the amount of £42,000 having to be paid, is the Marquess of Bute. We have heard from the hon. Member for Scarborough that the dock estate which he sold is the element of the property which would—when included within the four corners of the dock estate—in every other part of the country, by reason of subsidiary industries add to the revenue of the Dock Company, and the owner of these choice bits of land is the Marquess of Bute. If a reasonable price had been charged by the Marquess of Bute as the owner of the land, if he had not charged £42,000 royalty in respect of the approaches to the dock, if he had sold the
  2372
  estate to this practically one-man company concern, letting in the whole of these choice bits of property, then, instead of this company coming to Parliament and appealing to us in forma pauperis, they would have been able to come here and show that they were earning a substantial dividend.
  It has been suggested that these freights, these dock dues, those shipping rates, were all fixed as far back at 1865. That is perfectly true, but in that day, as compared with the present day, there was a comparatively limited traffic, and what is now called the Cardiff railway was purely a dock concern. So long as it was in that position there was a substantial dividend earned on the capital outlay at the rates fixed in 1865. What is the position now? The position is that there has been super-imposed upon the old capital a large capital for what is truly the Cardiff railway. In addition to that there has been super-imposed a large capital for an additional dock which is not yet developed, beyond probably less than one-half of its actual capacity. What is the position in regard to this railway? It has been in a large part constructed over a number of years. It only requires a very little more work to complete the original scheme with regard to this railway by connecting it up with other railways in my constituency, and, if that railway were completed according to the original scheme, it would be earning a substantial dividend. But there it lies, unused and unoccupied, and yet the capital spent in its construction is being included in the total capital of this so-called Cardiff Railway Company, and the earnings from the dock dues are not only spread over what I call the purely dock capital, but they are spread over the purely dock capital, plus the capital of this railway, which is not yet being used. With that fact brought to the notice of this House it is impossible for this House to seriously entertain such a monstrous suggestion as that this Bill should become law.
  But there is another fact, a fact which came up three or four years ago, and of which I think it is well that the House should be reminded. As every hon. Member is aware, according to the Trustees Investments Act of 1893, trustees cannot legally invest trust money in preferential stock of a railway company unless that railway company's ordinary stock has earned 3 per cent. over a period of ten years. Four years ago an attempt

  2373
  was made to pass through this House a measure for the fusion of this Cardiff Railway Company with the Rhymney Railway Company, and it was then represented to the House that the ordinary stock of the Cardiff Railway Company, was earning a dividend of 3 per cent. That had to be, and was, carefully investigated, and it was discovered that the whole of the ordinary shares of the Cardiff Railway Company, with the exception of one single share, were owned by the Marquess of Bute. The ordinary share capital was £1,000,000, and the Marquess of Bute handed out of his private account to the secretary of the company £30,000, which the secretary handed back after the farce of the meeting, to Lord Bute as dividend at the rate of 3 per cent, on the ordinary stock, and the preferential stock in this company was advertised to the world as a stock in which trustees could easily invest their money. It was, I submit, very largely that fact, in connection with this concern, that caused the House to reject contemptuously the attempt that was then made to secure a Bill to fuse this company with the other company.
  But above and beyond all there is this perfectly amazing proposition: Let us assume that there had not been all this juggling and all this "jiggery-pokery," and that there had not been all this time all this dealing with the Marquis of Bute in so many aliases, and that the whole thing had been genuine and a perfectly properly conducted commercial concern, and let us then assume that they had come to the House with the proposition now before it, there is not, I venture to say in Parliament, not at all events in the modern Parliamentary history, not since the days the railway era began, a single precedent to be found for this simple and naked proposition, that because a concern which has obtained a franchise from Parliament is not earning a dividend, that, therefore, its rates and dues should be increased to enable it to earn a dividend. Take the modern case of the Great Central, and of the difficulties in the old days of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and take the case of the Chatham Railway Company before the fusion with the London and South-Eastern Company, and, apart altogether from those cases, take the hundreds of cases where railway companies have been constructed on a Parliamentary franchise, and have been unable to earn a dividend. Yet nobody has ever
  2374
  thought that they ought to come to Parliament and Parliament has never sanctioned an attempt on the part of a company of any sort or kind that has taken a franchise from Parliament that that franchise should be enlarged simply and solely for the purpose of enabling them to appear on the profitable side instead of on the losing side. I do ask in the particular circumstances of this case that the House will not sanction the introduction of this new and perfectly amazing principle. This is a Bill, I repeat, for no other purpose except for the endowment in perpetuity of Lord Bute, and if there were no other reason than that—
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just made the statement that Parliament has never altered any dock dues. How about the present Government, which altered the dock dues when the Port of London Authority was constituted
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: Perhaps I have not made my meaning clear. I have not suggested that Parliament has not altered, or I did not mean to suggest, that Parliament has not sanctioned the alteration of dock dues. It has sanctioned the alteration of dock dues, and it has sanctioned increases in dock dues and alterations in railway rates and charges, and increases in railway rates and charges, but it has never done either of those things simply and solely for the purpose of enabling either a dock company or a railway company to earn a dividend, but it has been invariably done in return for some special benefit which was given for the community or for some section of the community. The hon. Baronet, though he has made many novel proposals, and many surprising proposals, has never yet asked this House, in the interests of any railway company, that it should grant an increase in railway rates so as to enable that railway company to obtain a dividend. I am quite sure he knows of no such precedent, with his vast knowledge of precedents, in regard to railway cases in Parliament. In the absence of any such precedent, I again express the profound hope, especially in view of the particular circumstances, many of which are so unpleasant in connection with this case, that the House will reject this Bill.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I recognise the position which I happen to occupy and my connection with this company is rather peculiar, and on that account I do not

  2375
  intend either to discuss the merits of this Bill, or to record a vote upon it. I do not think I should have intervened in this Debate at all had it not been for the remarks which have been made by the last speaker and by one or two former speakers, with reference to the position of Lord Bute, and I think the House ought to understand that since Lord Bute succeeded to the estate, he has put back in the shape of capital, not only every penny that he has earned, as the owner of the shares of this company, but also no less a sum than more than half a million of his own money in addition. I think it is only fair that the House, after the attacks that have been made upon him, should realise that fact. As regards the merits of the Bill, in my position I do not propose to discuss them.
  Mr. DENNISS: I only had this afternoon sent to me by post the cases of the two sides, and I had not intended to intervene in this Debate. I am not interested, as a shipowner, or a colliery proprietor, or a trader. I have no interest in docks of any kind except a small sum of money on loan at 4 per cent, to a dock in the North of England, the name of which I forget. There is very great opposition to this Bill, entirely by shipowners, freighters, colliery proprietors, and traders, and the people who petitioned against the Bill include chambers of commerce, colliery proprietors, a steamship association, and a traders council. How, I ask, can this House do justice to a private Bill of this kind in a Debate of this character surely a Committee of this House is a trusted tribunal, and the Committee has sat for nineteen days, and it is not the first Committee that sat on this Bill, but the second. Therefore the evidence was well thrashed out, and it was well known at the second inquiry what had transpired at the first, and instead of that being an argument against the Bill being carried, as mentioned by the Chairman just now, it should be an argument in its favour. A Committee of the House of Lords also sat for seven days, and under those circumstances, if Committees of this House are to be trusted at all in these matters, there must be an overwhelming case for a rejection of their decision. What is that overwhelming case? A very forcible speech has just been made by the hon. Member for Glamorgan (Mr. C. Edwards), and it has always been my experience through a long life that the
  2376
  stronger and more violent the language of the charges, the weaker the case. It is entirely based upon three things. The first is that the person concerned is a marquess. Give a dog a bad name and you may as well hang him at once, and because it is a marquess the Bill is to be rejected. The whole of the, hon. Member's speech was based upon the fact that all these things were done by and all this money belonged to the Marquess of Bute. Suppose it had been Mr. Jones, he would not have put it in that way at all.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: The' hon. Member is really misrepresenting what I said. The case I made with regard to the Marquess of Bute was that he was one of the persons to whom this company owed its difficulties by reason of the enormous price that had to be paid for land and royalties, and that he was also the sole ordinary shareholder, with the exception of one, who stood to reap the entire benefit under the
  Bill.
  Mr. DENNISS: I quite understand that. I did not intend to misrepresent, nor do I think I have misrepresented the hon. Member. The hon. Member accused the Noble Marquess of being guilty of what was tantamount to fraud in pretending to pay a 3 per cent. dividend, in order that the preference shares might become a trustee investment. A charge like that and the statements as to ownership which the hon. Member has made are matters that could very fairly be put before the Committee, because they could there be cross-examined upon and their accuracy ascertained. Here nothing of the kind can take place. We are obliged to take every statement as Gospel; we have no means whatever of testing its accuracy. The hon. Member used in connection with the Noble Marquess such words as "jugglery" and—
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: "Jiggery pokery."
  Mr. DENNISS: And "jiggery pokery." That was the kind of argument on which he based his opposition to the Bill. The only other solid argument was that if the railway had been built in a different way the £700,000 invested in the railway would be paying a dividend now.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: The hon. Member has not followed my argument. I did not suggest that the railway should have been built in any different way. What, I did suggest was that you have no right to

  2377
  spread over the capital of a railway which is not used and then come to Parliament and represent that you are not earning a dividend on the capital.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. DENNISS: I know the hon. Member said that, but he also said that if the railway had been built in a certain way it would be earning a substantial dividend now—if it was a longer railway. That is a statement which ought not to be made in this House, as it cannot be investigated and cross-examined upon as it could in Committee. Every argument which has been used to-night was put before the Committee and fully investigated with the assistance of learned counsel, who left no stone unturned to get at the truth for their respective clients. The Committee decided by three to one. We have the Chairman of the Committee stating tonight that there is a great question of principle for us to decide for the first time, because in every previous Bill there was a quid pro quo—the man who got something had to pay for it. That very often happens. But in this case it was not a question of providing fresh facilities for the public. As I understand, the facilities had already been provided, but circumstances had since arisen so that the company was put in an unfair position and was unable to Work the docks except at a loss. If it be true that the rates were fixed in 1865, nearly fifty years ago, and that conditions have changed in the way set out in the company's case, namely that the alterations in the construction of vessels and the applications of the rule for ascertaining their registered tonnage on which the dock dues are calculated have resulted in a loss to the dock owners on account of modern vessels carrying a bigger amount of cargo in proportion to their registered tonnage than was formerly the case, and that the amount of dues they would have had for vessels carrying a similar tonnage in 1912 to what they did in 1873 represents a difference of £61,000, so that whilst the dock people are providing these facilities for the public they are unable to work them except at a loss. it seems to me that a primâ facie case was made out before the Committee in favour of some relief being given to the dock company. The fact that the Corporation of Cardiff is in favour of the Bill carries great weight with me, 'because, if there was any danger of the trade of the town being injured, it would be the duty of the Corporation to watch the Bill carefully. They would
  2378
  consider its provisions, and oppose or support it according to the circumstances.
  I appeal to the House to do justice in this case, in spite of the fact that the gentleman concerned is a Noble Marquess. I am rather surprised that a Member of the Labour party should have scoffed at the idea that wages would be raised. He seems to consider that that would be no advantage to the working men of Cardiff. How can you expect wages to be raised if the company is working practically at a loss'? One o hon. Member stated that there was an actual increase in the amount of wages paid since 1895. There was an attempt to discount that statement by saying that the percentage had fallen. It does not at all follow because the percentage has fallen that wages have been lowered. It. depends upon the number of men employed. One hon. Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Glamorgan—in dealing with the statement in the promoters case that it was proved in evidence before the Committees of both Houses that the return upon the ordinary capital of the company was under 1 per cent. and that it was impossible for the company to raise further capital, said that was due to the mismanagement of the company. That is just one of those questions which the Committee had to inquire into, and they came to an entirely different conclusion. What does the hon. Member who made that statement. know of the conditions under which the company is worked? What right has he to get up and say that the company is mismanaged? What right has the hon. Member for Glamorgan to say that the railway would pay a dividend if something which in his opinion ought to be done was done? It seems to me that there is a danger of great injustice being done in this case. I do hope the House will support the Committee upon the general principles of justice. I was not prepared to speak on this Bill one way or another. It is my sense of justice alone that made me rise to do justice to the promoters of this Bill, although it may practically be the Marquess of Bute.
  Sir LUKE WHITE: I should not have intervened in this Debate except for the exceptional circumstances under which this measure is brought before the House. I has been mentioned that a Bill similar to this passed its Second Reading in the House last Session and was sent upstairs to Committee. The Committee, of which

  2379
  I was Chairman, considered the measure for a great number of days. They went through the whole of the evidence, and we were unanimous in rejecting the measure. We rejected the measure because we came to the conclusion that whatever alterations had been made in regard to the Cardiff Railway and its docks, that the time had not arrived when the docks, and the Alexandra Dock in particular, had not been fully equipped. We found that three-quarters of a million of money had been expended upon the railway, and that railway was not used, was left derelict, doing nothing, and earning no interest. We came to the conclusion that we were bound to reject the Bill. If we had passed the measure we should have passed a far different measure to that which is now before the House. In any scheme which hereafter may come before Parliament we shall have to make out a condition that there must be a sliding scale in any alterations of
  dues. There must also be many other considerations which shall be taken into account. I say to the promoters of this Bill, who to-night say to the House of Commons: "A majority of the Committee have passed this measure upstairs, therefore it ought to be passed through the House of Commons," that you were not satisfied with the unanimous decision of the Committee last year which came to the conclusion that the Bill should be rejected. For myself, I am bound to support those who are opposing this measure, and I trust that the House of Commons will reject it.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 275.]

  AYES.

  [10.9 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Pollock, Ernest Muray

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boyton, J.

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson. John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Royds, Edmund

  Campion, W. R.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cassel, Felix

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clough, William

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Delany, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomas, James Henry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Meagher, Michael

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Field, William

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

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  O'Dowd, John

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Denison-Pender and Sir F. Banbury.

  Goldsmith. Frank

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Grant, J. A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Bryce. John Annan

  Dillon, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burke. E. Haviland-

  Doris, William

  Adamson, William

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Duffy, William J.

  Alden, Percy

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Esmonde. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gill, A. H.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cullinan, John

  Gladstone. W. G. C.

  Bird, Alfred

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  De Forest, Baron

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Gulland, John William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Hackett, John

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Molloy, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mooney, John J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Morrell, Philip

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison, Hector

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sheehy, David

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, Robert

  Snowden, Philip

  Hodge, John

  Nellson, Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hogg, David C.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sutton, John E.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Waring, Walter

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Shee, James John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Kelly, Edward

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Webb, H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Leach, Charles

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  McGhee, Richard

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Reddy, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.Walter Rea and Mr. F. Hall

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Consideration of the Bill, as amended, put off for three months.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Sir A. MARKHAM: When I was interrupted, I was dealing with the case of Mr. Lansbury and was expressing the hope that the Home Secretary would not give way to the appeal that special privileges should be accorded to him. My hon. Friend who made this appeal said that Mr. Lansbury had committed no offence and no crime, and that the language he used was rhetorical. I should like to give the House one example of the kind of language Mr. Lansbury had been using. He is reported in the "Times" of 3rd May to have said this:—
"I am here to say that I think most women who are outlaws ought to break the law on every possible occasion short of taking human life in any way that suggests itself to them. Every window broken, every golf course damaged, every race stand burned down worries the Government one million times more than everyone who goes to prison."
2382
The course which Mr. Lansbury has adopted shows that he is in favour of making himself a great worry to the Government, because he refused to obey the law. I am not speaking with any feeling whatever of vindictiveness towards Mr. Lansbury. He has, at all events, brokers down the provisions of the "Cat and Mouse" Act, because under the provisions of that Act he was released from prison. If he was not released, he would not have gone on hunger-strike. The hon. Member has gone in prison merely for the purpose of making a demonstration. I must refer to the manner in which this Bill has been administered, and the contempt into which it has brought the law. Here we have women convicted, and who under this "Cat and Mouse" Act have been released on licence five or six times, going about smashing windows and damaging property during the time that they are supposed to have been resting. This is a hopeless system allowing people out from time to time, and then bringing them back after they have been using their opportunities while they are out to break the law again. Something must be done, as the Act has broken down. I put down an Amendment when the Bill was before the House for the purpose of having those people deported to St. Helena. I think it

2383
would be much better to send Mr. Lansbury for a short holiday on one of His Majesty's transports. People must obey the law. I heard Mr. Lansbury, where he was a Member of the House, charge the Government with not having taken proceedings against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). I understand it is very doubtful whether the hon. Member for Dublin University has actually broken the law.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Mr. Lansbury has not broken the. law.
Sir A. MARKHAM: Mr. Lansbury has been convicted under a Statute of Edward III., and he was specially treated, for he ought to have been charged with inciting to crime. The Home Secretary, however, took the more lenient course, because from the language I have read out which was used by Mr. Lansbury, it is clear that he brought himself within the law against incitement to crime. No doubt Mr. Lansbury is an honest believer in the cause he espouses, but people who come into this House to make laws like Mr. Lansbury, must not place themselves above the law, and for hon. Members to come here in order to try to get special privileges for Mr. Lansbury is placing the House in an entirely false position. During the period in question when Mr. Lansbury was bound over, some 8,000 windows were broken, and he has been associated with Miss Kenny and others who were deliberately setting the law at defiance. In my own Constituency these wild women tried to set a building on fire, where there were some thousands of people gathered together, and if people are allowed to set the law at defiance in this manner, some other remedy will have to be found. The Government will not allow these people to die in prison, but if people take the law into their own hands and refuse to eat whilst in prison, it is their own look out if they die. So long as these people can come out of prison and break the law again, so long will the law continue to be brought into contempt. I think it is the duty of the Cabinet to reconsider the whole of this question. The law has been brought into contempt, and the "Cat and Mouse" Act has not had the effect which its authors thought it would have. If the House of Commons is going to allow these outrages to continue rather than say that people who break the law must take the
2384
consequences, we may just as well shut the House of Commons up altogether.
Mr. ADAMSON: Before the Home Secretary replies to the numerous questions that have been put to him in the course of the Debate this evening, I desire to ascertain if he intends to institute a special inquiry into the circumstances connected with the recent mining disaster at Cadder, in Lanarkshire, and, particularly, as to the neglect of the owner of that colliery to give effect to the general regulation made to supply and maintain appliances for use in rescue work and the training of rescue brigades. The immediate cause of this disaster seems for the time being to be shrouded in mystery, and there are technical matters to be investigated of such a character as in my mind to demand a more searching inquiry under expert guidance than is provided for through the machinery of our fatal accident inquiries in Scotland. There are a considerable number of mining men who hold the opinion that if the colliery had been provided with safety appliances and with trained men, some at least of the lives that were lost in this lamentable disaster would have been saved. To such an extent is the value of life-saving apparatus recognised by the colliery owners of the country that there has already been compliance on their part with the rescue and aid provisions demanded by the Government in nearly every portion of the British coalfields. I understand that at the present time there are no less than twenty central rescue stations in England. In Wales there are thirteen, and thousands of men have been trained to handle themselves in circumstances such as prevailed in this particular disaster. In that portion of the country which I have the honour to represent the coalowners are so convinced of the value of this life-saving apparatus, that prior to the passing of the Rescue and Aid Act of 1910 they had built a central station, and at the present time there are auxiliary stations being built by some of the companies, and at least sixty teams of men have been trained for use in similar circumstances to those which applied in this particular colliery where the disaster occurred. But in Lanarkshire, the county in which the colliery is situated, and in the adjacent counties where something like 70,000 or 80,000 men are employed the order is a dead letter, and no provision has been made. The fact that no attempt has been made to carry out these rescue and aid

2385
provisions cannot be laid to the charge of the miners. During the course of last year a series of meetings were held in the mining districts of Lanarkshire. Demonstrations were given showing the usefulness of the life-saving appliances, and the cost of them was borne by the men themselves. At every one of those meetings resolutions were passed calling upon the coalowners to provide the necessary appliances and to arrange for the training of rescue brigades.
In December last year the vice-president of the Scottish Miners' Federation (Mr. Robertson) wrote to the Chief Inspector of Mines, calling his attention to the fact that in that part of the country no effort had been made to comply with the regulation as to life-saving appliances being provided, and men being trained to use them in the event of such circumstances occurring as unfortunately cccurred at Cadder last week. In the course of his reply to that communication the Chief Inspector stated that at the end of December, on the 31st of that month, in terms of Section 18 of the Coal Mines Act, the coalowners were bound to report certain particulars, including those as to the supply and maintenance of appliances for rescue work and ambulances, and the methods of training men in their use, and in the absence of such particulars action would be taken to see why the requirements of the Order had not been complied with. Notwithstanding the specific statement on the part of the Chief Inspector, eight months had passed without anything apparently having been done by way of compelling owners to carry out the law, except as I gather, from a reply given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for North - East Lanark last week, the coalowners have been contending with the Home Office that a smoke helmet supplied with fresh air by means of tube and valve was compliance with the Order, contending evidently that the least costly form of appliance was in compliance with the Order, and thereby putting money before human life and placing the sovereign on a higher plane than the sacred value of human life.
That was the position at the date at which this accident occurred. It is the position still in that part of the country. There are thousands of men going down to work every day under circumstances which, in the opinion of some men, are even more dangerous than those which prevailed at Cadder Colliery, for in the
2386
view of the local men Nos. 15 and 17 pits of this colliery were the safest pits in the county. That was the position at the date on which this accident occurred, when twenty men were sent down to work. One of the points which I think requires to be carefully looked into is that after the men had been sent down no one was left ire charge at the bottom. If some one had been left there I am convinced the fire would have been discovered much earlier, and possibly all the men would have been saved. But after it had been discovered the fireman, instead of having these safety appliances, which, in the opinion of the Home Office experts, are of very considerable value, and instead of having men trained in the use of them to assist him in the work of rescue, was faced with the horrible alternative of either saving his own life or going in to meet almost certain death on the off-chance of being able to save the lives of the men under his charge. To his eternal credit, he chose the latter alternative, and went in and perished along with the rest of the miners. After the news had been conveyed to the pithead, rescue parties were organised and sent down, only to be beaten back by the deadly fumes. Then the police authorities in that part of the country took the matter up in several mining centres in Lanarkshire in order to ascertain if safety appliances were to be found in any of the mines, and if men were trained in the use of them only to have the information conveyed to them that, so, far as that part of the country was concerned there were no such appliances and no trained men. They had then to get into telephonic communication with the rescue station at Cowdenbeath, fifty 'miles distant. Their appeal was responded to with the greatest expedition possible, but eight hours had elapsed before they were able to reach the scene of the disaster, and by that time the fire had done its deadly work. One of the redeeming features in this tragedy is the information that the Carron Company are prepared to make ample financial provision for the widows and dependents of the men who lost their lives. As an individual I am prepared to give the company due credit for what they are doing in this direction, but I hold the opinion that it would have been better if they had been prepared, in conjunction with their fellow owners, to spend part of the money prior to the accident rather than after the accident occurred. To my mind no money can com-

2387
pensate the homes and hearts that have been bereft in this way of husbands, fathers, and sons. It is the duty of the Government and the duty of the Home Office in particular, to make the most searching inquiry into the circumstances connected with this lamentable disaster. I recognise the difficulties that are in the way of the chief inspector of the Home Office in carrying out the regulations, but if the present legislation is insufficient to enable them to compel the colliery owners to make ample provision for such a contingency occurring in the future, then it is the duty of this House to see that legislation is passed that will give the Home Office power to have its mandates carried out. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree to a special inquiry into all the facts connected with this disaster.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), having many thousand miners in my Constituency. Evidently there is great need for some wider and more drastic supervision on the part of the Home Office in regard to the coal mines of the country. Yesterday the Home Secretary furnished me with the figures of the deaths and accidents for the year ending 1912. These are the terrible figures which he gave me. In the United Kingdom during last year there were killed 1,204 men and 71 boys, while in the accidents disabling men for more than seven days there were involved 140,185 men and 10,285 boys. That terrible casualty list shows we need either greater supervision and greater efficacy on the part of the staff that exists, or, as the hon. Member suggested, legislation to provide for these contingencies. I hope the Home Secretary will state that he is going to do something to end this terrible casualty list.
Mr. BOOTH: I want to ask the Home Secretary to make a statement with regard to the proposed inquiry into the treatment of venereal disease. I do not know whether he is prepared to make an announcement to-night or to promise that before the House rises for the prorogation some knowledge will be conveyed to us. I should like to ask whether the form of inquiry has been settled upon and whether it will meet at an early date, whether there will be a substantial number of women asked to serve upon it, and what proportion there will be of medical men. I ask
2388
for that because one of the speakers at the recent conference introduced matters which would raise questions quite apart from the purely medical or sanitary treatments of this disease, questions which would interest the general community from the standpoint of personal liberty. The Home Secretary stated on the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in answer to a question of mine that he was still a resolute opponent of any reenactment of the Contagious Diseases Act, and I feel perfectly sure that he will not change from that position, but I should be glad to know what the scope of the inquiry will be, whether it will be what is asked for by some of the leading London newspapers, namely, an investigation from the medical or scientific standpoint, or whether the inquiry will go further afield and involve very large and very controversial questions.
Mr. GEORGE HAMILTON: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson). Some fourteen years ago I worked down the No. 15 and 17 pits of the Carron Coal Company, and I know them extremely well. As a young engineer I was putting machinery into the pits and I was conversant with the views both of the owners of the colliery and of the men working in it. The impression after these years still left on my mind is that the men who were employed in these collieries, and more especially in the No. 15 pit where this terrible catastrophe has just occurred, felt, as I felt, that the owners did everything reasonable and everything which could be expected to make work there comfortable and safe. At the same time, I join with the hon. Member in appealing to the Home Secretary, as far as he possibly can, under the existing law, and make it compulsory—that such safety apparatus as the hon. Member has referred to should be provided—upon all colliery owners, whether the colliery is considered safe or not. I remember extremely well in those days this colliery was considered—both 17 and 15—one of the safest collieries in Scotland, and now we have this terrible disaster, which only shows that. however safe a colliery may be considered, there is this awful danger of life when you are working underground, and it is the duty of the House and of the Home Department to make sure that the men who go down below to earn their living shall be protected in every possible way, and that it shall not be left only to the good

2389
employer—not that I for a moment think the Carron Company is not a good employer. My experience of them, and the experience which I gained from their men, was that they were considered good employers. But if a law is made that every colliery has to have these safety appliances, it is the same for everyone, and the expense is thrown upon the trade generally.
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to support the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson) for a special inquiry into the Carron disastor. It seems to me that the circumstances which he has detailed establish an unanswerable case for such an inquiry. In this case we seek an inquiry not merely into the cause of the disaster. There is more at issue in this matter. The question arises whether adequate provision has been made for rescue purposes in this particular area and in connection with those particular pits. That question involves another matter which affects the administration of the Home Office. There at once arises the question as to whether the provisions of the existing law have been sufficiently carried out. If the inquiry is to cover that ground something in the nature of a special inquiry is required. An inquiry simply by an official of the Home Office would not be sufficient, because such an official would be inquiring whether the administration of the Home Office was in accordance with the law. In these circumstances it seems to me that the House should demand an inquiry by a judicial authority with an expert as assessor, so that we should have an authoritative finding, not only as to the cause of the disaster, but as to the further and equally, or even more important, question as to whether the provisions of the law were being adequately carried out.
Mr. McKENNA: A large number of questions have been raised, and I wish to reply to them as rapidly and fully as they seem to require. The first speaker was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) who raised two cases. One of them is that which is known as the Piccadilly flat case. I am not quite sure what was the nature of the charge which the hon. Member wished to bring. I do not at this moment understand whether he wished to suggest that either I, or anybody at the 'Home Office, or anybody in the police, had made any representations either to the magistrate, or to the Deputy-
2390
Chairman of Quarter Sessions, or invoked any judicial authority to secure secrecy. I do not know exactly the specific charge he means to bring, but if that were his case, I can assure him categorically that neither I, nor anybody at the Home Office, nor anybody in the police, made any representations either to the magistrate in the Police Court, or to the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, or invoked anyone with the wish to secure secrecy with regard to any part of these proceedings. I can make that denial most categorically and most completely, and I am not aware that a tittle of evidence of any kind has been brought to the contrary effect. The hon. Gentleman quotes as evidence of the suppression of the true facts of the case first of all a statement by counsel for the defendant, next a statement by Mr. Travers Humphreys, and third a statement by Mr. Beyfus. With regard to the statement by counsel for the defendant it is quite obvious that I could have no responsibility for anything that might be said by him.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I had no intention of quoting counsel for the defendant. My quotation was from counsel who prosecuted for the Crown.
Mr. McKENNA: In the first case he quoted counsel for the defendant when referring to the suppression of facts.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Only in regard to the lady he was representing and who reserved her defence.
Mr. McKENNA: I cannot be responsible for any statement by counsel for the defendant, and in so far as the hon. Member's charge rests upon a statement by defendant's counsel, the case must be dismissed. There is the statement of Mr. Travers Humphreys, who is reported to have described the prisoner, Queenie Gerald, as a procuress. But it is perfectly clear to anyone who reads the case that in using that term Mr. Travers Humphreys was merely speaking in a colloquial sense. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Mr. Travers Humphreys had to open the case—I have this on the authority of Mr. Lawrie, whom I have since seen—as a bad case. Mr. Lawrie tells me that no representation of any kind was made to him by Mr. Travers Humphreys, or on the part of the police requesting a lenient view to be taken of the case. Mr. Travers Humphreys said:—
"It was only fair to say that the accused was not the cause of the downfall of the three girls in question."

2391
Then Mr. Travers Humphreys opened the case that Queenie Gerald was not a procuress.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Here are the quotations from the "Times" report of what Mr. Travers Humphreys said at the Sessions:—
Letters found on the premises made it clear that the accused was carrying on the trade of a procurers."
Mr. McKENNA: Yes; but, as I have said, he could only have been using the term "procuress" in the colloquial sense in which it is used to mean a person who keeps an immoral house, because Mr. Travers Humphreys, in opening the case, opened it that the woman was not a procuress.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The point, I understand, was raised that the three girls who came into this charge were not procured in the ordinary sense of the word, but there was some evidence by letters and otherwise that other girls were procured.
Mr. McKENNA: I am going to tell the whole story. First, I want to answer each of the hon. Member's charges specifically in order that. it may not be said that I could not answer them.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Home Secretary allow me to read a telegram?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was listened to with almost complete silence. The least he can do is to listen to the reply.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I do not wish to be misquoted.
Mr. McKENNA: The third statement was with regard to the statement made by Mr. Lawrie in the course of the case. Mr. Lawrie stated, in summing up, that there was some evidence that she had acted as procuress. I think that Mr. Lawrie, in making that statement., was in-correct on the facts of the case. It is quite necessary, in view of the misrepresentations that have been circulated with regard to this ease, that this House should know what the facts are. The first information that came to the police was a statement made by a young woman who had frequented this establishment. The police had suspected the establishment, but this House knows that they have no power to enter a house of
2392
this kind unless they obtained a warrant, and the magistrate will not issue a warrant except upon evidence. The police were now placed by this young woman in possession of definite evidence. On the faith of that evidence the police obtained the warrant to enter the premises. They searched the premises, and as was publicly stated in the course of the evidence—there is no concealment upon the point—they found on the premises, not as a matter of gossip but as a matter of sworn evidence, a whip, a cane and a birch, and a considerable quantity of correspondence and literature. The police had now to consider what action should be taken against the woman who kept this flat. At this stage the case was mentioned to me as a prosecution which could be undertaken under the new Act. My instructions were that the prosecution should be pressed to the full. A charge was then brought, the charge on which the warrant was obtained for the arrest of Gerald, that of "living, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution."
It has been said that there was an original charge of a somewhat severe kind brought against the woman, but that, owing to the danger of the exposure of names, part of the charge was dropped, and only minor proceedings of a less severe character were taken against the woman at the Sessions. As a matter of fact, in the first instance the charge was a smaller charge than was ultimately brought against her. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the charge?"] I have read it—"Knowingly living, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution," the original charge. Now it is asked, "If there were letters, and apparently evidence of this woman acting as a procuress in the true sense of the term, why was not the charge brought against her at once of procuring?" The evidence which the police had upon that fact was this: I understand that all the girls who were questioned, and who would have to be police witnesses in the case, stated—and I believe it to be the fact—that when each one of them -was first admitted to this flat, Gerald invariably asked whether !hey were already on the streets, because if they were not they were no good to her. All the three witnesses were known to be, or were proved subsequently to have been on the streets before they went to the fiat. It was perfectly impossible on the face of that evidence to bring a charge against the woman of procuring. Then it was said,

2393
"Oh, but there were the letters. The letters show that she was employed by others to procure." With the single exception of one name, not one of these letters is signed. The only name that appears in the handwriting of the writer of the letter was the name which was mentioned in Court. That was why only one name was mentioned, because it was the only name in the handwriting of the writer of the letters. But all the other letters no doubt indicated a desire on the part of persons unknown, that Gerald should procure innocent girls for them, but Gerald never did procure such girls; but such girls as were at her flat were all street walkers. How, in the face of evidence such as that was it possible to proceed against this woman as a procuress?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Report in the "Daily Telegraph"—I have quoted the "Times" already—he will see this:—
"There was a large number of letters, repeated counsel (Mr. Tracers Humphreys), which made it quite clear that, apart from the prisoner's earnings herself, and apart from what she received through the girls, she was carrying on the trade of a procuress."
11.0 P.m.
Mr. McKENNA: I can only say Mr. Travers Humphreys, if he is correctly reported, did not in that statement correctly represent the facts. My own impression is Mr. Travers Humphreys was not correctly reported, and in the very full Report I have here I can find no such language. I have got here the Report in the "News of the World," which was a far longer and fuller Report than any other newspaper, and no such statement as that appears from Mr. Travers Humphreys, and in any event it would not be evidence. That statement, if it be correctly reported is not a true statement.
Mr. MACPHERSON: There was no evidence of that?
Mr. McKENNA: Even if it were correctly reported. There is no evidence that it was a true statment because there is no evidence, and on the contrary the whole of the evidence goes to show that this woman never acted as a procuress. The evidence leads to the impression that certain people, whose names are not known, believed that she was acting as a procuress and gave her considerable sums of money in that belief, but she never procured for them any other girl than the girl who was a street walker, and in her flat. Those are the facts. Under those
2394
circumstances it was not possible to proceed against Queenie Gerald on the ground of procuring. But, the hon. Member says, we had something to suppress. At what stage had we something to suppress. Why proceed at all if we had anything to suppress. We had raided the flat before we took proceedings, and if we wanted to suppress anything then was the time to suppress it. Why take the case into Court and at the same time propose to suppress the names; what was the point in doing it? What was the reason for it? It was the action of the police that brought the case into Court. The police, under my direct instructions, were most anxious to press this case as far as it could go. I have stated what was the original charge before the magistrate, and at the Police Court the magistrate committed her, not on the charge which we had originally brought, but on the charge Of—
"unlawfully, for the purposes of gain, exercising influence over the movements of certain prostitutes in such a manner as to show she was aiding their prostitution."
In the indictment preferred at Quarter Sessions she was charged with both those offences, the original offence with which we charged her before the magistrate and with the offence on which the magistrate committed her for trial, and she was also, on the advice of counsel, charged with the further offence of keeping a disorderly house, so that she was charged on the trial at Quarter Sessions with three separate offences. At Quarter Sessions the woman pleaded guilty to all the charges.. I know the hon. Member is not learned in the law and possibly does not particularly distinguish between the functions of the executive and the functions of the judiciary, but when a prisoner has pleaded guilty under circumstances such as those that prisoner, no matter what the offence, is entitled to be proceeded against in accordance with the ordinary law. One of the jurymen has been quoted stating the jury had not been sworn. No evidence was taken. She had pleaded guilty to all the charges, Mr. Lawrie had got the case fully before him, and the sentence which he gave was absolutely in his discretion. Many hon. Members in this House may think that Mr. Lawrie did not give an adequate sentence, others may think that he was right. But that is purely a question for the judge, and no Government Department has the slightest responsibility for any sentence that a judge may give. I

2395
spoke to Mr. Lawrie on this particular point. I was perfectly aware that no representation had gone from the Home Office, but one cannot always be aware whether something may not have been said without authority. I wished to make absolutely sure, and I asked Mr. Lawrie whether any representation of any kind was made to him to take a lenient view of the case. He answered, "By the prosecution, none. The prosecution opened the case as a bad one. Counsel for the defendant asked me to take a lenient view, but it was his business to do so." These are the salient facts of the case.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman says that the "News of the World" has a full report; it does not contain that statement. In the issue of 13th July, it says:—
"Other things were found there. All sorts of practices had been carried on. A number of letters were seized which made it quite clear that, apart from prisoner's earnings, and apart from the three girls, she had been carrying on the trade of a procuress. Further, there was a copy of a letter which the woman herself had written which made it abundantly clear that she was guilty of procuration."
Mr. McKENNA: All I can say is that the correspondence seized by the police, coupled with the evidence of the girls themselves, disclosed no possible case for proceeding against this woman as a procuress. We come to the question of names. It is said that it was in order not to disclose names. There are no names. With the exception of the name Morris, there is no name signed to any one of these letters. There are names which appear, as I have already stated, in a diary kept by the woman and in a sort of ledger kept by her. In her ledger she has scores and hundreds of entries of sums of money paid, and against some few of these sums of money there is a name—in quite a few cases. That name is in the handwriting of the woman, and whether or not it represents the person it purports to represent it is absolutely impossible to say. The same is true of the names in the woman's diary. There are a number of names. Inasmuch as political capital was sought to be made out of this case, and charges were made that at the trial—although it was under my instructions proceedings were brought—I had suppressed names in order to conceal the fact that the names of some of my colleagues were included in the diary, I was able to reply that not a single name appeared in the diary or ledger, not only of any Member
2396
of the Government, but by good fortune and happy coincidence—[Interruption]—allow me to finish, because it is quite conceivable that two persons might have the same name—that not a single one of the 670 hon. Members of this House was included. I only make that statement in order to repudiate the shameless calumnies that a certain newspaper—
Mr. J. WARD: The "Globe" said it.
Mr. McKENNA: Which I will not name, but to which I referred was and is, as to-the major part of it, owned by two hon. Members of this House. [HON. MEMBERS "Name" and Interruption.] I wish to repudiate [HON. MEMBERS "Name"] An effort is now made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to press me to disclose other names. Does the hon. Member persist in that pressure; in spite of the fact that not one of those names is in the handwriting of the writer of the letter, and that the bearer of every one of those names may be as innocent as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil himself. By disclosing them I might be bringing the grossest charge, and causing the greatest misery to perfectly innocent men? Does the hon. Member really still persist?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I do, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the men who have been accused.
Mr. McKENNA: Every man, so far as I am concerned, may rest at ease that I would not disclose his name, unless I had better evidence that he was the person charged, than a mere entry in the handwriting of a brothel-keeper.
Mr. J. WARD: What does the,hon. Member for Wandsworth say on the subject? His paper first demanded the names.
Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am a shareholder in the "Globe" newspaper. I have never been in the office of that paper. I know absolutely nothing as to what is written in that paper until I sometimes see it in the evening. I take no responsibility —{Interruption.]—of any sort or kind whatever for what appears in the paper. I have shares in the paper
Mr. JOHN DILLON: How many shares have you; it is a most disgraceful transaction?
Mr. WEDGWOOD: What about Marconis now?
Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I was asked to take shares in the paper with a view to preventing it being taken up by hon. Members on the side of the Government. I refused to become a director. I refused to have anything to do in any shape or kind with it otherwise, as I know absolutely nothing about journalism. I have nothing to do with the conduct of the paper. If I took any part in editing or writing the paper, I would accept full responsibility for whatever might appear.
Mr. McKENNA: I am sure the whole House will be glad to hear the statement of the hon. Member, which I entirely accept. I am only too pleased to know that no Member of this House could be responsible for the scurrilous stories. I assure the hon. Member that he has been quite successful in his efforts to prevent any Member of the Government having anything to do with that particular paper. With regard to the questions raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) as to the release after four days of Mrs. Pethwick Lawrence, Lady Sybil Smith, and Miss Evelyn Sharp. I think we are at issue on a question of fact. I can assure the hon. Member that the fact that these ladies were not now militants was not known to the magistrate who tried the case. It. was communicated at my request to Mr. Muskett, who acted as solicitor for the prosecution. Mr. Muskett himself was also of opinion, and spontaneously of opinion, that that fact was not known to the magistrate, and that in consequence the sentence was too severe. Mr. Muskett saw the magistrate and reported to him this fact, and upon that representation, the magistrate himself reduced the sentence, I think quite reasonably and properly, and if the hon. Member wants any precedent for a similar exercise of what I regard as a principle of justice by the Home Office, I shall with due notice furnish him with abundance of precedents. It is an entire mistake to put it that special representations were made on their account. On the contrary they were treated as any other prisoners would be treated, in whose case we were told the magistrate was not fully apprised of the facts. He passed a sentence because he believed they had committed militant acts, and there is no doubt, but at one time one or all of them had been militants, but they had abandoned militant action for a considerable period, and upon that ground the sentence was reduced.
2398
I now come to a far more difficult case that of Mr. Lansbury. I do not wish to follow my hon. Friend into the technicalities of the Statute of Edward III. 1 only say this as I understand the case, Mr. Lansbury was bound over not under that Statute, but he was bound over under the general powers of the magistrate under the common law to prevent a breach of the peace, and when he had reason to believe that a breach of the peace was about to be committed. I quite admit Mr. Lansbury ought not to be treated on a different footing, whatever his case may be. Speaking for myself, Mr. Lansbury was a man with whom I differed, but a man I held in the highest regard. I frequently had dealings with Mr. Lansbury, and I always found his slightest word could be accepted with complete confidence. He never went back on anything he said. He was brave, if I may say so, almost to foolishness; he was honest, enthusiastic, and extreme to the last degree. But when we come to a question of the exorcise of the prerogative of mercy, I do not think I should be justified in distinguishing between a case merely because I think well of one prisoner and less of another prisoner. I understood my hon. Friend, if I heard him correctly, to say that Mr. Lansbury has declared that he has no intention to break the law in. future. I have publicly stated in this House more than once, and I repeated it on several occasions, that any of these prisoners who will give me an assurance that they will not break the law in future shall have their cases immediately considered with a view: to advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I would not stand upon a mere point of form. When dealing with a question of mercy I do not think we ought to squabble about the form of words. If it is Mr. Lansbury's intention not to break the law in future I should regard that as an assurance that he will not break it.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the words of the petition upon that
Mr. McKENNA: I have only seen this petition for a few minutes—there the statement is exceptional—if he will tell me he has no intention to break the law I should feel myself fully justified in advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I hope that will be generally accepted on both sides of the House, because I am sure I speak for everybody when I say with

2399
regard to these prisoners, misguided as most of us believe them to be, we should all be only too glad if by the exercise of mercy an end could be put to a situation in which people are punished for doing a wrong from motives which do not usually lead to crime. I am sure I shall have the whole House with me in any exercise of the clemency of the Crown with regard to Mr. Lansbury, provided he will make the statement that he has no intention to break the law.
Sir A. MARKHAM: In writing?
Mr. McKENNA: I could certainly accept his word. One word upon what has been said about torturing prisoners under what is called the "Cat and Mouse" Act. There is no torture, and that is a gross and a most improper description of it. The Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act can be put an end to to-morrow by the voluntary act of the prisoners themselves if they will take their food. If they do that the Act dies itself, and if, instead of talking about torture, the hon. Member who made that charge would use his influence with these women to persuade them to obey the law, and not be so foolish as to injure their health by refusing food and drink, he would be doing them a better service than coming down to this House misrepresenting the facts of the case. The hon. Member for Fife referred to the lamentable disaster at the Cadder mine. I may say that a Government inquiry will be held at once, and Sir Henry Cunynghame has been appointed to hold an inquiry into all the circumstances. Meanwhile, the divisional inspectors are inspecting the conditions at the mine. I know the hon. Member for North-West Lanark thinks that a judicial inquiry ought to be held because the conduct of the Home Office is in question, but I do not think he is quite right in that statement. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark has taken a lively interest in the question of the provision of rescue appliances, and has elicited by question and answer all the facts of the case. It is common ground between us that some of the Scottish collery owners and the Home Office have been at issue as to what should be the proper appliances. The Home Office have done their best to induce the owners to supply self-contained apparatus, but, on the other hand, the owners considered that smoke helmets
2400
were sufficient. As a matter of fact, they have not provided the apparatus which the Home Office thought necessary, nor the smoke helmets which, according to their view, they thought were sufficient. Neither were provided. That undoubtedly was a breach of the Act of 1910, but we are in course of taking action on that point, and, although the matter has been brought to a head in consequence of this accident, it must not be supposed for a moment that the Home Office were not using every effort in their power in order to induce and, if necessary, ultimately to compel owners to comply with the Order.
Mr. PRINGLE: The facts as to the dispute are clear, but we really want to know who is responsible for the delay, and it seems to me that can only be determined by a judicial inquiry.
Mr. McKENNA: If the facts are as my hon. Friend represents them to be, there is no doubt the owners are responsible for the delay.
Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Haldane, the greatest living physiologist, has condemned all these appliances as dangerous to the people wearing them I read Dr. Haldane's report only last week. I have adopted these appliances myself, and they have had to be scrapped. Why do not the Home Office do something in the matter?
Mr. McKENNA: I am going to appoint a Committee on that very point.
Sir A. MARKHAM: It is rather late in the day.
Mr. McKENNA: I will do my best to meet my hon. Friend's point. Dr. Haldane's statement is not quite as sweeping as my hon. Friend says. He distinguishes between different kinds of appliances.
Mr. ADAMSON: Does not that add point to the request for an expert inquiry into all the circumstances connected with this accident?
Mr. McKENNA: I agree, and I have already taken steps to appoint an expert inquiry. The only question now is as to the responsibility for the delay at this particular mine in carrying out the order. There has been a dispute as to whether a smoke helmet satisfies the Order or not. We have been urging the self-contained apparatus. Although the dispute existed,

2401
it did not justify the owners in doing nothing. I quite agree that if the Home Office were in every case the moment an Order is passed to bring an action against all the employers for not carrying it out, no doubt Orders would be more rapidly enforced, but they would be enforced at the expense of trade. Inasmuch as a very full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case is to be held, and inasmuch as there can be no dispute as to the fact that the owners were at fault, and not the Home Office, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the statement I have made. With regard to the last point raised by my hon. Friend behind me, I will consult with the Prime Minister as to the proposal whch he made on the subject of an inquiry into venereal diseases, and I will report to him the result.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: During the Debate last week upon the Colonial Office Vote the Colonial Secretary took exception to the nature and tone of certain questions which had been put to him (luring the last few months in regard to -the concessions he had made or was,arranging to make with Messrs. Lever Brothers. He said that with an unnecessary indiscretion he would answer his critics in advance. But the right hon. Gentleman was not so indiscreet as he -would have us believe, because no opportunity was given to me after his statement was made to reply to it before the Debate closed. I know he told the House that after he had made. his speech I went out and did not return until towards the end of the evening, but he seems to have forgotten that the Standing Committee on the National Insurance Act Amendment Bill was sitting upstairs at the moment, and having listened to what he had to say I continued my work on that Committee rather than stay and hear the discussion between himself and hon. Members on his own side With regard to the South African disturbances. During that Debate the right hon. Gentleman asked me if I could answer three specific questions, and it is for that reason I ask permission of the House to reply to them now.
The first question was: "Is it suggested that the concession made to Messrs. Lever is bad in itself, because it is detrimental to the natives or to the Colony?" My answer to that must necessarily- be qualified by this fact—that my information is based mainly on scanty in—formation I have been able to get from the
2402
right hon. Gentleman and from the Blue Book. But so far as I am concerned, from the information I have gleaned, I do think that the concession made to Messrs. Lever is bad, both as regards the natives and the Colony. As to the natives, the right hon. Gentleman no doubt admits it is his wish to look after their interests to the full, and he also said in the course of his speech that the palm-oil industry was of great importance, and he hoped it would largely remain in the hands and for the profit of the natives, but how can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those expressions with the correspondence, which states that the natives are prohibited from using machinery, and if the Colonial Office allowed them to operate it in the assigned area it would destroy the whole effect of the concession? The right hon. Gentleman said last week, as regards mineral oil, he had kept steadily in view the exclusion, as far as possible, of the great combines, which might strangle production and inflate prices. But why has he not been equally careful with regard to vegetable oil? If the great. combines are injurious in one part of the Colonies, are they not equally injurious in the other? In handing over this large monopoly to a great firm like Messrs. Lever he is excluding small men.
The right hon. Gentleman the other day took exception to our referring to this concession as a monopoly. I would remind. him that over and over again in the correspondence the word "monopoly" is used by those writing on his behalf, and it is to be found in the letters which he himself has signed. I think the argument that this concession is not a monopoly because it does not give exclusive rights of extracting palm oil, but only rights as regards the use of the pericarp, is unsound, for surely any concession which gives exclusive rights to a firm over a part of a certain article must afford an enormous preference to that firm over the rest Take our own country here and assume for a moment that one particular firm is given exclusive rights of threshing wheat by machine over a large area and nobody else can use the straw at all or thresh unless by hand. Surely it would give that firm an enormous advantage over other firms which were not allowed to make use of the straw or of any machinery for threshing purposes! As far as the natives are concerned, I contend that this monopoly leaves it entirely in the hands. of Messrs. Lever

2403
Brothers to fix their own prices. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the concession is really so admirable and so great an advantage, why he himself wrote, on 24th February, 1911, in these terms to Lever Brothers?
"In view, however, of the fact that the facilities which you desire are so unusual in character, and that, even if they were granted only in respect of a very few machines, so large a proportion of the palm-bearing area of the Protectorate would he affected, Mr. Harcourt regrets that he is unable to meet your wishes except to a limited extent. If, however, you so wish, Mr. Harcourt would be prepared to authorise the Governor to grant you the desired facilities for a period of twenty years in respect of one area of five miles radius."
There the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that it would be extremely injurious to grant more than one area of five miles radius. We find that in the following year the Colonial Office write to Messrs. Lever Brothers as follows:—
"I am to inform yon that Mr. Harcourt is prepared to approve the grant of the selected area at a rent of £100 per annum. I am, however, to observe that the area, instead of being, as intended, a roughly circular area twenty miles in diameter, is a rectangle, eleven and a-quarter miles by twenty-eight miles, an alteration which goes far beyond the adjustment of details contemplated in the letter from this Department of the 23rd December. No doubt the shape of the area has been adjusted to the actual extent of the palm-belt, and, in this way. more than twice as much palm-bearing land has been secured in comparison with what would be included in a twenty-mile circle, however described."
The right hon. Gentleman clearly said in one letter that it would be undesirable to grant an area of more than five miles radius, yet he finally agrees to grant twice as much as would be included in a twenty-mile circle, however described. As regards the natives, I contend I have proved from his own words that this is not a desirable concession. As regards the Colonies, I have only to quote the words of the Governor himself. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute that the Governor of a Colony ought to know something about it. The Governor writes:—
"while I fully recognise the great impetus which the enterprise of a firm of the standing of Messrs. Lever Brothers would, no doubt give to the palm-oil industry while I earnestly desire to see that industry developed in order that the agricultural prosperity of the Colony should nut be so dependent on cocoa as it is at present, and while I admit that if the economic methods of obtaining oil, which Messrs. Lever Brothers propose to introduce, were adopted elsewhere, the local method of preparation of palm oil would probably become unremunerative, I view with some apprehension, as a matter of principle, the introduction of an Ordinance which in effect enables the Government to grant a monopoly, and this view has been endorsed by the members of my Executive Council."
The reply of the right hon. Gentleman to that was to send out a draft Ordinance, which he says is to be passed, and which gives this monopoly. The result is that
2404
even after the draft Ordinance which he passed was considerably amended, when it was put to the Legislative Council out there it was carried only by one vote, and that the vote of an official member of the Council. Therefore, so far as the Colony is concerned, it may be assumed that those out there do not think this concession has been made for their benefit. As regards the traders in the district, we may take as a fair sample of their feelings what was said by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which writes—
"The proposed concession, if completed, would create. a virtual monopoly over a considerable area. Its object is to prevent the installation of oil-crushing machinery by any other firm; this, notwithstanding the fact that mechanical appliances are constantly developing arid improvements made which may render the present methods and processes hopelessly out of date. Thus the assigned district could not avail itself of later improvements, and the progress of the Colony might be seriously handicapped. This instead of being: in economic advantage, would prove a positive drawback. … It is manifestly unfair that private trailers. should have it in their power to interfere with the immemorial rights of the native. … The President is strongly of opinion that Messrs. Lever should be prepared to face the risks of competition that Inv be involved in starting a new branch of business, as other firms are now obliged to do in West Africa and elsewhere."
As regards the second question, it was this: "Is the concession proper in itself, but improper to Messrs. Lever, because in the opinion and knowledge of hon. Members opposite, Messrs. Lever are by experience a firm who are not to be trusted with the treatment of subject races?" Not one question was nut from this side suggesting that Messrs. Lever did not treat the natives or those under them fairly. I make no observation of that sort. Indeed, the only complaint of the right hon. Gentleman himself the other day was that the questions suggested undue advantage to a particular firm, and as regards that I think the information we have shows that there was an undue advantage given.
Messrs, Lever, instead of sending out in the ordinary way and approaching the Governor, came here while Sir William Lever was a Member of the House and made his arrangements behind the Speaker's chair with the Colonial Secretary at that time. That, I think, was undesirable, at any rate. He then sent out a Mr. Alldridge, a former Government official in that very Colony, to make his arrangements. That is a thing which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not approve of now. The right hon. Gentleman said soap boilers were tumbling over one another to acquire the raw material. If that was the case, why was this conces-

2405
sion given to Messrs. Lever only, because, after all, the Colonial Office wrote both in November and December, 1911; that there were other applicants for similar concessions whose claims must be considered at the same time? Were those claims considered, and, if so, why do they not appear in the Blue Book which purports to give the whole correspondence on this subject? And who were the others? There is no proof in the Blue Book that any other claims were considered. I saw a letter in the papers the day the Colonial Vote came on from a Colonel Patterson, who says clearly that he applied for a grant out there in November, 1911, and was told by the Governor that no monopoly was to be granted at all, and yet, in that very month, monopolies were being granted by the Colonial Secretary to,Sir William Lever.
The third question was: "Is it contended that a commercial firm making a new proposal which is regarded by the Colonial Office as of service to the Colony is to be deprived of facilities because its principal was once a Member of Parliament and sat on this side of the House?" That is rather a foolish question, because there was no suggestion from this side of the House that that was so. But I do not think Secretaries of State can be too careful nowadays in granting privileges to Members of Parliament, over anyone else, without due consideration, and at the time these negotiations were started Sir William Lever was a Member of the House, and he should have gone in the ordinary way out to the Colony to make his arrangements as other people were asked to do. I think it is quite clear, moreover, that Messrs. Lever were somewhat greedy, because they put in three applications in the three different Colonies, and before they were granted they put in more in their own name and then put in more in the name of McIver and Company, who were associated with them, so that they wanted to get a monopoly of the whole area as far as we can see. I am asked whether I think a new proposal should be stopped because a Member of Parliament is interested in it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to show me in the correspondence what proof there is that this was a new proposal. He has told us that the palm-oil industry in these Colonies has increased its exports from £2,400,000 to £5,300,00 in the last few years, and he knows perfectly well that the palm-oil industry is fully well developed there.
2406
The only new proposal was the crushing of the pericarp. What was there in the correspondence or in the Ordinance or the concessions given to Sir William Lever to show that there was anything new or that any particular machinery should be used I Did the right hon. Gentleman appoint any experts to inquire whether the machinery was new? There is no proof that the machinery was a novelty. After all, if they had merely sonic new machinery it ought to have been allowed to take its protection in the ordinary way by patents, and no monoply should have been given. I contend that this concession, for which they were only paying £100 a year, must have been of great value if Messrs. Lever considered it necessary to spend millions in its development, as Sir William Lever stated he would do if necessary. I say that this concession was given as protection not against foreigners, but against natives. I know that the whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that since he has been at the Colonial Office he has limited these concessions, and that now he is only giving a concession for the treatment of the pericarp of the nut. As to the Blue Book which the right hon. Gentleman published, I wish to know why the whole of the correspondence was not included. I think it is a dangerous thing to enter upon a practice of publishing Blue Books which purport to give the complete correspondence from which most important letters and documents are omitted. I will point out a most important omission. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not give an exclusive right, but merely a right to extract oil from the pericarp. Last week I was able to extract from the Colonial Secretary a letter which was written on 11th October last to Messrs. Lever Brothers' solicitors stating that he was prepared to amend the draft Ordinance so as to confer an exclusive right to erect power mills and machinery for the extraction of oil from the palm fruit. There was nothing about the pericarp or any limitations in that letter. Why is no mention of that. letter made in the Blue Book?
I say that is a most material part of the correspondence which ought not to have been omitted from the Blue Book. I could give other instances to show that the Blue Book was misleading, and some explanation is needed from the right. hon. Gentleman. One thing which appears to be quite clear is that the right hon. Gentle-

2407
man had an interview with Sir William Lever in November, 1912, and that eventually he made up his mind to grant the whole concession. He wrote to the Governor that he had granted Messrs. Lever Brothers the whole concession. He also wrote to Messrs. Lever Brothers' solicitors: "I will give them the whole concession." Yet nothing of this appears in the Blue Book, but we find it stated that only a limited concession will be given. What is the reason for giving a limited concession? Not for the benefit of the natives, but apparently because some other friends of the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the concession would be injurious to them. We find that Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company, under the alias of Apol and Company, write a few days after exclusive rights have been promised to Levers, saying that they were acquiring rights from the natives which could be of no use to them if anybody under the Palm. Oil Ordinance could prevent them from working the fruit on the areas of the leases. Which way is the right hon. Gentleman going to take this? If his argument is that the palm-oil concession to Messrs. Lever did no harm to the natives,why did he admit it would be harmful to Messrs. Brunner, Mond where they acquired the rights of the natives and say that he would exclude the districts acquired by them, and then write to the Governor to exclude those districts? The right hon. Gentleman was in the position of the man with two lovers—
"How happy could I be with either Were t'other dear charmer away."
He wanted to do something for Messrs. Lever and then when Messrs. Brunner, Mond turned up he had to cut down tip.) concession. That is the virtue that he is claiming now—that he is giving a. limited concession. But it is not for the benefit of the native. He found himself in a difficulty and at the last moment repented after he had promised to give the whole concession and so edited the Blue Book that his change of policy did not appear.
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I wish to ask a few moments' consideration for two urgent matters. The first is the need for more adequate medical service in Jamaica, especially with regard to the supply of cottage hospitals. Only within the last three weeks there has appeared a letter in one of our weekly papers from a member
2408
of the Legislative Council of Jamaica pointing out that 4,000 patients in Kingston alone have been unable to obtain admission to hospital. When that takes place in the capital, in up-country districts the need is far more acute, and the conditions urgently call for a remedy. Patients suffering acutely have to be brought long distances, and when they arrive at the hospital the doors have to be closed against them simply because there are not beds enough. There is one case of a hospital equipped with beds and appliances which cannot be opened because the Government has not enough money for the nurses. The reason for this state of affairs is found in the unfortunate condition of the finances of the island at the present moment, but public health should be put first, and a matter like this should be attended to even before such an important matter as the roads system. The Creoles have to give place to a comparatively small number of coolies who by their indentures have first claim on the hospital accommodation. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to find some remedy for this condition of affairs.
The other matter to which I would refer is the recent judgment of the High Court of British East Africa with regard to the action brought by the Masai tribe against the Attorney-General of British East Africa and others. I would remind the House that up to about ten years ago the Masai occupied the valuable Rift valley in British East Africa. In 1904 they were removed from that possession of theirs and -were given two territories, the northern reserve in Laikipia being one; and one of the conditions of their removal was that the land should be inalienably theirs. The most solemn engagement was entered into by His Majesty's representative with the Masai on that point. In 1911 that agreement was given up and another agreement was made with the representatives of the Masai, and the matter was debated in Parliament then, and my right hon. Friend expressed the opinion that the Masai had unanimously, even gladly, come to a decision to give up the northern reserve in exchange for this new enlarged southern reserve, and he was convinced that it was for their good. Since then the course of events has proved that that action of theirs was neither unanimous nor entirely voluntary.
It has taken two years to move the Masai from the northern reserve to the new extended reserve,

2409
and the removal has been accompanied by constant difficulties and by great loss of life to their cattle, their one source of livelihood. Hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle have perished during the removal, and, after the removal, on the badly watered land to which the Masai have gone. Since then a number of young Masai have brought this action to test the legality of the transfer signed by the chiefs, who had no right to sign it. The judgment to which I refer is of vital importance to these people, and it is important that some action should be taken by the Colonial Secretary in consequence of it. The judgment is simply this, that the Masai are foreigners, that this matter is not a legal agreement made between subjects of the King and representatives of the Secretary for the Colonies; but it is in the nature of a treaty, and therefore it is not possible for the Court to enter into a question of right or wrong. The whole thing is summed up in the conclusion of the judges:—
"The Crown. acting through its Commissioners first made one treaty with the Masai, and subsequently aiding through the Governor. modified that Treaty by another, and T cannot do better; than adopt with the present case the concluding words of Lord Kingsdown in giving judgment in the Privy Council in the case of the Secretary of State for India v. K. B. Sahaba (XIII Moore 22). It may have been just or unjust, politic or impolitic. beneficial or injurious. taken as a whole, to those whose interests are affected. These are considerations into which this Court cannot enter. ft is sufficient to say that even if a wrong had been clone, it is a wrong for which no Municipal Court of Justice can afford a remedy."
It is quite clear in the view of the Court that a wrong has been done, but the Court says that it cannot apply a remedy. I appeal to the Secretary for the Colonies to see that these men are not put outside the law in this way. The law says that they are not British citizens, and that they are foreigners. We know that, in fact, they are under the protection of the Crown, and surely it is the duty of Parliament to see that they have some opportunity of bringing their grievance before some Court, if not a Court of Law, a Court of Equity ! I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if that judgment is maintained, to see, if the law is not open to them, that some tribunal is set up to which they may bring their case to be heard. The whole case for the transfer was that it rested on its being the voluntary act of the tribe, and that is now contested by the members of the tribe. They say that they did not voluntarily enter into this transfer, and, therefore, I think it only right that
2410
they should have an opportunity of bringing before some commission or other body the whole of the facts of the case, with a view to a fair adjustment. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider their appeal, not in the spirit of technical legality, but in the spirit of equity, which is of far greater consequence even than the letter of the law.
12.0 M.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I will endeavour to keep the House as short a time as possible in answer to the rather wide field covered by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne)and his friends have been in labour over the matter of the West African concessions for a long time. We are now able to see, when at last the labour has come to an end, how absurd is the mouse which has been produced. The charges made were rather discounted by the observations made on the Colonial Office Vote by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that he had read the correspondence, and saw nothing objectionable.
Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote exactly?
Mr. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"I did look over the correspondence and, without expressing any opinion which hinds anyone else, I saw nothing in it objectionable. So far as I can judge it was an honest effort to develop the Colony and in the best interests of the Colony."
Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the beginning of the sentence?
Mr. HARCOURT: It is—
"I do not profess to have examined that closely, but I did look over the correspondence."
I believe, indeed, he was well justified in coming to that conclusion. I have stated the whole of the circumstances which led up to this matter on the Colonial Office Vote. Messrs. Lever's so-called concession should not be called a concession, but facilities, very different from ordinary concessions. There was given to Messrs. Lever no grant of any land whatever, or palm trees, or any rights over the natives, or any exclusive ruling powers over them, as was at one time suggested. The natives are absolutely free to continue their present methods of oil extraction or to use any of their present machines or any other new

2411
machines for crushing the nut or cracking the kernel. The only facility given to Messrs. Lever is that no one for twenty-one years shall put down their special depericarping machinery within a circle of a ten miles radius. The hon. Member suggested, and I think he took his suggestion from a Chamber of Commerce, that nut-crushing machines were not permitted. That is not the fact.. No nut-crushing or oil-pressing machines are prohibited in any way
Mr. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the letter he wrote saying he was granting the exclusive right and that that was withdrawn without any explanation?
Mr. HARCOURT:I was talking of what was the actual lease given to them. It is no use discussing as if they were in the agreement suggestions that were made earlier in this transaction, and either withdrawn or cancelled. What surely is worth discussing, if it is worth discussing at all, is what has been done, and not what they wished at one time or what at one time I was weak enough to believe should be given. The fact was that there had been great fear of competition from the Cameroons and the Congo with our own Crown Colonies. It is stated I believe that probably Messrs. Lever have acquired three thousand square miles in the Congo alone, and under conditions much easier than in our Colonies, and I did not see why we should not have an arrangement which gave a new market to our natives for their produce if they wished to avail themselves of it, and which brings improved machinery into our Crown Colonies as well as into the Congo.
The natives may continue to sell the fruit, kernel, or oil to anybody. The hon. Member spoke of the alteration which was made to a rectangular area instead of a circular, but it is not true that the rectangle contained double the area of land, because I think that the area. of the land was about the same, but it was, I expect, true to say that it contained more palm trees. The whole of the rearrangement of the area was made by Messrs. Lever's agent and the Governor out there without any directions from me and without any knowledge on my part. It was really a matter of convenience for the Colony and Messrs. Lever.
2412
But in consequence of my realisation that it would include more palm trees I told Messrs. Lever, in a letter which the hon. Member did not think it, worth while to quote, that I should not give them the other area in the Sierra Leone Protectorate for which they were applying. The hon. Member mentioned a letter in the "Morning Post" from Colonel Patterson, in which he complained that he had been refused a concession in Sierra Leone. That concession was never sent home for my consideration, but was, no doubt, refused off-hand by the Governor of the Colony, probably because it asked for a large monopoly over palm trees which were the property and product of the natives.
Mr. GWYNNE: Colonel Patterson was told that it was no use making application because no concessions would be granted, but at the same time they were being granted to Messrs. Lever.
Mr. HARCOURT: No monopoly over palm trees or fruit has been granted. The hon. Member went on to discuss the opinion of members of the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast on the subject. The Colonial Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Palm Oil Bill, said that he hoped that by the establishment of such machinery perennial markets within palm-
bearing areas would be afforded to natives, who would not have to travel so far afield as at present to sell their produce:—
"The Bill does not restrict or interfere in any way with existing native rights with respect to local product. Cultivators of the soil will be lice to sell when and where they like. No interest, right, or property in land or products of soil is taken. Not an acre of land can change hands under the Bill. If natives wish not to sell palm fruits to Messrs. Lever they need not do so if they wish to revert to previous primitive methods there is nothing to prevent their doing so."
Now, as to the objection of the unofficial members. On the Second Reading three out of four voted against the Bill, but on points which were misunderstood or which have since been amended, such as the railway monopoly, which was not given, or the idea that the consent of the tribal authorities of the Colony would not be obtained. That is now a definite condition of the grant, and I always assumed that it would be. Mr. Giles Hunt, one of the leading unofficial members, last September, wrote to the "Times" a strong letter against the Lever concession, but. on the Second Reading he said in the Legislature:
"I desire to withdraw what 1 wrote to the Times, and repeat that I think there is every possibility of a large industry being established, and I see nothing objectionable in the experiment."

2413
Rules are now being made under the Ordinance by the Governor, with the approval of the Legislative Council. That was especially pressed for by the unofficial members; it was referred by the Governor to me, and I agreed to this provision, which I believe largely satisfied unofficial feeling. On the Third Reading of this Bill, two unofficial members absented themselves altogether from the debate. Two voted against it, one without stating any reason, and the other in spite of the fact that his previous objections had been met by my acceptance of his suggested amendments. The consent of the tribal authorities had been obtained. The Governor of the Gold Coast on the Third Reading said that the Bill introduced in its final and amended form was no longer open to the criticism to which it had been subjected. No rights in property could be alienated under it. Its adoption in his opinion was desirable in the interests of the palm-oil industry. The Governor, in forwarding the Ordinance to me, said that he trusted that it would not be disallowed. The hon. Member seemed to think there was no anxiety about the palm-oil industry on the Gold Coast, but the figures which I have quoted were nearly all concerned with Nigeria. The Colonial Secretary of the Gold Coast said in Committee that within the last decade the export of palm oil from the Gold Coast had decreased in quantity by a million gallons and in value by £100,000. Mr. Giles Hunt, the same unofficial member, admitted that 90 per cent. of the crops were allowed to rot on the ground because they could not be got to the coast. The Colonial Secretary said that "the natives were a people whose methods of cultivation were most crude, most primitive, and wasteful of all known lands, and that they required the example of better methods afforded by private enterprise." He further said "that the Colony could not look to its present traders for improvement of products and methods." He said "that the Governor of the Gold Coast would be careless of the best interests of its subjects if he allowed the indigenous industry to decay by not taking boldly the only measures which appeared possible for its resuscitation. A large proportion of the potential yield of the palm was wasted and was brought to market imperfectly prepared."
I put it to the House that you cannot get commercial enterprise without offering sonic trading advantages If something
2414
of this sort is not done the Gold Coast will find itself left in the mercantile backwater to the danger of the natives. One other point the hon. Member made was very unfair to me in relation to the case of Messrs. Apol. I heard of this concession on the Gold Coast quite accidentally. It was a concession not by Government, not by me, but by the natives—from the chiefs. It is not the practice to send home these concessions. My consent is not required. These concessions were to be validated by a local Court set up for the purpose. I heard of this accidentally from a friend. I obtained particulars of the concession, which had not yet come before the Court. I found that it contained provisions for the removal of villages, the right to collect palm fruit, to destroy trees, the use of all water, to divert streams; the native right to till farms was to continue only so far as it did not interrupt the operations of the lessees. The natives were to be deprived by this concession altogether of the right of taking palm fruit.
I thought that these were outrageous conditions. The moment I had read them I telegraphed to the Governor to pass an Ordinance immediately which would prevent the Court validating any concessions of the right to collect palm fruit to the exclusion of the natives, or to remove the natives from the lands granted. Messrs. Apol objected to the Ordinance, and asked for an interview. They asked, "What did the Ordinance mean?" They said it would invalidate the concessions that they had obtained. I replied that that precisely was the object of it: that was why I sent it out. They said that they might go back to the chiefs and negotiate again, but that I might again deprive them of their concessions. They asked if I would draft an approved concession. I replied that I would do no such thing: they ought to know what were the points objected to. But if they chose to draw up a further concession, and met the points, and let me see it, if I passed it then they could send it out if they liked. The chiefs would probably accept it because it would be more favourable to them. The new form was submitted, and it omitted all these points about the removal of the villages, the power to make regulations for the sanitation of villages; and the power of taking water was specially reserved to the natives for domestic purposes. The restriction of the native rights to collect

2415
palm fruit was also omitted. All the objectionable provisions were gone. I said I would not validate that concession in advance, but I would not put any obstacle in the way of its validation, but Messrs. Apol must go to the local Court and I warned them that the local Government would appear against them if they chose. It is also provided that concessions under this Ordinance must be with the consent of the tribal authorities or owners.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would the right. hon. Gentleman say whether there is anything to preserve the rights of the land for cultivation to the natives?
Mr. HARCOURT: Yes; the whole thing was altered at my suggestion.
Mr. GWYNNE: I only said that Messrs. Apol did correspond with the right hon. Gentleman, and he wrote back and said the Palm Oil Ordinance should not have effect in their district, and I ask if the Palm Oil Ordinance should not have effect, why should it affect native rights?
Mr. HARCOURT. I know exactly why the hon. Gentleman brought in the name of Apol. It was because he wanted to drag in the name of Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company. In my opinion, European capital and enterprise is of advantage to the natives as well as to Europeans. It creates new markets, as I am convinced will be the case in the so-called Lever concession. It teaches new methods of agriculture to the natives and introduces new crops, such as the cocoa industry. If the hon. Member is really interested I refer him to the report of Mr. Belfield's on land tenure on the West Coast, published as Command Paper number 6,278, for his information upon this matter. But this I feel bound to say, that where there is a conflict of interest between the natives and European concessionaires the interests of the natives, so far as I can make it so, shall prevail. The great difficulty at the present time is to protect the chiefs and people against themselves in making improvident concessions for very small and transient gain, and I do not want, if I can help it, to see a landless people on the West Coast of Africa, and that is indeed the object with which the Concessions Court is set up. I hope I have dealt. fully with that.
2416
In reply to my hon. Friend behind me, with regard to doctors in Jamaica, I can only tell him that in 1910 Sir Sydney Olivier stated that the allotment of beds in the hospitals was as liberal as was called for, having regard to financial considerations and facilities for the treatment of outpatients. With regard to the complaint of the want of nurses, I will make inquiries to see if nurses can be provided. There are twenty-one hospitals and 1,500 beds. The cost of medical assistance, hospitals, and asylums in 1908 was £54,000; it was raised in 1912–13 to £74,000, and it is estimated that in the current year it will be £79,000. I think that is a very liberal proportion out of a revenue from the whole island of £1,000,000 sterling, and especially in a year when the island has suffered so severely from hurricane losses. I now come for a moment to Masai. I think it is necessary and advisable that there should be only one reserve and not two divided ones. I was convinced by the inquiries I made in 1911 that the tribe and the chiefs were willing and wished for a junction of the two reserves. A formal agreement was drawn up and signed by the chiefs Segi Legabishu and Ugaroya and the regents who represented the Northern Masai. The first move was made in the summer of 1911 and it was a failure. Undoubtedly it was mismanaged and too many were moved at once. The grass was eaten up by the first comers, the weather was bad and they suffered a great deal and many of them were allowed to return to the northern reserve. I should like, however, to state that the reports as to the losses of life and stock have been very greatly exaggerated. I had the ground inspected very shortly afterwards and very few bones were found—only one human skeleton—which shows that the loss of life could not have been very great, because the Masai never bury their dead. A new move was made last winter and it was conducted with very great care. It was a complete success and was finally completed on the 10th of April. They took 462 warriors, 1,820 other males, 4,031 women, and 3,751 Children, making a total in all of 10,064. They had 200,000 cattle and 1,500,000 sheep. The problem set us by the pax Britannica is a very difficult one, because our government of the East Africa Protectorate has decreased both the stock and human diseases, and it has led to a constant increase in the tribe and flocks. The Masai are not labourers or

2417
dealers in stock. They do not eat their flocks but board them. They drink the blood from living animals but they never sell them. Therefore as inhabitants they are useless to their neighbours or themselves, and they present a problem of human development of the utmost difficulty. But admitting that the junction of the two reserves was necessary because more space was wanted, it was impossible to extend the northern reserve, which was entirely surrounded by a European settlement. The old northern reserve amounts to 3,052,800 acres and the old southern reserve to 2,752.000 acres, making a total of 5,804,800 acres for the two reserves. But the new southern reserve, east, is 1,984,000 acres, and west 3,584,000 acres, and the Garden of Eden 870,000 acres, making a new southern reserve of 6,444,000 acres, and this is given in exchange for the old northern reserve, which was 3,000,000 acres. Therefore the new southern reserve is more than double the old northern reserve for which it is substituted.
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what was written by Commissioner Jackson in 1904, when these reserves were first contemplated: "No sane European would accept a free gift of 500,000 acres in such a place. Why, then, try to force such a place on the Masai?"
Mr. HARCOURT: Since then European settlers have occupied the land and we are told that it is called "the Garden of Eden"—
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: In irony.
Mr. HARCOURT: No, not in irony. The total southern reserve, old and new, is now 9,200,000 acres, and the total of the two old reserves were only 5,800,000 acres. The quality of the land is as good as, if not better than, the old. The water is sufficient; and dams are being made to provide against times of drought. There is the Tetse fly glossina in both the northern and southern reserves, but I am informed that it is only in small districts in the new
southern reserve. It is an unavoidable evil. The injunction against the move, about which my hon. Friend has spoken, was obtained two days after the move had been completed. The movement had been in progress many months before the action was commenced. It is quite true the Court decided that they had no jurisdiction, because it was an act of State, but I understand that it is possible the matter may be made the subject of an appeal to the Privy Council, and, therefore, I must treat it as sub judice. There has been no disposal of Laikipia lands in the northern reserve, but we must accommodate the settlers that are being displaced from the new southern reserve, and the claims of settlers removed from Laikipia when first. made a reserve must also be considered. I have exercised throughout in this. matter the greatest care to satisfy myself that the move is to the advantage of the tribe and that everything is done with their free consent. The chiefs were sent from the northern reserve to inspect the southern reserve, and they expressed their satisfaction with it. The Governor, Mr. Belfield, visited the Masai there on the spot, and he was satisfied that they were content. I am glad to say that he is at this moment making a tour amongst them throughout the whole of the southern reserve. You cannot reverse constantly big policies every time one or two natives change their minds, possibly at the instigation of some interested parties, but I believe that these new arrangements will tend to the happiness and prosperity of this tribe, and the next problem is to try and make them less savage, and their customs and morals more suited to modern ideas of native development, organisation and progress.
Colonel CRAIGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 37.

Division No. 276.]

AYES.

[12.30 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Boland, John Pius

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Arnold, Sydney

Booth. Frederick Handel

Chancellor, Henry George

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Clan cy, John Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Clough, William

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cotton, William Francis

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Doherty, Philip

Crumley, Patrick

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Cullinan, John

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

John, Edward Thomas

O'Malley, William

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

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

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

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

De Forest, Baron

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shee, James John

Delany, William

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Joyce, Michael

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Devlin, Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dillon, John

Kelly, Edward

Parry, Thomas H.

Doris, William

Kilbride, Denis

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Duffy, William J.

King, Joseph

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Reddy, Michael

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lardner. James C. R.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Falconer, James

Leach, Charles

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ffrench. Peter

London, Thomas

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Field, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Robinson, Sidney

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Royds, Edmund

Gill, Alfred Henry

Maclean, Donald

Scanlan, Thomas

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Sheehy, David

Goldstone, Frank

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Macpherson, James Ian

Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Sutton, John E.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

McGhee, Richard

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Hackett, John

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Tennant, Harold John

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Ra ssendale)

Mas terman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Toulmin. Sir George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Meagher, Michael

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Webb, H.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Molloy, Michael

Wheler, Granville, C. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Hayward, Evan

Morgan, George Hay

White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

Hazleton Richard

Mount, William Arthur

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Muldoon, John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Henry. Sir Charles

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

NOES.

Adamson, William

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Baird, John Lawrence

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Boyton. James

Hardie, J. Keir

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Major H. (Berks. Abingdon)

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Cassel, Felix

Hunt, Rowland

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Munro, Robert

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

Waring, Walter

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Neilson, Francis

Watt, Henry Anderson

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Wolmer, Viscount

Gilmour, Captain John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Goldsmith, Frank

Ronaldshay, Earl of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hogge and Mr. Pringle.

Grant, James Augustus

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Gulland.]

REVENLTE BILL.
Order for further consideration in Committee [Progress, 11th August] read.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Mr. Speaker, I promised yesterday, on the
2420
Motion to report Progress, that an effort would be made to adjust the differences between the various sections of the House with a view to saving this Bill. I regret very much that after a good deal of effort, not merely on my part but on the part of all those interested in the Bill, the negotiations have failed and I am afraid now it will be my duty to move that the Bill be discharged. It would be quite impossible to proceed with it in face of the very large number of highly controversial Amendments which have been placed on the Paper.

2421
I do not think it would be desirable for me to attempt to apportion the blame, and I do not think it would be desirable to enter into the whole history of the negotiations. In fact, there would be nothing more unsatisfactory than that negotiations which must necessarily be conducted privately between parties should be put before the House in their full terms, and therefore, I do not propose to enter into the various proposals and counter-proposals that have been made. All I have to say now is that I very much regret that we have failed to come to some arrangement, and on behalf of the Government I can only promise that at an early stage next Session these Clauses, I will not say in this identical form but in a form substantially like that in which they are now embodied in the Revenue Bill, will be reintroduced.
I think I am bound to say that the Bill as it is drafted was the result of undertakings given by the Government, I think early this Session, to the Opposition and to hon. Friends of my own sitting behind here who criticised certain parts of the Land Taxes. That applies not merely to the concessions made to the builders, but it also applies to the much more controversial Clause 11. I said yesterday that I had been under the impression that Clause 11 was a concession to criticisms on the other side as well as this side, and I was very gratified to find in a copy of the "Land Union Journal" of August, 1913:—
"Clause 11 with its accompanying memorandum was again a concession to the attack which has been made by the Land Union on the methods adopted by the Commissioners."
I only want to make that clear in order to show that no one was more surprised than I was when I found that Clause 11 was regarded as a highly controversial Clause—apart, I mean, from the one or two questions which undoubtedly would have to be debated with regard to limitation. That I fully realised. In the Debate on the Second Reading the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) and two or three other Members said they regarded the limitation as to improvements as a matter to which they would call attention at a later stage, but I simply thought that that was a Committee matter which could be disposed of. I regret, however, that it has been quite impossible to arrive at an agreement, and I came to the conclusion, after taking some time over it and consulting others who were in responsible positions and spoke with authority representing the various sections in this matter,
2422
that it would be quite impossible to reconcile the differences, and, therefore, I think it would be much better to put it off until next year when the Bill will be introduced substantially in its present form, I hope, with other Amendments which I have indicated. I do not know of anything further which I could usefully add, and anything in the nature of a discussion must be not only unnecessary but futile as the Bill will be introduced again next year.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to have the assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Bill will be reintroduced early next Session containing substantially all the concessions which are now included in it, and I must express on my own behalf, and I am sure on that of everyone who sits on this side, our great regret that it has been impossible to come to an arrangement. I have already dealt with that subject, and I do not wish to add or detract anything from what I said yesterday. I also concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing could be gained now by a lengthy debate upon this subject, but I am bound to deal quite briefly, though I do not desire to deal in a controversial spirit, with the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made just now, that my attitude had been inconsistent on Clause 11, and with the extract which he read from the "Land Union Journal." May I read my own words on the Second Reading Debate before any of this controversy arose at all, in which I said:
"I feel sure that this Clause was introduced with a desire to meet the objections which have been raised no this side of the House: but the question is so difficult and complicated that the whole purport of the Clause appears to have been misunderstood by those who drafted it." — [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th July, 1913, col. 325–6.]
So that I distinctly stated my opinion at that stage—although I am bound to admit that what has happened since has modified my opinion—and at the same time that the article appeared in the "Land Union Journal," that that Clause had been introduced for the purpose of meeting objections raised on this side of the House. I think that is a complete answer to the suggestion that I have in any way altered my attitude. I went on to point out in the Second Reading Debate (column 326 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July), that the one thing in the Clause which we could not on any consideration entertain was the time limit for agricultural improvements. I said that in the strongest possible terms. I am bound, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, to justify my atti-

2423
tude, and it is not only the attitude taken on this side of the House. The feeling of a very large section on the other side of the House is quite as strong on that point, and even at this moment there stands on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of this Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir Courtenay Warner), who sits on the other side.
Although I do not wish to go into the history of the negotiations, I am bound to state to the House and to the country that the time limit is the only thing between us. I ant prepared, and I have stated that I am prepared, on behalf of my hon. Friends and anyone who will do so to assent to this Clause being included in the Bill, provided the time limit is taken out. And, therefore, I claim that I have been absolutely consistent. I said from the first that this Clause was intended as a concession to us. I said it was misconceived in its drafting, that it would require a great deal of discussion, that the time limit was inadmissible, and that I could not face the agricultural industry if I had in any sense consented or permitted or done anything to countenance the placing upon the Statute Book of a Clause which purported to arrive at the unimproved value of agricultural land which, as I stated in the Second Reading Debate, is the oldest industry in the country. If you were to place a time limit upon the improvements which were to he excluded from that valuation you would be stultifying the House of Commons by allowing a Clause which did not exclude improvements to be regarded as a Clause which did exclude them. The time limit is the critical issue, and I would make any other sacrifice than that. I am most anxious for this Bill to go through.
I do not desire to throw stones at anyone on the other side. I only desire to defend my own consistency and that of my hon. Friends, which I hope I have doge, and I do not desire that any bad feeling should arise; but I do say that we on this side have a right to protest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing his best to repair the mistake early next Session, but I think we must realise that the great mistake he and the Government have made is in deferring the critical stage of this Revenue Bill. That is the whole trouble. The real blame lies there. The object of this House is that, after hearing the opinions of both sides, it may arrive at a just conclusion upon them, and it is the duty of the Government to give sufficient
2424
time for those opinions to be reasonably expressed on both sides. The whole difficulty arises because that time has not been given to the Bill, and the Government cannot divest themselves of the responsibility.
From that point of view I cannot recede. I very much regret to have to assent to what I hope is only the shortest possible postponement of the benefits which this Bill would confer on many people who are suffering grievous hardships from the present application of the Land Taxes, and the benefits of which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not desire to deprive them of. They must be the judges of how far they are able to go. It is not for us here to criticise their conduct. It will be for the country to judge between us, and I only hope that at the very earliest opportunity we may get this chance of discussing this question of valuation as it deserves to be discussed, from the opposite points of view which are taken on both sides of the House.
Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

FINANCE BILL.
As amended, considered.
FINANCE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption. under 10 Edw. VII., c. 8, s. 69.)
  "In the case of the additional exemption from Income Tax under Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act., 1910, there shall be no limit to the amount of the exemption for outlay shown to have been incurred in accordance with that Section."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  CLIVE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  My excuse for bringing this new Clause again before the notice of the House is that last night, when we brought it up, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to be present to give us his reasons for not agreeing to it. As the right hon. Gentleman is here to-night, perhaps I may be allowed, as shortly as I can, to remind him of the views which he has expressed on the subject repeatedly, on former occasions. This Clause is to abolish the limit of 25 per cent, which was instituted when the right hon. Gentleman abolished the injustice under which landowners were suffering from in the method by which they had to pay Income Tax. When the

  2425
  25 per cent. Limit was imposed, the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the finance of the year did not allow of his providing more than £500,000 towards removing this injustice. The right hon. Gentleman has constantly encouraged us on this side to think that-the limit would be removed. I think in 1910 he stated that if the £500,000 was not altogether disposed of, the Government would probably introduce a provision, at any rate the next year, to increase the amount, and if there was any surplus it was proposed to increase the maximum on this spending to more than 25 per cent. I will not go through the whole list of -quotations, because they have been brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer year after year, and he must know them by heart almost. I will quote but one—what he said on the Second Reading of the Bill this year, because that seems to me to approach as nearly to the form of a pledge as anything which a Minister can say. This is what he said. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) said
  "Is there any reason why a further rebate should not he given to those landlords who have understood and made the return, and who have proved that they have spent more than the 25 per cent.?
  "Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is a good deal to be said from that point of view. Inasmuch as the £500,000 has not been spent, T do not see there would be any reason against raising the percentage. I will certainly give further consideration to that point." —OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June. 1913, [col. 666, Vol. LIII.]
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman 'said on 2nd June.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Had you not better go on?
  Captain CLIVE: I will go on in a moment. I was only indicating that part of it in which the right hon. Gentleman said he did not feel that there would be any reason against raising the percentage. Therefore, it behoves the right hon. Gentleman now, not to say, as the Attorney-General did last night, merely that more time is required, and that the Government cannot yet form an estimate of what the effect of the concession will be, but to say now what are the reasons which have arisen since June 2nd which prevent him from doing what he practically promised. This is how the right hon. Gentleman went on—I take it this is what he wants me to read:—
  "I will certainly give further consideration to that point. If the hon. Gentlemen will put down an
  2426
  Amendment to that, effect, I will see what can he done in the course of the Debates WI this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1913, col. 666, Vol. LILL.]
  The Amendment to that effect is continued in this new Clause, and that is the point on which I hope he will meet us. Of the £500,000 to be spent in this, the third year, no more than £68,000 has been expended, and perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that last year his excuse was this. He said, then, that that was only the third year of the concession, and that as Income Tax payers were allowed to claim on a basis of three years, and until the Government had the figures for the three years, they could not see what they would be liable for. Last year the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Last year the landlords did not realise the concession at all, consequently they only claimed £9,000, the second year it went up to £43.000, and now they have realised it all round, and claims are pouring in, not only in respect to this year, but to all three years."
  The effect of the pouring in of those claims has only been to raise the amount of the claims from £43,000 to £68,000. The right hon. Gentleman has had the experience which he wanted of this concession for three years, and so far from the £500,000 limit being exceeded, we have got not more than 13 or 14 per cent. of that sum. In 1910 the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself favourably to the proposal, which my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Hicks Beach) made last night, namely, that Schedule A Income Tax should be transferred to Schedule D. All that the right hon. Gentleman said was, "I certainly cannot do it this year." The proposal in this new Clause is that the surveyor should not be in the position, in which he now finds himself, of saying, "You may prove you have spent 50 per cent. on repairs, but under the Act, although I am fully satisfied on your figures, I can only give you credit for half of what you have proved." That is an injustice, winch the right lion. Gentleman has said, year after year, in effect, that he recognises, and which on the second reading, he practically promised to remove, saying he saw no reason why it should not be removed. What has happened since then to cause him to change his mind? I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises, as the whole House does, that Income Tax is an instrument that wants to be made as perfect as possible, and that, as long as there are these admitted injustices in its collection, it will fail to be that perfect instrument which we should desire.
  Mr. MOUNT: I beg to second the Motion.
  1.0 A.M.
  I think we are justified in asking the House to consider it again, on the Report stage, for the reason which has been already alluded to by my hon. Friend. Last night we had not the advantage of the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Clause in the old Finance Act, which we are seeking to amend, obviously was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Clause, and it is not saying too much to say that the Amendment which we propose to make in it, is the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. This concession—so far as it is called a concession —made to owners under Schedule A, was made at a time when most Chancellors of the Exchequer would have thought twice before making any reduction in taxation at all. It was made at a time when the right hon. Gentleman had to meet a deficiency of some £16,000,000. I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman's most ardent friend would say that the right hon. Gentleman's political opinions were such as would make him likely to give any undue concession to the landed interest. There could have been only two reasons which induced the Chancellor to make that concession to the owners of land. The first was, I suppose, that he wanted to soften the blow inflicted by the Budget of 1909, on the agricultural interest. I suppose he wanted to throw what might be called a sop to Cerberus. This so-called concession is one which has turned out to be of very little value. But. I think the real reason which induced him to make this concession was because he was impressed with the injustice of the Income Tax Act upon owners under Schedule A; and he was anxious and desirous to encourage as far as he could good landlords to spend money in the development of their estates. He told us that we should have £500,000, even at a time when he had to raise large additional revenue, in order to redress this inequality. We have had three years' experience, and one thing is perfectly clear, that is, that this 25 per cent. would nothing like add up to the £500,000 he was prepared to give at a time when it was necessary for him to raise £16,000,000 in extra taxation. If at such a time he was prepared to give so much, at this present time when he did not require to raise any new taxes to meet the expenditure of the country I do not think we are asking too much when we ask
  2428
  that we should have this £500,000 to redress this inequality. The position taken up with regard to this abatement of 25 per cent. is a distinctly illogical one. If owners under Schedule A are entitled to anything they are entitled to everything they spend on the upkeep of their estates. That is what we ask, and I think that the past statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer show that if he were able to treat us as he would like he would give us this concession. I do hope that now we have the advantage of having the right hon. Gentleman here in the House he will give us this concession which has been asked for more than once and has been more than once half promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I beg to second the new Clause.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment moved and supported exactly the same Amendment yesterday and made exactly the same speeches. I can only give exactly the same reply as was given yesterday. What is the position? The position is that in the Budget of 1909 I recognised that a case was made for reduction in respect of repairs by certain landlords, more especially in regard to cottages. One of my distinguished predecessors had already made a concession of 12½ per cent., and I was pressed to extend that. I was told that 12½ per cent. by no means represented the expenditure of landlords on their repairs. I proposed an Amendment that a further reduction extending beyond the 12½ per cent. should be given to landlords under Schedule A, provided they proved they had spent the money. For three years they have had the opportunity to make their case. In the first year the amount of their claims proved trivial; in the second year it was not much greater; and even in the third year the amount claimed is barely one-fifth of the amount I was prepared to set aside, namely, £500,000, when I had to raise extra taxation to the extent of £16,000,000. I cannot say that the concession has been received in a very encouraging spirit. Nothing has been said about it outside.
  I have never seen the slightest recognition by any landowner of the fact that this concession has been made; and even the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was grudging and spoke of "this so-called concession." It is not altogether a question of whether it is just or unjust; because there are so many concessions of this kind one would like to make to various,

  2429
  classes in this country who have slight grievances against the Income Tax. It is very often a question of selection, and one would naturally prefer to choose classes who would really appreciate concessions instead of talking about a miserable £500,000. Before they ask for an extra amount the first thing landowners should do is to make their case for that £500,000. So far they have absolutely, utterly, and ignominously failed to make out their case. They have only to go to the Income Tax Commissioners and prove that they have expended more than 12½ per cent and they can get it; the £500,000 is there. I think the position is due to the extraordinary suspiciousness that there is with regard to the whole of the proposals of the Budget of 1909. They are so suspicious that they will not even claim the concession. The Government is not to blame for that. The hon. Member said I gave a definite pledge. All I promised was to give the matter my most careful consideration. I certainly have done so. Nobody can doubt that I have given this matter the most careful and favourable consideration. I do not think that landowners can really claim any further concessions until they can establish their case for the concessions already made. When that is done there will be a case for further consideration, but until that is done I very much regret that I cannot make any further concession.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman has made two com-plaints. In the first place he has complained that Members on this side have not done him justice in regard to the concessions contained in the 1909 Budget. I do not think he can have read a great many of the speeches made in the country by Members on this side; because, although we have undoubtedly, and, I think justly, attacked a great many of the provisions of the 1909 Budget, we have never failed to call attention to two very valuable concessions in that Budget. The first is the one to which he has referred this evening with regard to the increased allowances to landowners, and the second with regard to the remission of Death Duties on articles which are of historic and national value. Both of those concessions we do undoubtedly appreciate to a considerable extent. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very striking point this evening when he said that we have no claim for a reconsideration of the question because the amount of the £500,000 that has been claimed during recent years
  2430
  has been a very trivial proportion indeed. I understand that to be his point. Let us look at what the position is. The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is a very difficult matter to make out a claim. First of all, you have to pay on the full amount, and then you have to claim a return. It is not only a very dilatory process, but it is also a very difficult matter indeed, and I think anybody who has had any experience even in regard to a small estate in this connection will agree that the present state of affairs is eminently unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman talks of concessions. We do not want concessions in this matter. All we ask for is that land should be treated on precisely the same basis as other forms of property, and if it is right and proper that other forms of property should be taxed for the purposes of Income Tax on their profits, then we ask that land should be treated on exactly the same basis. I cannot imagine what logic he has on his side when he refuses to put land under Schedule D. I know my hon. Friend does not ask this in his present proposal, but I certainly think if he could find time to approach the financial system of the country from the scientific and not from the party or polemical point of view, he would be obliged to admit that we have an unchallengeable claim to have the taxation of land for Income Tax put under Schedule D.
  Quite apart from the justice and equity of the case, I wish the right hon. Gentleman would take account of one very important result that would accrue if he placed land in Schedule D. One of the most important considerations that all agricultural reformers are advocating is the necessity that landowners and farmers should keep private accounts. If you place land in Schedule D one of the most important results, one more important even than the profit we shall derive from such a transfer, will be that both the farmers and landowners of this country will be compelled to keep private trading accounts. I would also point out that quite apart from there being any special reason why land should be treated more unfavourably than other forms of property in a matter of this sort, land already suffers certain very serious disadvantages in the matter of local taxation, and the mere fact that land has to bear an undue proportion of the cost of what are called local services, but which are services predominantly national in character, increases

  2431
  the force of our claim to be treated in the matter of Income Tax on exactly the same basis as other forms of property. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to regard this as a matter in which he is making concessions to the landed interests at all, but as one in which he is selecting a particular industry or interest to which he is giving relief. I think he referred to the difficulty of selection just now. We ask him to give a substantial measure of justice to the landed interests to which I think we have a claim, which cannot be challenged from any quarter in this House, and so far from scoffing at the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend I think we are entitled to claim that we should be put from under A to D.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am not quite sure what steps the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes to ascertain whether the money has actually been spent on repairs in connection with property, but I hope that he does satisfy himself that the money claimed to be refunded has actually been expended. Why I say that is this. Within the last eighteen months I have stayed with a friend who has a large farm and who told me that his landlord had told him that he had expended £350 for repairs on the farm. He asked my opinion as to whether that claim was justified or not. I went very particularly into every item of expenditure, and I told him that a fair charge for the repairs that the landlord had done would be at the very outside £120. Now, if the landlord to whom I am referring was claiming that he had spent £350 for repairs of this kind, he was, practically speaking, attempting to defraud the Exchequer, and therefore I certainly think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make the most particular inquiries into the amount expended. If he does, I feel satisfied that some of the claims for repairs will not be found to be justified, and therefore, so far as the claims made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, I think they are asking to be treated more generously than the rights of the taxpayers justify.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken can hardly suggest that landlords expend an unnecessarily large sum on repairs and pay a higher figure than those should cost in order to get back a very small percentage of the cost on their income. They may be very foolish, but they are not quite as
  2432
  foolish as that. With regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, he began by telling the House that he entirely adhered to the statement made on his behalf by the Attorney-General yesterday. He then went on to say exactly the opposite to what the Attorney-General told us, because the Attorney-General said his only reason for resisting the Clause was that the claim was growing so rapidly that it might exceed £500,000 and that sufficient time had not elapsed to enable them to form an opinion as to whether this claim might not be accepted, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer contests it on the ground that it has been so little availed of that we have not proved ourselves worthy of it. I do not think these two things march together. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot deny that, in the most conciliatory and responsive manner, he invited my hon. Friend to put down this Amendment, and that he promised to give it most favourable consideration. Having done so, I hardly think the speech he has just delivered was in tune with the speech he delivered at the beginning of the Session. It appears to me that his temper on the subject at the moment has been more consulted than the equities of the case. I do not want to go again into the equity of the point; we divided on it yesterday, but it is purely a, matter of ordinary justice. It has been admitted on the floor of this House and outside that we do not always get justice, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this respect has shown a desire to meet us. However just they may be, they are much better made when the Liberal party are in power than if they are made from this side of the House. I think he recognised that, and we recognised it too, and we value the concession all the more on that account. I hope, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give favourable consideration now, because his frame of mind will not, allow him, my hon. Friend will consider that the invitation is carried forward to next, Session, and that he will find the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a frame of mind to deal with the subject in a more liberal spirit.
  Amendment negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Deductions in Respect of Expenses Involved in Earning Salary, etc.).
  "(1) Where the Treasury are satisfied with respect to any class of persons in receipt of any salary, fees, or emoluments payable o out of the public revenue that such persons are obliged to lay out and expend money

  2433
  wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of the duties in respect of which such salary, fees, or emoluments are payable, the Treasury may fix such sum as in their opinion represents a fair equivalent of the average annual amount laid out and expended as aforesaid by persons of that class, and in assessing the Income Tax on the salary, fees, or emoluments of persons of that class, there shall be deducted from the amount thereof the sums so fixed by the Treasury.
  (2) The provisions of Section 51 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, shall not apply in cases to which this Section is applicable."
  Clause read a second time.—[11th August.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) would impose a charge.
  The Amendment was in Sub-section (1) — after the word "persons" to insert the words "except Members of Parliament" ["satisfied with respect to any class of persons in receipt"].
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "payable out of the public revenue."
  The difficulty is that we are dealing with a Bill which has not yet been printed with the new Clause, so that I can only deal with the Clause as it appeared on the Paper in the Committee stage. The effect of the Amendment is that the discretion which is given to the Treasury is limited to the case of persons who derive their salary, fees, or emoluments from the public revenue. It seems to me there is no reason whatever for making that limitation. If it be necessary at all to give any such special exemption or privilege it ought to be open to all classes, because the benefit given under this Clause as now amended is a benefit of a very peculiar description. The persons who get the benefit of this Clause are not only relieved from the anxiety of proving their expenditure, but they are to be given the benefit of an average, even although their expenditure may be below that average. If, on the other hand, their expenditure is above the average, they may make full claim for their expenditure. What I say is this: if you are going to give that benefit to a Member of Parliament you ought to give it to other people as well. You ought not to limit it to the case of public revenue.
  2434
  When I assented to this Clause yesterday I did not fully appreciate its effect. The right hon. Gentleman altered it at the moment in manuscript. I am only mentioning that as my excuse for not having fully appreciated its effect yesterday, and I do submit that if you are going to give this privilege to Members of Parliament there ought to be opportunity given to other people to endeavour to obtain it, because it is merely a discretion you give to the Treasury. You say to the Treasury that in a case which they think right they may give to certain classes of person engaged in certain classes of employment the extraordinary privilege of "Heads I win, tails you lose." The Treasury says: "You need not prove your expenses at all like everyone else, but we will fix a certain average, and if you go below that you will still have the benefit without proving any expenditure, and if you go above the average you may prove your actual expenditure and get the benefit of more than that actual expenditure. It is a distinction given to the Treasury, who need not exercise it unless they like; but I say you ought not to insert words which restrict it to the case of persons whose salaries and emoluments are payable out of public revenue. What about local authorities? Why should it not apply to persons who derive their salaries or emoluments from the rates, or from public companies? These persons may stand much more in need than Members of Parliament, and on these grounds I do press that, at least, if we are to have this in our own favour, the Clause ought to be framed in such a way that other classes, irrespective of any such limitation as the words "Public Revenue" afford, ought to be able to obtain this privilege as well.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to second the Amendment, arid I would like, if I may, to make one observation about the reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to me yesterday. He led the House to infer that any deduction paid under this Clause would be for travelling expenses. I ventured rather to question the interpretation of the wording of the Clause in that respect, and the only reply I got was a general intimation by a shake of the head that I was entirely incorrect. I gather from a perusal of the proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee that this allowance for abatement out of the salary paid to Members of Parliament is allowed by the Treasury not on Members'

  2435
  travelling expenses only, but as a sort of general average to try and meet the case of what they thought would be the ordinary expenses of a Member of Parliament. In fact, the representative of the Treasury said, in answer to question 1793, that he thought £100 was a fair figure to take. He was further questioned by a member of the Committee on what grounds Members had claimed exemption, and a very striking list was given by the representative of the Treasury showing the various grounds.
  Some Members claimed for travelling expenses from their constituency to their residence; others from their constituency to London; others charged for postage and telegrams; others for stationery; others for subsistence while in London; others for apartments and hotels in London; others for secretary's salary; others for clerical assistance; another for maintaining a political organisation in his constituency; another for entertainments in the House of Commons and in his constituency, and another one for rent of office. The Treasury very naturally decided that a lot of those claims could not be justified. They said that the only one that really could be justified in their opinion was that for postage and telegrams, but they said that of course hon. Members perhaps were in a better position to judge what were the actual expenses incurred by a Member of Parliament in fulfilling his duties, and, therefore, in order to avoid much discussion and much correspondence between various Members of Parliament and the Paymaster-General's Office, they agreed with the Paymaster-General's Office to come to a rough and ready compromise by this allowance of £100 for exemption of Income Tax on salaries of Members of Parliament. I venture to say that in the case of Members of Parliament this is absolutely unjustified by the Resolution that was passed by the House of Commons
  itself on 10th August, 1911. The words
  in that Resolution were—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to have forgotten the Amendment he is seconding. He seems about to move the one which Mr. Speaker just now ruled out of order. The proposal now is to extend this relief to other persons than those paid out of public revenue.
  Mr. HICKS-BEACH: I was venturing to submit that, if it is justifiable under the Clause to apply this exemption to Members of Parliament, it is therefore, much more justifiable to apply the exemption to other members of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the original Resolution, said these orders would be made out for the proper sum, less income tax, in each case. Therefore, there was in the minds of hon. Members who voted for that Resolution, no idea of an exemption from income tax being allowed out of this sum. If it is justifiable at all—which I submit it is not—to make this allowance out of salaries received by Members of Parliament, it is equally justifiable, and more so, to make an allowance, not only for other people paid by public bodies, but for every person who earns a salary in his ordinary vocation. If it is justifiable for Members of Parliament to, claim for travelling expenses, and postage and other things which some hon. Members put forward, surely a clerk in any office in the City of London is justified in putting forward a claim for travelling expenses to and from his residence to his place of business. It is just as necessary for him to travel from his residence to his place of business, as it is for a Member of Parliament to travel to and from his Constituency. I submit that this sum was paid to Members of Parliament, not to enable them to travel to and from their Constituencies, but to enable them to come up to London and to attend to their duties properly in the House of Commons. Take any other case. The civil servant does not live actually over his office. He has to spend a considerable sum of money in travelling from his residence to his place of business. Therefore, he would be perfectly justified, on the same ground, in putting in a claim. If you can justify that claim at all, in the case of a Member of Parliament, you ought to justify it also in the case of every other individual taxpayer. For that reason, I second the Motion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Though I agree it was impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to have put his Amendment on the Paper, I think he might have given me a copy of the Amendment. I had not a notion that he was about to move it, and in these cases it is always the practice for a Minister to have an opportunity of consulting the officials of the Inland Revenue as to what the effect of the proposals would be. I regret that he could not sees

  2437
  his way, at least, to give me notice, so that I could see what the effect of the Amendment would be.
  Mr. CASSEL: I had intended to give the right hon. Gentleman some notice, but accidentally forgot to do it. I can only express my regret.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then, I have certainly nothing more to say on that subject, although it is rather difficult to know what the effect of an Amendment will be without having a consultation with the officials. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has rather overlooked what the effect of this Clause is, and why it was introduced. It was introduced entirely because of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee, without expressing any opinion on the merits, stated that such deductions as were made in regard to Members of Parliament, and other deductions, to which they had called attention, which had, from time to time, been made by other Chancellors of the Exchequer, should be legalised by statute. This Clause was introduced purely in deference to the expressed opinion of the Public Accounts Committee in their report with a view to regularising these transactions. We are not raising the general question of what allowances should be made in regard to the other things which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to. That is a totally different issue, and I do not think that it could be dealt with here. Taking the case of the revenue, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that you could have a fixed sum for, say, directors of companies, wherever they lived, and whatever the nature of the concern with which they were connected. There is such a variety in the nature of the companies and the matters involved. Of course, in the case of revising barristers, one might say that the expenses in some cases are very much heavier than in others. In some counties they have to do a good deal of posting, in other districts they can travel about in trains, whilst in other districts, again, there is very little travelling to do at all. But here there is a regular fixed deduction, because their work is work of the same character, in the main, and the expenses are substantially the same in each case and within certain limits. That is the reason why these two or three cases have been selected.
  2438
  I am sure hon. and learned Gentlemen would never seriously propose that you should give the Treasury unlimited powers to make deductions, of a fixed amount, applicable to whole classes of the community. Their powers are very sufficiently exercised up to the present time. During the whole time the Income Tax has been in operation—for over sixty years—there have been only three cases in which this has been done. The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that we should equip the Treasury with these gigantic powers, which should be applicable to every class of the community engaged in industry. Great as is my confidence in the Treasury under its present management, I really would hesitate to accept an invitation to exercise and to wield such gigantic powers. At the same time, I have every confidence in the present management of the Treasury. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is really moving this Amendment in order to raise a totally different issue, which could not be raised in any other way. It deals with the question of making and fixing deduction without any limit, and it would be very dangerous to give such powers to the Treasury.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has rather misconceived my hon. and learned Friend's object. His object simply is to carry to a logical conclusion the Chancellor's own action. That is really the whole point, and when he talks about the enormously wide powers I quite sympathise with him. I think he found himself in a very great difficulty indeed. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual skill, very carefully avoided his own share in the difficulty and made the most of that which he could attribute to this side of the House. The real problem has arisen from the public feeling that what Members of Parliament do for themselves they ought to do for everyone else in the country. That is the whole point. I do not want to debate the matter at any length at this hour of the night, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to have thought of that before he opened the door—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not open the door.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: He opened the door.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not at all. I just walked through a door which was

  2439
  opened by Sir Robert Peel, and still further opened by Lord St. Aldwyn, and Mr. Goschen.
  Mr. CASSEL: Quite different cases.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, I pushed the door open a little wider.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, but people who walked through that door before, were people very different from those in the House of Commons to-day. The whole principle is absolutely different when the House of Commons is dealing with its own Members than when it is dealing with people who are not under its jurisdiction. It was a very different matter so long as it was confined to a small class of civil servants, for, as the old proverb says, "De minimis non. curat lex." But when you are dealing with Members, everybody throughout the country naturally says, "Why should hon. Members in the House of Commons vote themselves privileges and save themselves trouble when we are denied such privileges?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer has opened a door not opened before and clearly the whole thing has an unpleasant savour in the country. It puts us in a false position, and I do not think the relief is worth it. I think the feeling in the country is perfectly justified. If we save ourselves trouble in that way and enable ourselves to claim a lump sum, everybody should be treated alike.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: It is rather amusing to listen to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford who blows hot and cold in a quarter of an hour. But what I rose to say was that I agree to a great extent with the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras who moved the Amendment. I spend a great deal more on railway fares than the hon. and learned Member, and therefore I am entitled to
  more exemption than he is. It was generally understood when payment of Members was discussed that it was not going to be a salary at all, but an allowance to enable Members of this House to meet the extra expense they were called upon to make. The mistake was made in calling it a salary at all. We are told that it is only a step from the sublime to the ridiculous and it seems to me that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury takes that step every time that an opportunity presents itself. If the hon. Member's chauffeur moved fifty or sixty miles away from his home and claimed that he was entitled to his fare as well as to his salary the hon. Member would be the first to protest. I think that Members who live long distances from London are entitled to relief of Income Tax in respect of the expense they are put to in travelling that distance. I have in my mind the case of one of my hon. Friends who goes home to Scotland every week-end. I only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he decided in favour of the payment of Members of Parliament, did not call it an allowance instead of a salary. The mistake is there. I certainly cannot agree with the argument used that Members of Parliament are in the same position as directors of companies or persons in the employ of large insurance companies who may live close to or within a few miles of their places of business. Members of Parliament cannot do that, and they are compelled, owing to their position, to be present in their constituencies on frequent occasions. That being so, I think Members of Parliament can claim that they are not in the position of ordinary business men.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 20.

  Division No. 277.]

  AYES.

  [1.46 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Adamson, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Field, William

  Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clough, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Cullinan, John

  Gladstone. W. G. C.

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Delany, William

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Gwynn. Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Doris, William

  Hackett, John

  Burke. E. Haviland-

  Duffy, William J.

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Hayward, Evan

  McGhee, Richard

  Reddy, Michael

  Hazleton, Richard

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Molloy, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Muldoon, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Munro, Robert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  King, Joseph

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  O'Malley, William

  Waring, Walter

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Shaughfressy, P. J.

  Webb, H.

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

  O'Shee, James John

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  London, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Pringle. William M. R.

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

  NOES.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Henderson, Major H (Berks, Abingdon)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. Hicks Beach.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Grant, J. A.

  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  Mr. CASSEL: The next Amendment, which is the only other one I propose to move, is after the word "may" ["the Treasury may"], to add the words "by regulation." I am afraid this will rather disturb the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that I said I had great confidence in the Treasury, because, all the time I had in mind that I was going to move the next Amendment, which was to make it by regulation subject to the approval of the House. I do think it is desirable, in a case of this kind, that there should be control by the House of Commons, because you are giving to the Treasury absolute power of fixing any amount they please. Up to the present, it has been £100, but I cannot establish anything like £100 for expenses. I have very carefully considered the matter, and I must say that in the case of a London Member, living in London, I cannot see how it is possible to make out £100 for expenses.
  Mr. BOOTH: He can send the conscience money back.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member has made an interruption. As a matter of
  2442
  fact, I did return it to the right hon. Gentleman, who acknowledged it, without admitting that I was right in my contention that it was not allowable. That is a matter with which I should not have dealt unless the hon. Member had interrupted me. You are giving the Treasury power to fix any amount they please in particular eases, and in cases affecting the House. I think, in these circumstances, it is right that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of controlling the action of the Treasury regarding the amount fixed.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so because I observe that the Select Committee on Public Accounts say that "they are of opinion that Parliament should decide whether the £400, either as a whole or part, should be treated as salary or allowances." It is obvious, in studying the evidence of the witnesses before the Committee that there was considerable difficulty in arriving at this sum of £100, and, therefore, I think it is most desirable that there should be some con-

  2443
  trol by this House, particularly over the allowances made to Members of Parliament under this new Clause. It should riot be left to the Treasury to decide whether £100, £200, £300, or even £400 is to be exempt from Income Tax in the future. It surely can do no harm for this House to settle this thing in whatever way it thinks best for Members, and in the interests of the House as a whole I cannot think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously object to this.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) will see that he wants to establish control by the House which has already been completely established by the method that is being pursued in obtaining sanction for this particular transaction. It has been discussed on the Vote in Committee, which specifically challenges this point. It was discussed on the Report stage. That is twice.
  Mr. CASSEL: There has been no opportunity this Session.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is no fault of ours. The hon. Gentleman who is familiar with the procedure of this House, is perfectly well aware that the Opposition only have to ask for a Vote to be put down for the Government, by the custom and tradition of the House, to put it down, and if it is not discussed, it is because the Opposition do not want it discussed. The House can discuss it in Committee, on Report, on the Second Reading and on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, on the Finance Bill, Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage, and I do not think it possible for the House to have a more complete control. It has at least ten opportunities, and I may also point out that there is another course, and that is to challenge the salaries of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and I think also the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. CASSEL: It was ruled out of Order on that point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well, then,
  I will say eleven. There are no end of opportunities of challenging it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday.)—[Mr. Gulland.]

FORGERY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
FORGERY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of Forgery.)
  (1) For the purposes of this Act, forgery is the making of a false document in order that it may be used as genuine, and in the case of the seals and dies mentioned in this Act the counterfeiting of a seal or die, and forgery with intent to defraud or deceive as the case may be is punishable as in this Act provided.
  (2) A document is false within the meaning of this Act if the whole or any material part thereof purports to be made by or on behalf or on account of a person who did not make it nor authorise its making; or if, though made by or on behalf or on account of the person by whom or by whose authority it purports to have been made, the time or place of making, where either is material, or, in the case of a document identified by number or mark, the number or any distinguishing mark identifying the document, is falsely stated therein; and in particular a document is false:—

  (a) if any material alteration, whether by addition, insertion, obliteration, erasure, removal, or otherwise, has been made therein;

  (b) if the whole or some material part of it purports to be made by or on behalf of a fictitious or deceased person;

  (e) if, though made in the name of an existing person, it is made by him or by his authority with the intention that it should pass as having been made by some person, real or fictitious, other than the person who made or authorised it.

  (3) For the purposes of this Act, (e) it is immaterial in what language a document is expressed or in what place within or without the King's dominions it is expressed to take effect.

  (b) Forgery of a document may be complete even if the document when forged is incomplete, or is not or does not purport to be such a document as would be binding or sufficient in law.

  (c) The crossing on any cheque, draft on a banker, post-office money order, postal order, coupon, or other document the crossing of which is authorised or recognised by law, shall be a material part of such cheque, draft, order, coupon, or document.

  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise just to obtain an assurance on this principal operative Clause that this Bill does not
  extend the penalties or enlarge the scope of the law dealing with forgery. I quite recognise that a layman like myself must put confidence in the legal Members of this House. I cannot possibly understand this Bill, but I think those who cannot are entitled to know whether the Bill does extend the penalties, because it says not merely to consolidate and simplify the law relating to forgery, but to amend it Clause 1 defines forgery, and when one sees what punishment may be given under this Bill, one would like to know that. it does riot, at any rate, increase the penalties in the existing statutes.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Bill is one of the series of consolidating Bills which have been introduced and passed in previous Sessions and it would be a matter for regret if the House did not pass this Bill, which is really the result of the very great labours of a Joint Committee composed of both sections, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is a most valuable measure. I do not in the least degree object to the question he puts to me. It is quite right that it is an Act intended to consolidate and amend and is not strictly only a consolidating Bill. What the Committee did was to make the Bill more uniform. The whole object is to make the law, so far as one can make it in these matters, uniform without. making any new Amendments so as to create any new offence. I think, to be strictly accurate, there are one or two instances in which the sentence has been slightly altered. Sentences have been reduced where there is an alteration in order to bring them into uniformity with other sentences.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (EXPENSES).
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the purchase and maintenance, by the Commissioners of Works, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Monuments within the meaning of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the Law relating
2446
to Ancient Monuments, and the payment of any Expenses which may be incurred thereunder."
Resolution read a second time.
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, at the end of the Resolution to add the words "not exceeding the sum of ten thousand pounds in any one year."
It is not my fault that the Resolution is not on the Paper, and that therefore Members cannot see exactly what the purport is. That, of course, is the old custom of the House that has been broken repeatedly, but in this case they have reverted to the very bad custom of previous years and kept the Resolution in a secret box, to which, by the kindness of the Clerk, I had access a few days ago. I move this Amendment in order that we may get an expression from my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) with regard to the intention of the Department he so well voices in this House. As far as I understand it, the Bill which is founded upon this Resolution contemplates an elastic expenditure—it may be only £1,000 or it may be £1,000,000. When the Resolution was before the Committee I endeavoured to extract from him some little gleam of information upon this point, but he was adamant, and it certainly was a late hour. I, therefore, determined to use the forms of the House in order to see if I could obtain a satisfactory answer. If my hon. Friend will say what is the intention of his Department I will be satisfied if it is anything reasonable. I do not know whether he wants £25,000, £50,000, or £500,000. I do not know whether they have a hundred monuments to buy and preserve or only one, but it is only reasonable to know before we give this elastic power what is in the mind of the First Commissioner of Works, and what expenditure is immediately necessary. In order to extract this information, I hope with not too much difficulty at this hour, I beg to move my Amendment.
Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment, and I do so in order to state once again the objection which has been frequently expressed in connection with many Resolutions of a completely indefinite character. There ought to be, in my opinion, a definite sum stated in every money Resolution which accompanies a Bill. I think £10,000 is quite enough to spend upon this Bill, which is purely ex-

2447
perimental, or rather, let us say, is of a new character and may be followed by further legislation later. That is one reason, and a very good reason, for supporting this Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. Friend asks for a precise figure of the amount which we intend to spend on maintaining or purchasing ancient monuments. I can only direct him to the Estimates of the year which contain an exact and a precise figure. If this Amendment were persisted in it would not only set bounds to our expenditure in the future, but would actually curtail what we are doing under our existing powers, and I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire that. If he will look at the Estimates for Public Buildings he will see that £19,000 is taken this year for this purpose. As to the future, I can only say we will exercise due economy, but by giving a second reading to the Bill the House has indicated its desire that we should take a step forward in the way of protecting ancient monuments, and I would, therefore, suggest that my hon. Friend should reserve any criticism until the Estimates come before Parliament, when, if he thinks them excessive, he will have exact figures on which to state his grievance.
Mr. BOOTH: That is all very well. It is nearly as evasive as the previous reply—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has spoken already.
Mr. BOOTH: I submit that on the Report stage I am entitled to speak again.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Bill considered in Committee.
Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Purchase of Ancient Monuments by Agreement.)
  (1) The Commissioners of Works may, with the consent of the Treasury, purchase by agreement, out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for that purpose, any monument which appears to them to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act.
  (2) Any local authority within the meaning of this Act may, if they think fit, purchase by agreement any monument situate in or in the vicinity of their area, which appears to them to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act.
  (3) For the purpose of any such purchase, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act (with the exception of the provisions which relate to the purchase and taking of lands other wise than by agreement), and, in construing those Acts for the purposes of this Act, this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act, and the Commissioners of Works or local authority, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: Clause 1 deals with the purchase of ancient monuments by agreement. I do not think many hon. Members of the House have a copy of the second Sub-section, and I would like to draw their special attention to it. It says:—
  "Any local authority within the meaning of this Act may, if they think fit, purchase by agreement any monument situate in or in the vicinity of their area which appears to them to be an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act."
  I would like to know how far it is intended that action should be taken in such a case as the following. The local authorities throughout the country may have very different ideas with regard to the protection of an ancient monument, and we may find that monuments which are somewhat of national interest are being carefully attended to in one place, whilst under another authority they are entirely disregarded. That being so, it seems to be a proper case in which some supervising authority should insist on harmonious treatment. Is it intended that there should be a great deal of difference in the various authorities and in their practice? Speaking for myself, I do not think it at all wise that local authorities should be-encouraged to make these purchases. The decisions on these matters may not always be given purely in the interests of art, or in the general interest of the ratepayers. I have known many local authorities diverted from their natural work of dealing with public health, education, and so on, into disputes of this kind with re-

  2449
  gard to buildings, and it is well known that nothing excites so much discord and so much controversy as a dispute upon art. I remember an occasion in which the disputes of an art committee were out of all proportion to the importance of the subject, and one knows that when the authorities come to discuss these contentious matters of art, they divide up into party lines, and there is a great deal of confusion amongst those members who possess qualities which, in their ordinary work, make business go through entirely harmoniously. I have always been anxious in this House to see that these authorities really confine themselves to duties of public expenditure, and when you put these extraneous and sometimes exacting duties upon them, really no good comes of it. I fear that this Clause, whereby the local authorities are given a voice in these matters, will lead to anything but harmony. I would like to know if there will be anyone appointed thoroughly to supervise their work. The local authorities, as a rule, are under the Local Government Board, and they are accustomed to pay a great deal of attention to that Department. This Clause puts them, to a certain extent, under the Commissioner of Works, who will not have any influence over them at all.
  Mr. BENN: I would point out that this is not mandatory on the part of the authorities. It merely gives them the power, if they wish to use it. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the advisability of the local authorities acting under some guidance in dealing with these difficult matters. That is an important point, and under Clause 11 he will find that plans and specifications of works, in connection with any ancient monument, of which a local authority may have become caretaker or owner, have to be submitted to the Ancient Monuments Board to be set up.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Orders Placing Ancient Monuments under Protection of Commissioners of Works.)
  (1) If the Ancient Monuments Board constituted under this Act report to the Commissioners of Works that any monument is in danger of destruction or removal or damage from neglect or injudicious treatment, and that the preservation of the monument is of national importance, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, and if it appears to them that
  2450
  the monument is an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act, make an Order (in this Act referred to as a Preservation Order) placing the monument under the protection of the Commissioners.
  Provided that, if in any case the Commissioners of Works consider that the making of such an Order is a matter of immediate urgency, the Commissioners-may make the Order without receiving any such report as aforesaid.
  (2) Where the Ancient Monuments Board have reason to believe that any monument is in danger as aforesaid, and that the preservation of the monument is. of national importance, they may themselves, or by any person authorised in writing by them, enter at any reasonable time upon any premises for the purpose of enabling them to determine by inspection, of the monument whether it is proper for them to report to the Commissioners:
  Provided that, unless the Ancient Monuments Board consider that the inspection of the monument is a matter of immediate urgency, they shall give not less than seven days' notice to the occupier of the premises of their intention so to enter upon them.
  (3) A Preservation Order shall have effect of a period of eighteen months after the date on which it is made, but on the expiration of that period shall cease to have effect unless it has been confirmed by Parliament; and, if a Preservation Order so made is not confirmed by Parliament within a period of eighteen months, no further Preservation Order shall be made with reference to the same monument until after the expiration of five years from the date on which the Order which has ceased to have effect was made.
  (4) The Commissioners of Works may bring in a Bill for confirming any Preservation Order, and if, while the Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament., a petition is presented against the Order, the Bill, so far as it relates to the Order, may be referred to a select committee, or, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a joint committee of those Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of a private Bill.
  (5) Where a Committee on a Bill for confirming any Preservation Order report by a majority of the members for the time

  2451
  being present and voting that a petitioner against the Bill has been unreasonably subjected to expense, or has been subjected to an unreasonable amount of expense in defending his rights proposed to be interfered with by the Bill, they may award costs [against the Commissioners of Works], and any costs under this Section may be taxed and recovered in accordance with the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), after the word "costs" ["they may award costs"] insert the words "against the Commissioners of Works." — [Mr. Benn.]

  CLAUSE 8.—(Saving for Buildings used for Ecclesiastical Purposes or as Dwelling-house.)
  This part of this Act shall not apply to any structure which appears to the Commissioners of Works to be occupied as a dwelling-house (otherwise than by a person employed as the caretaker thereof or his family).
  Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  The Clause raises a very important point, which I would like the Committee to realise. This Bill does not touch dwelling-houses. I have given notice of two Amendments, which raise the question of dwelling-houses. I consider that a dwelling-house maybe an extremely important ancient monument, and that it should be protected. What is more interesting and instructive than to see the sort of house in which our ancestors lived? I do not intend, on this occasion, to press these Amendments, but I want the Committee to realise that some day or other, either we, or those who come after us, will be wise enough to protect the ancient monuments which remain in dwelling houses. I know the difficulties that may be raised when we are touching private property, or property which is still used and inhabited, and which is the property possibly of important and influential persons, but I hope that the hon. Member in charge of this Bill will give us some indications of the views of the Government on this matter. I should like him to say that, though it may not be possible to include dwelling houses now,
  2452
  yet the Government have their eye on them, and if they do that I will not press the Amendment. Otherwise I beg to move
  it.
  Mr. BENN: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said about this Amendment, and I presume his remarks apply to his subsequent Amendment to Clause 12.
  Mr. KING: Yes.
  Mr. BENN: It is true that it might be very desirable to exercise the powers given to the First Commissioner, to preserve ancient monuments in connection with the monuments that are on private dwelling houses, but one must proceed by a stage at a time, and it would be unwise to make this Bill stronger at this moment, because, I am afraid if we did so we should not get the general agreement which now exists.
  Mr. HOGGE: Take the example, which has occurred within the last fortnight, with regard to the famous Scottish painter, Raeburn's, house. There was a very well known mantelpiece in. one of the rooms of that house, which was sold to a dealer for a few pounds. It is now being recovered, by public subscription, for a sum exceeding £500, to be replaced in that particular house. It does seem a pity that, in historical houses of this sort, these kind of things should take place. I should very much like to see some power exercised to prevent such things.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Maclean, with regard to the title of the Clause. In the marginal title it says, "Saving for buildings, used for ecclesiastical purposes or as dwelling-house." But in the Clause itself there is no mention of "ecclesiastical purposes." I mention the matter because I have drawn your attention in a number of cases now to the fact that when going through the Clauses they are called by their titles instead of their numbers.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): That is not a point of Order, because marginal notes form no part of the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: I will deal with it then not as a point of Order, but as a matter of discussion.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:You cannot discuss what is not in the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: Then I will not discuss it at all. My impression as regards this

  2453
  Clause as it now stands is that it has been altered. It was not drafted in this form, the marginal note indicates that. I understand that this Clause originally dealt with buildings used for ecclesiastical purposes, and that that has now been dropped out of the Clause. It is to call attention to that and not for any other reason that I have raised the matter.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: As a member of the Ancient Monuments Committee which had to report to the House, I may say that the point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was discussed very carefully by the Committee. In point of fact this Bill is not anything like so advanced as the Report made to the Commissioners. But we could not get any other Bill through this Session, therefore we thought it infinitely better to accept the Bill, defective though it is. There are many very valuable things left out, which, if the House knew of, this Bill would not get through this year. There was absolutely no difference of opinion on the Committee. I found myself most in agreement with men with whom I most often differ in politics. The Bill as it stands is really a compromise arrived at in order that we may without delay get something done.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Pontefract may take it that the marginal note to Clause 8 will be put right.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Ancient Monuments Board.)
  (1) The Commissioners of Works shall constitute an advisory board under the name of the Ancient Monuments Board, consisting of members representing the bodies named in the First Schedule to this Act, and such other members, as the Commissioners of Works may appoint; and may, if and when they think it desirable to do so, constitute separate advisory boards for Scotland and Wales, and, in such case, the obligation to appoint members representing the bodies named in the First Schedule to this Act shall, so far as those bodies are bodies whose activities are confined to England, Scotland, or Wales, be construed distributively.
  (2) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, alter the First Schedule to this Act.
  (3) The Ancient Monuments Board may, if so requested by the owner of an ancient monument, give advice, free of charge except for out of pocket expenses, with reference to the treatment thereof.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "may" r ["may, if and when they think it desirable "] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."?
  This Clause gives the Commissioners of Works power to constitute an advisory board, and provides that that advisory board may set up separate boards for Scotland and Wales. The object of my Amendment is to take out "may" and insert "shall," so as to make it obligatory upon the Commissioners to set up these national boards. The House will agree that in the preservation of ancient monuments national sentiment and feeling must play a very large part in adjudging their value. Already an agreement has been come to by those in charge of the Bill that a separate national board is to be set up for Scotland. Under these circumstances, I ask that the same measure of fair play shall be meted out to Wales as has been meted out to Scotland. I beg to move—
  Mr. BENN:It is quite evident from the Amendment set down in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and also in the name of the chairman of the Welsh party, that there is a desire in Wales that such a Board should be set up. I do not think I can go further than to quote the words used by my Noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works in another place,
  namely:—
  "I venture to think that it is not advisable to put in the Bill the exact constitution of the two Boards for Scotland and Wales, which. as I have said, must generally follow the lines of the first Board for England."
  From my own knowledge I can say that the First Commissioner intends to pursue with regard to Wales the same course with the necessary changes as he intends to pursue in the case of Scotland. It will be more convenient to set up the Board voluntarily instead of putting its constitution in the Statute. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his Amendment further.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the constitution of the Scottish Board to be put in the Schedule?
  Mr. BENN: The form of the Clause is this, that the Board is set up consisting of members representing the bodies named in the Schedule and that the Schedule may be altered by Order in Council.If it is decided that a certain body in Wales shall have a representative, such body will be added to the Schedule.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Do I understand that there is an intention that when the Scotch Board is set up the Welsh Board will also be set up?
  Mr. BENNnodded assent.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think I shall be carrying out the wish of the Welsh party in saying that I shall be prepared to accept that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Inspectors of Ancient Monuments.)
  (1) The Commissioners of Works, with the consent of the Treasury, shall appoint one or more inspectors of ancient monuments, and it shall be the duty of those inspectors to report to the Commissioners of Works on the condition of ancient monuments and on the best mode of preserving them.
  (2) There shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to any inspectors so appointed, such remuneration and allowance for expenses as may be determined by the Treasury.
  Mr. BOOTH: This is a Clause which appoints inspectors, and therefore increases the number of such officials. I shall never, until I change my mind, allow such increases of inspectors without a protest. I do not wish to be unreasonable, the Clause says one or more inspectors. I should like to know how many inspectors it is intended to appoint, what will be the salaries, and what amount of funds they will spend. If they have only to spend £19,000 per annum then clearly one inspector is all that is required. It was owing to this suggestion that I moved my Amendment to the Money Resolution, because I could not see, if the present small rate of expenditure is made permanent, any need for a large increase of staff. This Clause seems to contemplate a number of new appointments, and I want to know if new expenditure is also contemplated. I want the hon. Member to indicate what are the schemes in hand, and if the Commissioners of Works have a large number of monuments in mind. I do not want specific information. Are the inspectors going round looking for them with telescopes?
  Mr. HOGGE: Are these inspectors simply to inspect the structure or are they to be men with knowledge of the historic qualities of the monuments?
  Mr. BENN: This Clause gives no new powers whatever to the First Commissioner of Works. These are Clauses carried forward from previous Acts which are consolidated in this Bill. We have one inspector who is an antiquary with a knowledge of archaeology. The salaries will be subject to Treasury control and will be fixed in the usual way in consultation with that Department.
  Mr. BOOTH: What is the present salary?
  Mr. BENN: The present inspector gets only £400. That is not adequate, and it is not intended to continue it at that rate.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Power of Councils to make By-laws Regulating Advertisements.)
  The Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, shall be construed as if the powers of the local authority as defined by that Act included a power to make by-laws prohibiting or restricting the display of advertisements or notices of such a nature or in such a manner as to be detrimental to the amenities of any ancient monument specified in the by-law. Any power to make by-laws given by this Section shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers to make by-laws given by the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, or by any other Act.
  Mr.GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, after the word "by-law" ["specified in the bylaw"], to insert the words "Any by-laws made by the London County Council under this Section shall be enforced by that council, and any expenses incurred by that council shall be defrayed as payments for general county purposes."
  I have no intention of delaying the House at this hour of the morning, and I hope the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill will accept my small Amendment. Clause 19 provides that the Advertisements Act of 1907 shall be construed as if the powers of the local authority, as defined by that Act, included a power to make by-laws. Section 8 of the Act of 1907 provides that certain by-laws made by the London County Council are to be enforced by the Metropolitan borough councils, and that might raise doubts as to the authority to make by-laws under the Clause. The first part of my Amendment is to place this matter beyond doubt. With regard to the

  2457
  second part of the Amendment, if the Committee will look at Clause 21, they will see that the expenses of the local authority under this Act are to be defrayed in the case of the London County Council as payments for general county purposes. That means that the expenses under this Act will be borne on the general county rate which is levied all over the county of London, and includes the City of London.
  But the expenses under Clause 19 as it stands would be paid out of the special county fund, and would be chargeable to the special county rate in which the city is not included as the city does not contribute to the special county rate. The object of the Amendment is not to deprive the city of any powers, but to see that. Clause 19 is uniform with Clause 21. The city, which has a rateable value which amounts to one-eighth of the total rateable value of the county of London, has to bear its share of all burdens put on the county of London. I believe the hon. Gentleman is determined not to accept any Amendments at all. If that is so, I do not see the object of having a Committee stage. We who are anxious to improve the Bill are not responsible for the fact that this Bill, like a great many others, is taken at this hour of the morning, or that all these Bills are thrown at our heads in the last few days of the Session. Therefore, I do hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which is desired by the London County Council, and which would not interfere in any way with the objects he has in view.
  Mr. BENN: I do not in. the least complain of the hon. Gentleman moving this Amendment, but I think he is under a certain misapprehension in his reason for supporting it. It is true that Clause 21 gives coincident powers to the London County Council and the City Corporation, but that is in respect of the guardianship of ancient monuments. Clause 19 is quite different. It takes the Advertisements Regulations Act and gives power to prevent an ancient monument being defaced by an advertisement. Inasmuch as that is an added power, it is obviously convenient that the power should be exercised and paid for by the county council, that in the counties it should be enforced and paid for by the county council, and in the city it should be enforced by the city and paid for by the city rates. We are adding
  2458
  another power, and we think it should be paid for in that way. I think that is logical.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the first part of my Amendment.
  Mr. BENN: I have dealt with the question of the enforcement of the powers with regard to the defacement of monuments. The powers are enforced by the county council in a county area and by the city in the city area.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 20.—(Local Authorities.)
  The council of every county shall be a local authority within the meaning of this Act.
  Mr. BENN: I beg to move, after the word "county," to insert the words "and borough and the common council of the City of London."
  Mr. HOGGE: I think we ought to have some explanation from the hon. Gentleman. He has gone round the Lobbies getting us not to move Amendments on the ground that if we move them he would not get the Bill. Now he is moving a second Amendment.
  Mr. BENN: These Amendments are privileged Amendments. The Bill originated in the House of Lords, and they would not put these in. Therefore they must be regarded as blanks.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 21.—(Local Authorities.)
  (1) The council of every county [and borough and the Common Council of the City of London] shall be a local authority within the meaning of this Act.
  Mr. BENN: I beg to move after the word "Act" ["meaning under this Act"] to insert the words,
  "The expenses of a Local Authority under this Act shall be defrayed in the case of the London County Council as payments for general County purposes; in the case of any other County Council out of the County Fund, and in the case of a Borough Council out of the Borough Fund or Borough Rate, or, if no

  2459
  Borough Rate is levied, out of a separate rate to be made, assessed and levied in like manner as a Borough Rate, and in the case of the City of London out of the General Rate, and a Local Authority may borrow for the purposes of this Act in the case of a County Council as for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1888, and, in the case of a Borough Council, as for the purposes of the Public Health Act, but the money borrowed by a Borough Council shall be borrowed on the security of the fund or rate, out of which the expenses of the Council under this Act are payable."
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 22.—(Definition of Ancient Monument.)
  In this Act the expression "monument" includes any structure or erection, other than ecclesiastical building which is or the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes; and the expression "ancient monument" includes any monument specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, and any other monuments or things which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Works are of a like character, and the site of any such monument, or of any remains thereof; and any part of the adjoining land which may be required for the purpose of fencing, covering in, or otherwise preserving the monument from injury, and also includes the means of access thereto.
  Mr. BENN: I beg to move after the word "character" ["are of a like character"] to insert the words "and any monument the preservation of which is a matter of public interest, by reason of the historic architectural, traditional, artistic or archælogical interest attaching thereto, or any part thereof, or any remains thereof."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move after the word "monument" ["and any monument"] to insert the words "whether structural or otherwise."
  The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the term "ancient monument" includes some things of very great interest in Scotland, namely rocks
  2460
  and stones that have cut markings and other designs upon them. It seems doubtful whether they will come under the Bill as it stands. If you look at the definition it says "any structure or erection, other than an ecclesiastical building." It is clear these are not structures or erections. Then "any monument specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monument Protection Act, 1882, and any other monuments or things which in the opinion of the Comissioners of Works are of a like character." It may possibly be argued that these stones with cut markings are of like character to some of the things specified in this Schedule which I may say will be the only unrepealed part of the former Ancient Monuments Act, and I do think words or similar words should be put in, in order to make it clear that these stones with ancient and prehistoric markings are ancient Monuments within the meaning of the Act.
  Mr. BENN: I do not think this Clause is a model of precise definition, and I do not think it is necessary that my hon. Friend should add the words "whether structural or otherwise." If he will look at the Clause he will see that the expression "ancient monument" includes any monument specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, and any other monuments or things which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Works, are of a like character. These words were specially added to cover cases such as my hon. Friend has in mind.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I would point out that that of which I speak is in no sense a structure.
  Mr. BENN: It is "of a like character."
  Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 25.—(Short Title and Application.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913.
  (2) This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
  Mr. BOOTH: This Clause says that the Act shall not apply to Ireland, but I notice that in the case of the Acts of 1882, 1900 and 1910 it applies to Ireland, and that they are repealed except so far as they relate to Ireland. What I want to ask is whether this is a new departure from

  2461
  English and Irish law in regard to ancient monuments, and does it mean that the Inspector will no longer go to Ireland? I am not quite sure. I have been informed that he does now go to Ireland, but I have also been informed that he does not. If he has been inspecting both in England and Ireland, and Ireland is taken out of the area of his inspection, probably we could avoid a new appointment, because he would have, no doubt, a considerable amount of time to discharge the new duties.
  Mr. BENN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion for economy, but, Ireland having been for some time treated separately, it does not come within the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner of Works.
  Mr. BOOTH: My hon. Friend is exceedingly clever, and, unless I am very much alert, he will beat me, but I do ask whether the Inspector's services have been utilised both in England and in Ireland?
  Mr. BENN: The answer is no.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not know to what the answer "no" applies. Have his services been utilised in England and Ireland?
  Mr. BENN: In England only.
  Clause agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Notification of Ancient Monuments to be Protected.)
  "The Commissioners of Works shall take such steps as they think fit to notify to the public and all persons concerned what ancient monuments are under their guardianship or protection, and for this purpose they may affix to, or place near, any building or monument protected a sign, notice, or board giving any information which they may deem desirable."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause will, I believe, save a great deal of difficulty, doubt and trouble in the future. Suppose an ancient building or some of these stones are protected as being monuments, it ought to be patent and obvious to anyone who sees them that they are historical monuments of an ancient character, and they therefore aught to be described in brief language,
  2462
  and the date, and so forth, put up on one of those neat signboards or notices which you sometimes meet in interesting places. It might very well occur that one of these ancient monuments, which is only protected by the Office of Works, might be owned by somebody who would refuse leave to put up any notice of that kind, and I see nothing, either in this Bill or in any Act so far as I have studied them, that would give the Commissioners the power to put up such a notice. I, therefore, hope that this Clause will be accepted. I cannot see that it raises any difficulty. It only removes a doubt and makes the matter quite plain and clear, and I trust it will be accepted by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. BENN: I do not think there is any harm in this Clause, but it is quite unnecessary, because the First Commissioner already has power to put up a notice explaining the nature of the monument, and that is already done. In reference to monuments, in regard to which a Preservation Order is made, I do not think such a power would exist, but the Preservation Order is only regarded as a provisional measure. I do not think there is really any necessity for the Clause if my hon. Friend will accept our assurance that we do intend to give the public all the information desirable about these monuments. I hope, therefore, he will not press the Clause.
  Mr. KING: I shall not press it, but the admission of my hon. Friend that in the case of a protected building you could not put up such a notice merely bears out my contention, and I think that is just the sort of building where you want a notice of this kind erected.
  Mr. HOGGE: Could my hon. Friend state what it is proposed to do in the case of monuments that are not obvious to people as they are going along? As my hon. Friend knows, a great many of these monuments are remote from the roads, and many of them are on private estates or in woods which are not accessible to the public. What kind of indication are you going to give on the main road, for instance, that there are these monuments preserved in the neighbourhood which the public desire to see?
  Mr. BOOTH: I thought when I read this Clause that my hon. Friend meant a notice such as "Trespassers will be prosecuted," or "Commit no nuisance."
  Mr. PRICE: May I just say that when I was on Dartmoor trying to find some Druidical remains, after searching for some hours, I at last found a landmark and asked a lad, "Can you tell me what those beautiful remains are?" and he replied, "I don't know; they must have been here before my time."
  Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  The Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in England.
  The Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in Scotland.
  The Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in Wales.
  The Society of Antiquaries of London.
  The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
  The Royal Academy of Arts.
  The Royal Institute of British Architects.
  The Trustees of the British Museum.
  The Board of Education.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Paddington (Mr. Harris), I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add the words "The Royal Society of British Sculptors."
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. Probably he will tell us that the Royal Society of British Sculptors is already included somewhere in the Bill.
  Mr. BENN: The matter will be considered by the First Commissioner of Works, but it is really unnecessary to insert it here.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. PRICE: I desire, as a Member of the Comittee, to say that we were greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Bennett Goldney), who rendered most valuable service. I want to impress on the House that this Bill in no sense covers the representations contained in the Report. We had no end of evidence in favour of ecclesiastical buildings, and particularly of cathedrals, coming under this Bill. It was only because we wanted to get something this year that we allowed this Bill to pass. I should be very glad if hon. Members would read that Report, because it contains some very
  2464
  valuable suggestions, and I sincerely trust this will not be the last word the Office of Works will have to say on this question.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
WIBSEY (BRADFORD) INDEPEN- DENT CHAPEL -CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. I. Benn.]
PADIHAM HOREB UNION CHURCH CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Benn.]

HULME TRUST ESTATES CHARITY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. BOOTH: This is a Bill which in its importance far transcends all the others, and I hope the hon. Member in charge will give us an indication of its object.
Mr. C. P. ALLEN: In deference to the House, I always prepare a little speech, and out of consideration to the House, I never make it, unless I am obliged. This Trust was founded in 1691, and was partly for education. Under the original trust, the income of certain lands in Lancashire was to be divided amongst four poor Bachelors of Arts in the College of Brasenose, in order to induce them to stay on an extra three years, for the full master's course of seven years. In the 18th century, the income had grown far too large

2465
to be absorbed in this way. The patrons of the Exhibitions—three Lancashire clergy and the trustees—in 1770–1795 obtained power, by private Acts, to devote the surplus revenues to the purchase and augmentation of livings to be given to Hulme Exhibitions. £135,000 was thus spent on twenty-eight livings. In 1881, under the Endowed Schools Act, a subsequent surplus was devoted to education, in connection with Brasenose, Owen's College, and certain other schools, under a representative body of trustees. The livings, however, were left under the original trustees, a self-appointed body. The trustees now find that they cannot get sufficient applicants for the livings from amongst the Hulme Exhibitioners, and the livings, therefore, lapse to the Bishop of Manchester. Under these circumstances, the trustees have applied to the Commissioners for assistance. A scheme has now been arranged, after considerable negotiation, and the following plan has been elaborated. The trustees are to dispose of thirteen livings, all under £300 a year. The proceeds are to go—one-third to augment remaining livings, one-third to educational purposes in connection with Brasenose College, and one-third to educational matters in connection with Lancashire. There is a further accumulation of £8,600, in Consols, and, of this, £4,600 is to be sold, and applied as the proceeds of the livings, the remainder will be left for expenses. Under the Bill, the livings retained will be available—(1) for the Hulme Exhibitioners at Brasenose; (2) for any Bachelor of Arts of Brasenose, and (3) for any Bachelor of Arts at Oxford. After considerable negotiation, there is no opposition left to the Bill.
Mr. KING: This is a most important Bill, and I would call the attention of the House to one feature of it, which ought not to pass, at this time of the morning, without notice. The Bill deals with what was very frequent in the eighteenth century, namely, the perversion of an educational trust to ecclesiastical purposes. The Church of England, I am sorry to say, tried to get, and subsequently did grab, for ecclesiastical purposes, large funds which had been devoted, only a few years previously, by pious donors to educational purposes solely. I am extremely sorry that under the circumstances of this Bill the whole of the funds have not been taken back into educational purposes. They ought, after a period of 100 years, to set
2466
before them the real original ideas of the fund, and to sell the whole of its revenues. They are only selling the poor livings; it would have been far better if they had sold the rich ones. As a matter of fact, the livings are all very nearly £300 a year. I could read them, I have got them with me, but the House will take my word for it, that this is a very poor piece of reform. I hope the next time the Charity Commissioner comes forward with a Bill he will tell us the defects of the measure, and will rise to his full authority. With these words I commend the Bill, poor as it is, and halting as it is, to the House.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

ROE STREET (MACCLESFIELD) CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Benn.]
ATFIELD (YORK, WEST RIDING) CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Benn.]

REAT HAYWOOD AND TOMPKIN CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITY BILL.
3.0 A.M.
Read a second time, and committed to a, Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. W. Benn.]

BISHOPRICS OF SHEFFIELD CHELMSFORD, AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. KING: I do not at this stage propose to oppose the Bill, but I must call

2467
attention to one or two facts. On the Paper there are notices of opposition to this Bill from no less than seven Members from both sides of the House, therefore it cannot be considered an agreed Bill by any means. In the second place, when the Prime Minister this afternoon indicated what Bills would be taken to-night he did not mention this one. Besides that, no notice of it was placed on the board outside showing the Bills that are to be taken in the current sitting. Shortly after midnight I spoke to the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool in the Lobby as he was leaving the House. I called his attention to the fact that a Bill to which he had given notice of opposition was going to be taken. He took me to the notice-board and showed me that it was not down there. He commissioned me to say that if the Second Reading were granted to the Bill the remaining stages would certainly be opposed. I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, but I cannot hold out to the promoters of the Bill any hope that they will get the Report and Third Reading stages with the same ease that they will get the Second Reading now.
Mr. BOOTH: This Bill affects my Constituents. While we may have our views with regard to ultimate legislation on this subject we ought to be reasonable. This is the only way by which the case of the Diocese of York can be met. My own Constituency and also the parish in which I reside are in the Diocese of York. I do make an appeal to those who have given notice of opposition, and I hope my hon.
Friend will not stir up the hon. Member for the West Derby Division.
Colonel CHALONER: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question and to add the words, "this House declines to assent to any measure for the creation of new bishoprics until the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England have satisfied Parliament of their intention to restore and maintain order in accordance with the King's Ecclesiastical Law."
I make my protest against a Bill of this importance being brought on at this time of the day, and I do not think any justification has been shown for pressing the Bill. It is a well-known fact that throughout the country people are seething with discontent at the manner in which the clergy are carrying out their duties. There is no honest attempt on the part of the bishops to deal with and put down disorders. It is known that the majority of the bishops were carrying on the same lawlessness and disorder when they were in charge of parishes. It is not to be wondered at therefore that they should not have the courage now to stand up against such practices. This Bill ought never to have been brought up at this time of the day, and as it has been brought up it ought to be opposed. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment not seconded.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided, Ayes, 64; Noes, 16.

Division No. 278.]

AYES

[3.5 a.m.

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey W. A.

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Malley, William

Boland. John Pius

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Shee, James John

Burke, E. Haviland-

John, Edward Thomas

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Cecil. Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Parry, Thomas H.

Clough, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ponsonby. Arthur A. W. H.

Crumley, Patrick

Keating, Matthew

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Delany, William

Kelly, Edward

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Doris, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Duffy, William J.

Lardner, James C. R.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Gilmour, Captain John

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Gladstone, William G. C.

Maclean, Donald

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Goldsmith, Frank

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Toulmin, Sir George

Gulland, John William

Meagher, Michael

Waring, Walter

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Webb, Henry

Hackett, John

Molloy, Michael

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hardie, J. Keir

Munro, Robert

Wolmer, Viscount

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

Nolan, Joseph

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir William Anson and Mr. Booth.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

NOES.

Adamson, William

King, Joseph

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Greig, Colonel James William

Robinson, Sidney

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel Chaloner and Colonel Pryce-Jones.

Higham, John Sharp

Sheehy, David

Hogge, James Myles

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Government Order was read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes after Three o'clock a.m., Wednesday, 13th August, 1913.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  OFFICIAL STATISTICS (WILES).
  OFFICIAL STATISTICS (WILES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  Manchester Ship Canal (Customs and Excise).
  Manchester Ship Canal (Customs and Excise).
  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  City of Glasgow Friendly Society.
  Surveyors of Taxes Office, Dublin.
  Surveyors of Taxes Office, Dublin.
  Fuller Estate, Cahirciveen.
  Fuller Estate, Cahirciveen.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Rowland Blennerhassett Estate (Turbary).
  Rowland Blennerhassett Estate (Turbary).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Ballycastle Infant School.
  Ballycastle Infant School.
  Naval Accountants.
  Naval Accountants.
  Royal Engineers (Sapper Percy W. Shurley).
  Royal Engineers (Sapper Percy W. Shurley).
  Cavalry Barracks, Edinburgh.
  Cavalry Barracks, Edinburgh.
  Dartmoor Warder.
  Dartmoor Warder.
  Burglary (Tottonham).
  Burglary (Tottonham).
  Director of Public Instruction (Bengal).
  Director of Public Instruction (Bengal).
  Secondary Education (Scotland).
  Secondary Education (Scotland).
  English Potatoes (United States).
  English Potatoes (United States).
  Trawling for Herring.
  Trawling for Herring.
  Nyasaland Railway.
  Nyasaland Railway.
  Haverfordwest Board of Guardians.
  Haverfordwest Board of Guardians.
  Wath Council Accounts.
  Wath Council Accounts.
  Yorkshire Urban District Councils.
  Yorkshire Urban District Councils.
  Town Planning (Skipton).
  Town Planning (Skipton).
  London Street Traffic.
  London Street Traffic.
  Unemployment Register.
  Unemployment Register.
  Census of Production.
  Census of Production.
  Highcliffe (Hants) Postal Deliveries.
  Highcliffe (Hants) Postal Deliveries.
  General Post Office (Refreshment Branch Employés).
  General Post Office (Refreshment Branch Employés).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Drogheda Mails.
  Drogheda Mails.
  Whitehall Improvements.
  Whitehall Improvements.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

ABERYSTWYTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 21) BILL.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have suspended any further proceedings on the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 21) Bill; and to request that their Lordships will concur in such suspension: The said Message to be considered To-morrow.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BORROWING POWERS).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 9th of July last) and to be printed. (No. 179.)
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND; ACT, 1899.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the House of Commons of the 4th instant) and to be printed. (No. 180.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendment; proposed by the Committee made: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendment reported: Bill read 3a (with the Amendment), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
The Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I should like to move that the Report of Amendments be now received, and in doing so I would ask your Lordships' permission to put this Bill through its remaining stages to-day. It has been unopposed in every stage in this House, but it was thought desirable to put in one Amendment to make certain that the existing pilotage committee of Trinity House should go on exercising its present powers up till December 10 next, by which time a new committee will be elected. To make this quite certain an Amendment had to be inserted. The Bill, therefore, has to go back to another place, and in these circumstances I venture to ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to go through its remaining stages to-day.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended): Amendments reported: Bill read 3a (with the Amendments), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amend went considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DIS- TRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order): An Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
AIRDRIE CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
The Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill yesterday to defer this stage until to-day owing to certain negotiations to which I referred as going on. Those negotiations have now resulted in agreement as to the drafting of a fresh Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 27, after "Townsend Farm" insert "the farm buildings known as Little Sopwell Farm and such of the buildings at present occupied with Sopwell Mill Farm as are used as farm buildings and not for the purpose of Sopwell Mill."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Strachie). (No. 181.)
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Earl of Craven). (No. 182.)

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, at end insert the following new subsections:
"(6) For the purpose of working and lighting the railway and for use in any part of any post office building in communication with the railway by means of a shaft or in the buildings of the Post Office in or near St. Martin's-le-Grand and Queen Victoria Street in the city of London and Mount Pleasant Clerkenwell or in any extension
1840
of any such building within a distance of fifty yards and for the purpose of general telegraphic (including telephonic) communication the Postmaster-General may lay down along the railway, and maintain and use cables, mains, lines, and apparatus for transmitting electrical energy.
(7) The Postmaster-General may transmit transform, and use for the purposes of this Act electrical energy generated or transformed at any Post Office generating station or sub-station and for the transmission of such electrical energy may lay down and maintain all necessary and convenient cables, mains, lines, and apparatus, but nothing in this Act shall authorise the Postmaster-General to use such electrical energy for lighting or heating any part of any post office building other than the buildings and extensions of buildings mentioned in the preceding subsection.
(8) The Postmaster-General may enter upon and open and break up streets and other public places for the purpose of laying down and maintaining cables mains lines and apparatus—

(a) from any post office generating station or sub-station to the railway; and

(b) for the purposes of the preceding subsection;

subject however to the following provisions and restrictions, that is to say:—

(a) He shall with all convenient speed complete the work on account of which he opened or broke up the same, and fill in the ground and make good the surface, and generally restore the street or place to as good a condition as that in which it was before being opened or broken up, and carry away all rubbish occasioned thereby;

(b) He shall in the meantime cause the place where the street or public place is opened or broken up to be fenced and watched, and to be properly lighted at night;

(c) He shall pay all reasonable expenses of keeping the street or public place in good repair for twelve months after the same is restored, so far as such expenses may be increased by such opening or breaking up

(9) The Postmaster-General and any company, authority, or person having power under any Act of Parliament or order confirmed by Parliament to supply electrical energy may make and carry into effect agreements and arrangements for the supply of electrical energy to the Postmaster-General for the purposes of this Act, and for executing any works or providing any apparatus necessary for the purposes of such supply, but nothing in this subsection shall authorise any such company, authority, or person to break up the surface of any public street or place."—(The Earl of Craven.)
LORD NEWTON: I do not know whether it is the usual practice to move an Amendment of this kind without giving any reasons for it. I can only assume that the reasons were given yesterday when I was not present. This is a Bill to the principle of which no objection has been raised. It is practically a Govern-

1841
ment Bill, but it came before a Private Bill Committee in the House of Commons. That Committee gave a somewhat grudging assent to it, and expressed the hope that the matters would have the careful consideration of the Department before the engineering details of the scheme were finally settled. When this Bill came before a Private Bill Committee of your Lordships' House, of which I was chairman, there was no Preamble opposition at all, and such opposition as there was was confined to the case of landowners and the case of the electric supply companies.
But in the course of the proceedings the Post Office put forward their case for the supply of electrical energy for the purpose of working this tube railway. It was perfectly evident that their case was an extremely weak one, and I do not think I am doing the engineers who represent the Post Office any injustice in saving that they were quite unable to answer many of the questions which were put to them by the opponents. What was more important still, it became perfectly obvious that practically no steps whatever had been taken by the Post Office to ascertain whether electricity could be supplied more economically and more effectively by outside bodies. The one thing that was quite plain was that a very large sum of money was intended to be spent, and the results were of such an extremely doubtful nature that the Committee could not bring themselves to sanction it. So convinced were they of the somewhat hazardous nature of this enterprise that at one time we contemplated inserting a proviso that before the Post Office incurred this enormous expenditure the consent of the Treasury should be obtained. We abandoned that proposal because it was obvious that that was transferring the decision of the matter to the Treasury whereas the Committee was obviously the proper body to decide. We therefore felt it incumbent upon us to reject that portion of the Bill which dealt with the supply of electricity.
The attitude of the Post Office was briefly this. They said "We wish to supply this electrical energy ourselves; we consider that we are entitled to do it; we hold that we are able to do it, and we do not see why there should be any opposition to it "; and although they
1842
produced two engineers of their own who had been their advisers on the subject they took no steps to produce any other witnesses in favour of the scheme. To put it quite shortly, I presume that everybody will agree that when a Private Bill Committee are appointed to consider a question of this kind they ought to look at the matter from the point of view of the interests of the public. We, as I say, were so impressed with the somewhat nebulous nature of this scheme that we decided very reluctantly to cut out the clause dealing with this particular point. And let me point out, that, although I see that a good deal of indignation has been expressed, for my part I am quite unable to see that any particular hardship ensues. There is nothing whatever to prevent; the Post Office making their tube. That is a considerable undertaking which will take a long time. It would be easy for them to commence work upon the tube and to come to Parliament again with a small Bill relating to the supply of electrical energy next session, and no time, as far as I can see, would be lost. I need hardly assure the House, as far as this particular Committee was concerned, that it was entirely unprejudiced and unhampered in its views, and I am not aware that there was anyone on it who had any particular objection to or predilection for State or municipal enterprise or things of that description.
I had the advantage on this Committee of the assistance of Lord Sydenham, who is, I am glad to see, in his place, and of Lord Welby, both of whom have had great experience of the work of Public Departments, and I hope we shall hear the opinion of Lord Sydenham in the course of this discussion. I submit that if Public Departments appear before. Private Bill Committees they are hardly entitled to assume a right to be treated differently from any other promoters. A Public Department must take its chance in the same way as any other promoters, and is just as likely to obtain fair treatment. I have no doubt that mistakes are occasionally made in the course of Private Bill procedure. Probably I have frequently made them myself, but I confess that, although I have many times had doubts as to decisions which I have given, I felt very little doubt as to our being right in this particular instance. If, whenever a Public Department promotes a Bill and finds that that Bill is not accepted in its entirety by a

1843
Private Bill Committee it is to come here or to the other House and ask that the decision of the Committee should be entirely revoked, then I submit you are reducing Private Bill legislation to little less than a farce. At the very last moment a proposal has been put into my hand which, had it been made earlier in the proceedings, might conceivably have saved a great deal of trouble.
The gist of the proposal is this. I understand that an undertaking will be given by some responsible member of the Government that if the Post Office find that electrical energy can be supplied cheaper by any private company, they will abandon their own right and make use of the company's supply. I do not feel confident to express an opinion myself upon a proposal of this kind, put into my hands literally at the eleventh hour; but so far as I am able to judge it seems to me to be a fair and reasonable proposal, and if something of the sort had been suggested during the course of our deliberations, none of this trouble would have arisen. As it is, I do not feel confident to express a definite opinion whether or not this is satisfactory, but I hope that in the course of the discussion it will become apparent what the opinion of the House is on the subject; and if the opinion of the House is that this proposal ought to be accepted, and if it is also understood that it shall be rigidly adhered to in the spirit, then for my part I shall not offer any opposition.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I can add little to the lucid explanation of the noble Lord who presided over the Committee. Our general experience is that when Government Departments undertake work of this kind they do not do it quite so cheaply as private agencies. I do not know whether the Post Office is a shining exception to this general rule, but if so, surely the onus probandi rests with the Post Office to show that it can work more economically than a company. No evidence before the Committee in that sense was forthcoming. If such evidence had been brought forward showing that the Post Office authorities had thoroughly considered the question from that point of view, the Committee would have had no difficulty in coming to a conclusion. But, on the other hand, the evidence clearly showed that the comparative advantages
1844
of a Government supply and of a supply by private companies had never been thought out at all. No comparative estimates had been made. In those circumstances I think there was no course before the Committee except the one which we felt bound to take.
It is not a question only, as seems to have been thought in some quarters, of the utilisation of the existing plant. The proposal would necessitate the installation of a new, large, and very expensive plant, considerably increasing, therefore, responsibilities of the nature which, as I have said, Government Departments are not always best calculated to bear. The amended Bill gives full power to construct all the tubes. The Post Office will need plenty of time in which to carry out that work, and if a Bill were brought forward next session dealing with the electrical supply the Post Office would have ample time to make this comparative calculation, and to show, if they could, to the satisfaction of a Select Committee that their method was much cheaper. At all events that would leave the decision as to which was the cheaper to an unbiased body, which might be regarded as a judicial one. This excellent project, as it seemed to the Committee to be, could thus go through quite unchecked, and the only necessity would be to bring in a Bill next session dealing with the electrical portion of it. From my point of view that would be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, I should like to say that I entirely concur with what has fallen from Lord Newton as to our duties as a Private Bill Committee. It was because of that that I attached great importance to the question whether the respective merits of a supply by the Post Office or by private companies had been considered. To show that this matter really did receive careful consideration from the members of the Committee, I may mention that I specifically asked the question [Question No. 422], "Had you any outside advice on this question we are discussing now of the relative cost?" and the witness replied "Yes, and he confirms our figures." The answer was apparently satisfactory. But that was followed by other questions, from the answers to which it became absolutely

1845
clear that this question had received no consideration at all. If the question had been considered and the companies had quoted a high price, or a price higher than a careful estimate of what the Post Office thought they could supply for, I for one would not have adopted the course which I and the other members of the Committee thought right to adopt. But in view of the fact that there had been no consideration whatever on those lines, I venture to think that the only course open to us was that which, in the public interest, we took.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords. I am glad that we have had the advantage of hearing the opinions of three members of the strong Committee who considered this question. It evidently was a Committee of unusual experience and power, and it is quite evident, therefore, that the conclusions which it reached must demand the most serious consideration from the full House. The difficulty which faces us at the commencement of considering any question of this kind is one which is very well known to your Lordships. There are two extreme parties in questions of this kind. There is one party which desires to make every municipal enterprise the subject of public supply. There is another party which desires to see all the public services in the hands of private adventure. I am quite sure that the Committee represented neither of those extreme schools, but desired to consider the case on its merits and to hold an accurate balance between those two extremes. I was chairman for two years of the Joint Committee on Municipal Trading. Consequently I have been profoundly immersed in this subject, as well as from having had a rather unusually long experience in the Committee rooms upstairs, and I ant well aware that in matters of this kind there are always representatives of the two extreme parties who desire to impress their views on Parliament.
But, my Lords, we have really only to think of how this particular service can be best performed in the interests of the public. That is to say, if the Postmaster-General can supply the electricity for the working of this railway at a cheaper rate than it can be supplied elsewhere, he
1846
should not be debarred from having the opportunity of doing so. If, on the other hand, there is a definite gain in his obtaining the electricity for this public service from outside, we should all agree that in the interests of the public it ought to be so obtained. The objection and difficulty that seem to me to attach to the action which the Committee took in striking out the whole of Clause 6 except the first paragraph consist in this, that you do not arrive at that at which you wish to arrive—an equal and free chance for everybody. You debar the Postmaster-General in any circumstance from supplying electricity from either of the two great generating stations which he already possesses, and that being so you weigh the balance, as it seems to me, in the direction of favouring the outside suppliers, the public companies. As the Bill stands, the Postmaster-General is invited to make his railway and then to remain at the absolute mercy of the electric supply companies of London, who are probably quite capable of acting in combination and of making such a charge as they think fit for the electricity supply. The actual amount is not much; it is under 500,000 units a year for the entire conduct of this railway. Therefore as far as the source of supply is concerned I cannot make out that any excessive demand would be made upon the existing generating stations belonging to the Postmaster-General. That is why I say that the precise action of the Committee does not seem to me to hold a fair balance as between the two parties. It is quite true, as noble Lords have said, that the Postmaster-General can come to Parliament again, but I do not feel at all certain that he would care to take that course. It is possible that he might prefer to drop his Bill and suspend the making of this railway until such a time as he is placed by Parliament in an equal position with the other competing suppliers.
I now come to the proposition which my noble friend opposite mentioned. The Postmaster-General is fully prepared and definitely proposes, in view of the conclusion which the Committee of this House reached—that it was not proved, as the Committee understood, that the Postmaster-General could supply on better terms than other people and therefore ought to supply—to invite tenders from the public companies and also from the local authorities empowered to supply

1847
electricity, and if it then appears that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, a real and appreciable saving would result by taking a supply of that kind instead of instituting a Post Office supply, the Postmaster-General is prepared to take that course. Noble Lords can take it from me that this will be done assuming that there is an appreciable balance of advantage in taking the outside supply. In these circumstances I hope that your Lordships will agree to the reinsertion of the clause. I have endeavoured to explain why it is that it could hardly be expected that the Postmaster-General would take powers for his railway which would leave him for the time being at the mercy of other people on a quite vague expectation that sooner or later Parliament would come to his rescue.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, there is one point which I do not think was before the Committee, and which I think has escaped the noble Marquess, and I should like to call the attention of the House to it. It is not a question of two schools of thought nowadays. It is not a question between municipal enterprise and company enterprise. That question has been settled in favour of municipal enterprise. But inasmuch as all the companies and the borough authorities possessing these powers know that the powers cease in 1931, they will be desirous of coming to terms with the authority which has the option of purchase—namely, the London County Council—very much sooner than that; and I have reason to believe that they will be at close grips with this question probably in the next two or three years. It is pretty certain that the electric lighting authority for London in the future will be one great authority. One authority can produce electricity very much cheaper than a number of competing authorities such as there are at the present time. That being so, those most acquainted with this matter on the London County Council are extremely anxious that no new authority should conic in as an electrical authority for London. I do not think that was brought to the knowledge of the Committee. It was not brought to their knowledge for this reason, that if the London County Council had gone before the Committee they would have had to produce a great deal of expert evidence and incur an expense which was quite unnecessary in view of the dimensions of this Bill. They therefore contented them-
1848
selves with an objection to the breaking up-of the streets. But I do say that in the light of the circumstances at the present time it is undesirable that any new development should take place in the way of laying down electricity mains. Such development is not likely to come from the companies, because they cannot raise capital having regard to what is to happen in 1931; and for the same reason it is not likely to come to any great extent from the borough councils. I hope Lord Newton will insist on the recommendation which his Committee made.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I confess I do not quite understand the bearing of the observations of the noble Lord who has just sat down. Does he mean that the Post Office ought not to be encouraged to increase its present electrical power and light operations by the Bill as proposed, or is it that he objects to the possibility of some other authority, either a local authority, perhaps one of the minor local authorities, or a public company stepping in and taking over this particular work? In the first place, I must remind him that so far as the Post Office are concerned they have two very large and powerful electrical power producing stations already. Speaking from memory I think they have one which produces 4,250,000 units a year and another which produces over 2,000,000 units. That being so, the comparatively small addition which would be caused to these operations by undertaking the working of this underground electric tramway is not very formidable. If, on the other hand, I am able to claim the noble Lord as an ally and he objects to the idea that one of the smaller local authorities or sonic company may step in and undertake the duty of supplying this electricity, then I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. But I confess that I was not entirely clear from what point of view he made his observations.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The object of my remarks was this. We do not know exactly where we are going—I am speaking for the public—in the matter of electricity for London. We shall know in another two years. That being so, the London County Council are inclined to think that it is a waste of public money to branch out in new directions which may prove to be false ones.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, purely from the point of view of the Private Bill procedure of your Lordships' House, I confess that I view with considerable regret the course which the Government; have thought it wise to take in dealing with this Bill. The Bill, I think I may say, has been specially privileged in its progress through your Lordships' House. It reached this House on July 24, which gave little enough time to enable it to be referred to an opposed Committee. I think I am right in saying that it is the last Bill that reached your Lordships' House which was referred to sin opposed Committee upstairs. Certainly a Bill which reached your Lordships' House afterwards, the East Ha in Corporation Bill, you have been good enough to suspend; and there have been other Bills in the course of this session which have followed the usual course, and which, not being able to be got through in normal time, have had to be dropped by the promoters. This Bill reached this House, as I say, very late. Subject to your Lordships' Standing Orders, the Committee could not sit before August, and I am very glad that the Leader of the House sees that I was fortunate in getting a strong Committee to consider this Bill. The Committee contained two members of the Opposition side, two noble Lords from the Cross Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Welby, from the Government side, so that, apart altogether from its experience, which was, of course, very great, it was a very powerful and impartial Committee.
The usual position in which promoters find themselves when they go before an opposed Committee of your Lordships' House is that their case is heard, the decision is given, and if they do not like the decision they either accept it or drop their Bill. The Government, however, are taking another course. They say, "We do not like the decision, and therefore we ask the House to reverse it." It would be a very unfortunate thing if it were to be generally understood, when impartial Committees upstairs have inquired into a case, that the Government would assume a privileged position and claim a right to review the decision in your Lordships' House whenever the decision was against them. That being so, I agree with the noble Lord opposite; and, as I said yesterday, after the fullest inquiry I do not see how the Committee
1850
on merits could possibly have decided otherwise than they did decide in throwing out this clause. The whole Bill was described by the chief engineer for the Post Office as a "plunge." He spoke about taking the plunge, and therefore I think anybody would have agreed that it was incumbent upon the Public Department, before taking the plunge, to show that they had carefully considered the direction in which the plunge was going. No evidence justifying any such claim was offered to the Committee.
I do not think that the noble Marquess behind me has given fair weight to the argument of my noble friend opposite that the position of the Post Office is really very little harmed as regards delay. All that has happened is that the Post Office have been told to take further time and to give further consideration to their methods of supplying electricity to this line when it is constructed. It is all very well to say that there might be difficulties in getting a Bill through the House of Commons in a future session, but, after all, the Government are masters of the situation. I felt very strongly before the debate began this evening that it was a wise decision of my noble friend to advise the Post Office to take further time to consider the enormous discrepancy there is between their figures and the figures put by the opposition. It practically amounts to this, that the companies say, in evidence, that they could provide power at half the price at which the Post Office say they will he able to provide it under this Bill—a very serious situation from the public point of view, and a situation which, in view of possible developments which the Post Office spoke of, the noble Lord opposite and his colleagues could not possibly have neglected.
The situation has been considerably altered by the declaration which the Leader of the House has just made as to the intentions of the Department. I agree with Lord Newton that it was a great pity that that declaration could not have been made before the Committee upstairs. It would have been much more carefully weighed and gone into by the Committee upstairs than it can possibly be by your Lordships this afternoon at the tail end of the session, and without, of course, the facilities for going into details that the Committee had. I understand that the

1851
declaration amounts to this, that the Department intend to invite tenders, in view of the history of this Bill, for the supply of energy from the companies and from the local authorities. It may be that there will be a "ring" of the companies. I understand that there are at this moment fourteen generating stations in London belonging to companies, and it seems very difficult to imagine that for this amount of electrical energy a ring such as seems to be feared could really be set up against a Government Department. But it is distinctly understood that these tenders will be called for, and that if in their wisdom the Government Department are satisfied that it will be to the public economy that they should get their electricity from elsewhere instead of themselves generating it, they will definitely do so. If the noble Lord opposite is satisfied with that declaration, which, of course, I know is intended to be properly carried out, I should not advise your Lordships not to accept it. Should your Lordships agree to the Amendment it will be proposed in a slightly different form from that in which it is on the Paper, but doubtless that is a point which can be discussed at the conclusion of this debate.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Your Lordships are asked to put back into this Bill a clause which was struck out of it by an exceptionally strong Committee of your Lordships' House after a full examination of the evidence. The course thus suggested is obviously a very unusual one, and one which, if adopted, would constitute a not very convenient precedent. It would mean that we should admit the right of the Government of the day to set itself up upon all these occasions as a kind of court of review of decisions resulting from the inquiries of Select Committees of your Lordships' House.
It is clear from what has been said this evening that the Select Committee considered this proposal with a sole eye to the interests of the public. I need not say in a case of this kind that no Party considerations could come into play, nor even those other considerations which the noble Marquess who leads the House had in his mind when he said that opinion was divided into two schools, the school of those who are in favour of municipal enterprise and those of a contrary opinion. I rather dwell upon that because I observe
1852
that ill-informed comments have been made in the public Press upon the-action of your Lordships' Committee, which has been represented as being in pari materia with the action of your Lordships' House in the case of the Home Rule Bill or the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. The Select Committee were, I gather, absolutely satisfied that the proposal contained in this clause was a bad bargain for the public. That was the consideration that weighed with them, and I gather from the noble Lord who presided over the Committee that it also transpired that the Post Office had not thoroughly gone into this question and ascertained the relative advantages of resort to the existing companies and reliance upon electrical installations of their own. In these circumstances my inclination is to support the Select Committee, still more because it has had, in principle at any rate, the support of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman.
I am very much impressed by the argument which has been used that even if this clause remains out of the Bill, no harm will be done to the Post Office. The Post Office will go on with their line, which will obviously take some time to make, and they can come back next year for the powers they desire in regard to this particular point. I was surprised when I heard the noble Marquess suggest that the result of our action might he that the Post Office would drop their Bill. Why? I cannot conceive any justification for any action of the sort. The only element of doubt is that which arises out of an undertaking which it appears is offered to your Lordships by the Post Office. I gather that that undertaking, a very belated one, if I may say so, is to the effect that they would undertake not to use their right if, after taking tenders, it should prove to be the case that electricity supplied from outside sources would come cheaper to the public than a supply provided by the Post Office itself. That undertaking is a plausible one, but it comes to us at the last moment, and we have no opportunity of considering it. I do not know now whether most of your Lordships appreciate its full hearing, and I confess that my natural inclination would be to adopt the simpler course of resisting the Amendment which has been moved and supporting the action of the Select Committee.
LORD NEWTON: Perhaps I may say a word before this question is decided. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to adopt the course suggested by my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, because I consider that we have on the whole obtained the principle for which we are contending. I hold that the Post Office have behaved with a petulance which is extremely unbecoming in a serious Public Department. At the same time I give it credit for honesty, and if the noble Marquess gives this undertaking I have every reason to believe that it will be adhered to. I confess I should much have preferred to see a proviso of this kind put into the Bill, and I can only repeat that much trouble would have been saved had a more accommodating spirit been shown by the Post Office in an earlier portion of the proceeding.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If an undertaking of this kind is given, will it be inserted as a clause in the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no clause prepared, and, as the noble Lord will understand, I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill longer than is necessary. If noble Lords opposite make a point of it, I will consider whether it is possible to place any such undertaking in the form of an addition to the Bill; but I had set it forward as an undertaking by my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General, which, of course, is an undertaking by the Government, and we should see that it was carried out. I venture to think it would be a pity to delay the passage of the Bill further by attempting to devise a form of words, which noble Lords would agree would be of a somewhat unusual kind, in order to insert a proviso of this nature.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the proviso would be of an unusual kind; but, without desiring to say anything in the least bit aggressive, it must be admitted that the line which the Government have taken with regard to this question is an unusual one. We, of course, only desire to serve the public interest as far as we possibly can. To ask us to agree to an undertaking suggested like this at the last moment across the floor of the House, without any possibility of considering its form and precise effect and how the parties would be bound by it, seems to be asking a good deal
1854
of your Lordships' House, as the procedure is entirely exceptional. The noble Marquess when asking the House to make such an unusual departure from its procedure ought to formulate on paper definite words showing what is meant, words which can be inserted in the Bill. If that could be done it would be much more satisfactory to our sense as men of business, and I think nothing would be lost by doing so. Therefore if we postpone this discussion until to-morrow I should think that in the course of the next few hours the words could be formulated in the manner I have suggested. The great authority of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees is hardly sufficient to satisfy all of your Lordships straight off, without consideration, that the course proposed is the right one. If the noble Marquess wishes us to take his suggested course he ought to be willing to postpone this discussion until to-morrow, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing the words which he proposes to embody in the Bill as showing the undertaking His Majesty's Government have given.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no objection to postponing the further discussion of the Bill until to-morrow, and I will see, in consultation with my right hon. friend, whether it is possible to frame a form of words which will meet the objections of noble Lords opposite. But, of course, the noble Marquess will understand that I cannot promise to produce any words.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: As it is the intention to move this Amendment in a slightly altered form in order to carry out a pledge given to other parties, it would be better that it should be reprinted and circulated.
The further debate adjourned till To-morrow.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("of") insert ("the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (in this Act referred to as)").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("this").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("July") and insert ("January").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a (with the Amendments), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 8, line 40, leave out the first ("report") and insert ("reports").—(The Marquees of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave out ("report") and insert ("reports") and after ("be") insert: "(a) A special report by the visitors made within one month after having seen the defective as to his mental condition and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged, and stating whether in the opinion of the visitors the defective is still a proper person to be detained in his own interest in an institution or under guardianship; and "(b)."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 13, page 10, line 28, leave out the second ("or") and insert ("and any charges incidental thereto including the cost of his conveyance to the institution and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 13, page 10, line 29, leave out ("of") and leave out from ("expenses") to ("as") in line 31.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert as a new clause:
"The nearest adult relative or the guardian of a defective in an institution or under guardianship under this Act shall be entitled to visit the defective at such times and at such intervals (not exceeding six months) and on such conditions as may be prescribed, except where, owing to the character and antecedents of the person proposing to visit the defective, the Board consider that such a visit would be contrary to the interests of the defective."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If your Lordships look at Clause 29 you will see that it says that the local authority are thereby empowered, and it shall be their duty, subject to the provisions of this Bill and to regulations made by the Secretary of State, to ascertain what persons within their area are defective and to provide suitable and sufficient accommodation for such persons. Then when you get to the proviso you see a provision that nothing in this Bill shall he construed as imposing these obligations on local authorities where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Bill towards the cost on income account of performing such duties is less than one-half of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of such cost. Clause 29 imposes a duty upon the local authority which may be enforced under Clause 31 by mandamus if thought necessary. Apparently the authority will be obliged to find the money in the first instance whether the amount is less or inure than one-half of the cost. If it should appear that they are supplying more than one-half of the cost they will have laid out their money, and the question is how will it be reimbursed, or will it be reimbursed to them at all. The same question arises on the Scottish Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will tell me exactly how that will work out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is a very reasonable question. It does not appear in the Bill how it is to be worked out, but I am in a position to state the plan which is to be adopted. The local authority are to be informed by the Board of Control what sums are likely to be available for expenditure in the district, and they are to be invited to submit for approval their schemes so that they may know what money may be required. The actual payments to the local authority will be made quarterly as soon as the accounts can be examined. The noble Earl sees that under this procedure the local authorities will be told in advance what sums of money are likely to be available and they need not work out their schemes until then.
Amendments moved—
Clause 43, page 29, line 8, leave out ("foregoing provisions of this") and insert ("provisions of the last foregoing")
1858
Clause 43, page 29, line 14, leave out ("foregoing provisions of this") and insert ("provisions of the last foregoing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 43, page 29, line 38, leave out from ("poor") to the end of the subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 50, page 33, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("Acts 1899 and 1913") and insert ("Act 1899 as amended by any subsequent enactment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have a slight amendment to the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in Clause 67 yesterday. As the clause stood it con-tamed these words, "Regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made." Then your Lordships inserted these words, "and if within thirty days after they have been so laid either House of Parliament presents an Address to His Majesty praying that any such Regulations may be annulled, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, annul the Regulations," and so on. The Amendment which I have to propose is this, that after the word "thirty" the word "sitting" should be inserted; otherwise it would be possible, to put an extreme case, that the Regulations might be laid on the Table the last day of the sitting of Parliament, and of course within thirty days from that time they would become law. I imagine that the Government mean sitting days, and therefore I propose this slight alteration.
Amendment moved—
Clause 67, page 39, line 14, after ("thirty") insert ("sitting").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a most reasonable Amendment, and I at once accept it on behalf of the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The House is aware that time is of importance with this Bill. I do not know whether in the circumstances your Lordships are prepared to give it a Third Reading to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to make a most friendly appeal to the Government. Yesterday the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who is in charge of the Bill, thought that he might shorten the proceedings on this Bill in your Lordships' House and in another place by not moving a large number of drafting Amendments which he believed were an improvement to the Bill, and which every one must admit would be an improvement to it. I ventured at the time to deprecate the action he took, and, if I may say so, I think for once his judgment erred. It was not likely to shorten the proceedings on the Bill by a tenth part of a second in another place, and the Bill will be an even worse piece of work without those Amendments. I would therefore appeal to the noble and learned Viscount whether at this last stage of the Bill he would not be willing, subject to the consent of your Lordships' House, because without general consent it cannot be done, to insert en bloc the drafting Amendments that he did not move yesterday. We have been assured on the authority of the Government that they are nothing but drafting Amendments, and I should accept the word of the Government on that absolutely. And if your Lordships agree, we can put in these purely drafting Amendments without notice on Third Reading. I am able to say on behalf of my friends on this side of the House that if the noble and learned Viscount will move these Amendments en bloc we shall be quite willing that they should be inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Having reflected upon it, I think the course suggested by the noble Marquess is the course of wisdom and I will act upon his suggestion.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended): Bill read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: After the course just taken by your Lordships I do not know whether any apology is necessary in asking that we should proceed with the remaining stages of this Bill this afternoon. I move no Amendments to-day, and if your Lordships are good enough to agree to the further stages being taken now, the agreed Amendments which we took in Committee yesterday can then be sent down to another place for their concurrence.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended): Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GLASGOW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading I will explain, as shortly as possible, the reasons why it is necessary to ask the House to agree to a Bill to amend the National Insurance Act, 1911. I think there is no doubt that an Act of the great magnitude of the Act of 1911, which was necessarily complicated from the fact that it had to deal with a very great subject—namely, the insurance of some fourteen millions of people in the United Kingdom, ten millions of them being in England alone—no amount of labour that might have been expended by Parliament in the passing of the principal Act could have rendered amendment unnecessary, because those who have had anything to do with the working of the Act will be well aware that nothing but the actual testing of it in operation could render it certain that the provisions originally inserted were the right ones. I may say at once that the present amendments are only such as could not have been foreseen. They are not fundamental; they do not alter the general framework of the Act, and the principle of the Act of 1911 is not touched in any essential manner.
I may fairly describe this Bill as to a large extent a machinery Bill. What alterations are made in the procedure of the principal Act are really in the form of lubrication in the way of making it more easy for those who have to work the Act, whether it be the Commissioners themselves or time county and county boroughs or the great approved societies. Hardships and difficulties have arisen under the principal Act which could not have been foreseen, and one of the principal objects of this amending measure is to remove those difficulties and hardships. This condition of things is not peculiar to the Insurance Act of 1911. I venture to say that no great Act of Parliament dealing with such a question affecting the lives and interests of so many millions of people has ever been passed without its having been necessary to amend it in some form or another, no short time after it has become law.
The most important clause is Clause 1, because it deals with the extra money that
1862
has been provided for the administration of the principal Act. Your Lordships will remember that the House of Commons last session voted £1,600,000 in addition to the amount that had already been voted, and the Prime Minister promised that an amending Bill would be forthcoming in order to regularise the expenditure of that £1,600,000. The opportunity is being used, as I have already said, to do away with certain imperfections and to give greater facilities for working the Act. How was it that it became necessary to vote £1,600,000 in addition to the amount already provided under the principal Act? It was required, as no doubt your Lordships know, for the additional medical benefit payable under the Act. Medical benefit was originally estimated at something like 6s. a head. Out of that amount the doctors were to receive something like 4s. a head. Although in the past it had often been the case that the great friendly societies in this country had not paid to their medical officers more than 4s. a head for their attendance on the societies' members, the doctors took objection, and no doubt rightly, and said that the lives insured under the Act were not exceptionally good lives, whereas the lives of friendly society members were good lives.
There was a great deal of negotiation, as your Lordships are aware, between the Commissioners and the doctors, represented by the British Medical Association; and it was agreed chat further, and more liberal, terms were to be given to the doctors. If it is sanctioned by this Bill, the doctors will now receive 6s. 6d. per head, and in addition to the 6s. 6d. a head for insured persons they will receive 6s. per head for home treatment of tuberculous persons, making in all a capitation grant of 7s. In addition to medical benefit there is also provided 1s. 6d. per head for every insured person for drugs supplied by the chemist, and there is a further 6d for drugs held in suspense—that is to say, in case the 1s. 6d. is found, as a whole, not to be enough, then this 6d. per head suspense fund may be drawn upon by the panel doctor who has prescribed more than the 1s.6d. per head as a whole for the patients on his panel. If any part of that 6d. per head is not spent, then the whole of that amount, or the part that is not expended, will go to the doctor. The object of that, your Lordships will see—and I think it is one with which we shall all sympathise—

1863
will be to discourage drugging. The doctor will have a distinct inducement not to unnecessarily order drugs. On the other hand, it is a great advantage having this 6d. suspense fund so that if in any case the 1s. 6d. average for a particular year is not sufficient there will be this fund which can be drawn upon for the additional drugs or specially expensive drugs required.
By another provision 9d. is provided for sanatorium benefit for tuberculous persons. This further grant of £1,600,000 is necessary to secure an efficient medical service, and I am glad to think that this has been generally accepted by the medical profession. There is a further benefit provided in order to meet the difficulties of members of friendly societies who, on account of age, or permanent diability were disqualified from becoming insured under the Act. Therefore a grant has been made of 2s. 6d. per head for medical benefit for uninsured members of friendly societies, so that those members who are uninsured will get the advantage of medical attendance to the extent of 2s. 6d. per head, and the society will have to procure that medical attendance for them.
Further on in the Bill there is another provision which will be of great assistance to those compulsorily insured contributors who have been dilatory. I refer to the way in which the time limit has been extended from twelve to fifteen months. The object of that is to give time for them to come in without reduction of benefit, because, as your Lordships are aware, if a man did not conic in within twelve months after the date fixed in the principal Act he would be liable, and would in fact be obliged, to have his benefits reduced. Now the time has been extended for another three months, and it has also been extended in the case of voluntary contributors. They were in the principal Act only allowed six months to come in, so that they will now have the same advantage as compulsorily insured contributors and will be allowed the same to come in, making their time fifteen months, as in the case of compulsorily insured contributors. There has been a great deal of discussion as regards the hardship of men not being able to come in between the ages of 50 and 70 who are compulsorily insured except at a reduced benefit. This Bill provides that the principal Act shall be so amended that age disability shall be removed between
1864
the ages of 50 and 70 for those who are compulsorily insured under this Act. Further medical benefits are given for life to employed contributors entering an approved society after the age of sixty and who have already paid twenty-six contributions to such society. That, again, is a decided advantage to insured persons.
There is also another amendment of the principal Act which is necessary owing to a decision of the Irish Courts, under which it was held that all local authorities were exempt. That decision would have this effect, that local authorities would not have to pay the employers' contribution, for example, for the men employed on the road by them. That is to say, such employers would escape the employers' contribution, because the Courts held that they were exempt under the principal Act. That has been put right in this Bill, which provides that all persons employed, by local authorities, except those who are specially exempt, shall come in just like any other insured persons, and the local authorities will have to contribute. But there are certain cases, of course, where it is desirable that they should be exempt, and those cases are exempted under Clause 5 of this amending Bill. Parish councils, and so on, employ small farmers and also small shopkeepers to act as rate-collectors, men whose principal livelihood is not obtained by acting as rate-collectors. It is quite common in country districts for shopkeepers and small farmers to be paid £10 or £15 a year for doing duty as rate-collectors. In those cases your Lordships will agree that it would be quite right that the parish councils or the rural district councils should not have to pay the employers' contribution.
Then there is another important question which this Bill deals with, and which will remove a very great hardship. I refer to the question of unemployment. As it stands at the present moment, if a man is unemployed he is obliged either to allow his contributions to become in arrear or to pay them himself. That remains; but under the principal Act not only had he to pay his own contributions during the time of unemployment, but he also became liable for the contributions that would have been paid by the employer if he had been employed during that time—that is to say, he had to pay or to make good during the time of unemployment not only his own con-

1865
tribution but that of the employer as well. In future a man who is out of work will be entirely relieved from having to pay the contribution that would have been paid by his employer if he had been at work. That will have to be made up in some way, and for that purpose £100,000 a year will be taken from the redemption of reserve values. If that sum is not found to be enough it is provided that the further amount required shall be voted by Parliament.
The question of medical benefit for voluntary contributors whose incomes are over £160 a year is dealt with thus. They are to receive no medical benefit at all, but, in order to compensate them for that, the amount of their contributions will be reduced by a penny. That is one of the things the doctors took great exception to. They very strongly objected that voluntary contributors with an income of over £160 a year should receive medical benefit, and part of the arrangement with the doctors was that that should be altered so that for the future a voluntary contributor with an income of over £160 a year should not receive any medical benefit. On the other side, it would not have been fair to make these men pay for medical benefit which they did not receive, and therefore their contribution is to be reduced by a penny a week. Under the Act there is a provision as to insured persons who are receiving compensation under the Employers Liability Act of under 10 s. a week. If a man is receiving by way of compensation for an accident a sum of more than 10 s. a week, then ipso facto he receives no sick benefit under the Insurance Act. But supposing he does not get 10 s. a week under the Employers Liability Act, he then receives a sufficient sum to make up 10 s. a week from the insurance fund. At the present moment every payment he receives to make up that amount to 10 s. a week is reckoned as a whole week of sick benefit under the Insurance Act. That obviously was a hardship, because, to take the case of a man under the Employers Liability Act who is receiving as compensation for an accident 9s. a week, he would only receive from the sick benefit 1s. a week to make it up to 10 s., and that 1s. would be reckoned as if it were 10 s. for one week. Under this Bill we provide that for the future that 1s. shall not be reckoned as one week's full sick benefit, and that he will not lose the other 9s. benefit.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps the noble Lord would not mind mentioning the particular clause with which he is dealing from time to time, so that we may follow it more conveniently.
LORD STRACHIE: The clause to which I ant referring is Clause 12. I will certainly do as the noble Earl wishes as far as possible, but some of my remarks have covered several clauses together. I was pointing out that as regards the present position it is absolutely unfair to the man who is only getting 1s. sick benefit that he should lose the other 9s., and so it will be aggregated in the future and he will only lose the number of weeks equivalent to the amount of money he has actually received in addition to the amount paid him under the Employers Liability Act.
Clause 13 provides that sick pay shall commence from the fourth day. There has been a great deal of complaint that it did not begin from the first day, but this follows the precedent of the Employers Liability Act. This alteration has been made so that for the future sick pay is to begin on the fourth day instead of on the fifth clay. Clause 14 deals with maternity benefit. I expect the House is very well aware of what happened in another place as regards that question. The position under this Bill as it now stands is that in future in every case the benefit is to be the mother's benefit, but where the benefit arises in respect of the husband's contribution the husband, if authorised by the wife to receive it, may receive it from the approved society.
A great deal of difficulty has been experienced as regards the question of treatment of a person in a hospital. When a man who has no dependants is in hospital the society can, if they think right, keep the sick pay and not hand it over to the man. Sick persons who have been making these contributions object to that. If there were no dependants they thought, naturally, that it ought to be paid over to themselves on leaving the hospital, because hospitals are precluded, unless any arrangement has been made in advance, from taking any of this sick benefit. In future what will happen will he this. In the case of a man having dependants and who is in hospital, his sick pay will be paid to his dependants, but where the man has no dependants the whole amount

1867
will go to him on leaving the hospital, subject to any agreement in advance which has been made between the hospital and his society for a part or the whole of such sick pay being paid to the hospital by all its member, when in hospital. Under the Act there is a separate valuation required for every insured person who removes from one insurance area to another. Supposing there were a friendly society in the West of England and 600 of its members emigrate to Wales in search of work—it very often happens that men do go from the West of England to the coalfields in South Wales—and these are distributed over seventy branches, each single group representing a certain number of members has to be valued separately, and the branches have to keep separate lots of books, one for England and one for Wales. These societies are subject to great fluctuation owing to small membership, and there is a liability of reduced benefits. Clause 16 provides that it is not necessary to have these separate valuations, and it does away with a decided anomaly in this matter. There is nothing in this amending Bill to destroy in any way the separate entities of these National Committees, whose present powers remain unimpaired. As your Lordships are aware, there is a Joint Committee to co-ordinate the practice of the four different areas for which there are separate Commissions in the United Kingdom. The result will be under the amending Bill that, in future the surplus on valuation will be distributed under a scheme made by the approved societies and sanctioned by the Joint Committee in the case of societies carrying on business in more than one part of the United Kingdom.
The question of casual labour has exercised employers as well as employed a great deal in this country. A clause has been put into the amending Bill which deals with the question of casual labour in this way. It is Clause 19. It provides that in future power shall be given to the Commissioners to make Regulations for different trades and different areas, but before they are allowed to make these Regulations they have to make full inquiry by one or more impartial persons, who are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and in order to ensure that nothing improper shall be done or no hardship imposed on any trade or area by these Regulations,
1868
the Regulations will all have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in order that an opportunity may be given for any objection to be taken to them. There have been many suggestions made as to how this question of casual labour should he dealt with. One suggestion has been made in the case of dockers that a man should pay a penny per day and the employer a penny per day for every day he has been employed. It does seem very hard that a man who is only employed one day should have to pay 4d., and it is equally hard on the employer that he should have to pay 3d., too, for one day only. It is suggested that in certain trades there might be a pooling arrangement by which the employers might care to pool their contributions in dealing with this question of casual labour. I think your Lordships will see it is very difficult to introduce any regulations of this sort in the amending Act itself, and in the interests of casual labour it is desirable that we should leave it to the Commissioners to think out and formulate a plan which would be good both for employers and employed. There is not only the question of clock labourers, but it is the commonest thing in the world for colliers during the summer months, on days on which they are not working in the pits, to be working on farms. In those cases the nice question arises, Who is the man to pay the employer's contribution? In that case it is at present the man who first employs him. It does not seem right, supposing the farmer employs him for the first two days, that he should pay the whole of the contribution, and the colliery owner get off scot free.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Are the Commissioners to have absolute power to settle this question with regard to casual labour, or will it be done by Regulation laid before Parliament?
LORD STRACHIE: No; a public inquiry has to be made by one or more impartial persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who will report to Commissioners, and the Regulations, if not withdrawn in consequence of the inquiry, will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as I have already said, to give your Lordships and the other House an opportunity of criticising them and taking objection to them. I think I

1869
have said enough on the main provisions of this Bill. It would occupy too much of the time of the House to go into all the forty-five clauses in detail; but if there are any clauses of which your Lordships desire explanation I shall be only too glad to give it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, no one, I am sure, will deny that the noble Lord who has just addressed us has given a lucid explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I cannot, however, go further and congratulate him on having made a complete explanation. The noble Lord became a member of this House a little time before the last Bill was passed in 1911, and if he will carry his memory back he will find that to make an explanation which would be complete of the provisions of this amending Bill he would have to admit that nearly every one of its provisions was pressed upon the Government from this side of the House as a difficulty with which they would some day have to deal. I think your Lordships have some ground to complain, not merely of the manner in which we were treated in 1911, but of the manner in which we are treated to-day. You will remember the debate of 1911. I do not know the precise date on which the Bill came up to this House, but it had been under discussion in the House of Commons and in the country for a great many months, and some time in the month of December it came before your Lordships' House with a halter round our necks and an intimation that if we could not agree upon it in the course of a few days the Bill must be dropped. That is exactly the position in which we are put to-day.
We have had to discuss in the course of the last few days a number of measures, all of which needed revision, and in the case of the Mental Deficiency Bill my noble friend Lord Selborne pointed out last night with great force that even the Government themselves were forced to withdraw Amendments they had placed on the Paper for fear that, owing to delay in passing the Bill through another place, it should be lost. We have to complain not only of the practice, but of the form of the operations of the Government in this respect. Nothing
1870
has been said, so far as I know, on this side of the House which at any time was hostile to the principle of national insurance. On the contrary, most of us have recognised, as I myself most certainly do, that the whole system of insurance through societies needed systematising in the interests of those who were not sufficiently provident, and that the time had come for this matter to be taken up. But it should have been taken up from a non-Party standpoint. The legislation of the present Government during the last five years has made a mark upon the finances of the country such as has been made by no war or series of measures during the last half-century. The Old-Age Pensions Act would in the minds of most men be coupled with the National Insurance Act, and the result is probably the most formidable that any nation has ever had to face in the same period.
What I want to press on this occasion is the extraordinary inaccuracy of the estimates on which Parliament has been induced to enter upon these proceedings. The present Prime Minister in 1908 estimated the cost of old-age pensions at £6,000,000. We are paying to-day £13,000,000, without any change having been made by Parliament except the change of allowing those who had taken Poor Law benefit to be candidates for old-age pensions, which represents a comparatively small sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago estimated the cost of national insurance at £4,500,000; to-day the cost is £7,000,000, without the Bill which we are now discussing. Therefore the joint effect is that two measures which were recommended to Parliament as being likely to cost £10,500,000 are at this moment costing just over £20,000,000. The whole sum amounts to what would discharge, not merely the interest, but the sinking fund on the National Debt, and we are undertaking this charge without any sinking fund and without any chance of ever being rid of it.
In these circumstances I confess that I think we have serious ground of complaint as to what we are invited to do with regard to this Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships have studied the language of Clause 1. This clause gives a blank cheque to the Government, who will be

1871
enabled to spend any sum which they can get the House of Commons to vote from time to time without further legislation and without regard to any of the principles upon which Parliament accepted the principle of national insurance. I am not exaggerating. The wording of the clause is this—
"There shall be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards such costs expenses and purposes, such additional sums as Parliament may from time to time determine, and the provisions of the principal Act as to the manner in which the cost of benefits and the expenses of administration are to be defrayed shall be construed as applying only to the balance of such cost and expenses after such additional sums have been applied for the purposes for which they have been provided."
What does that mean in plain language? It means, first, that there is nothing to prevent the Government from changing to any extent they desire the employer's contribution on the one side, or increasing, if they so desire it, the contribution of the public; so that the Act, instead of being a contributory one, may be made a noncontributory Act without in any way coming before Parliament. That has been recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, whose comment upon it, on July 22nd, was that it would be an outrage on precedent. I think it was under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House of Commons voted to its own Members £400 a year without legislative enactment. That, my Lords, was an outrage on precedent. There is absolutely no precedent for it in the whole history of our Parliamentary proceedings. I am not very much concerned to inquire into the Chancellor's view as to whether it would be an outrage on precedent and against the State if what we fear can be read into the first clause of the Bill; but I do say that your Lordships should not be asked to discuss this Bill on the last day but two of the session. We should have been allowed time for a full discussion of this clause at least. But beyond that, the whole principle of the Act of 1911 was that Parliament should not be asked to contribute more than two-ninths of the total sum. This clause abrogates the two-ninths, and says that supposing Parliament contributes £5,000,000 more that is not to be counted, and the provision as to the two-ninths and the seven-ninths absolutely falls to the ground. That is a departure from the principle of the original
1872
measure which your Lordships had a right to consider.
Then there are other proposals which should be the subject of serious debate. The noble Lord alluded to the extra sum to be allowed to men who had reached a certain age and had not contributed the necessary number of contributions. I do not quarrel with that, but what I do point out is this, that that provision is gained by raiding the reserve fund to the extent of some £800,000. Nothing is so easy as raiding a fund which is not immediately required. As far as I can see—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the real effect is this. The making of provision for men who have not paid a sufficient number of contributions and the relieving of men who have been out of employment and who had previously to pay the employers' share as well as their own, is done at the expense of the reserve fund and at the expense of the younger contributors, who will have to wait longer for their own relief than would have been the case if the reserve fund had been continued as the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended. That, again, is a most serious provision, and one of the things which I think Parliament has some right to inquire into on behalf of the younger contributors, who were told that they would get a great benefit in return for their compulsory self-denial. I think that is a matter upon which they will have something to say when the time comes.
There is nothing so typical both of the method and of the spirit in which this question has been approached as the question of medical benefit. I wonder if the Lord Chancellor recollects his speech on medical benefit in the year 1911. It was put to him across the floor of this House, first, that it was absolutely impossible to ask the doctors to serve for the sum which the Government were proposing to give them; and, secondly, that the number of cases which would fall to each doctor would preclude him from giving them that proper consideration which it was the intention of the Government, according to the clear statements of the promoters of the Bill, that they should have. The Lord Chancellor laughed at us on both grounds. He asked whether we really thought that sickness was going to increase in the country because these panel doctors were

1873
provided. We feared that the relief of sickness was going to increase, and that people who had not previously sent for a doctor would send for one under the Act. That is exactly what has occurred. The only result of treating our fear as if we were trying to cook up some difficulty in the way of the Government has been that although you have had to give the sum of £1,800,000 you have not conciliated the doctors; you have left a permanent sore; and while you have made this enormous charge upon the nation you have done absolutely nothing to make matters easier between the parties who are to enjoy the results of the charge.
And not merely were we laughed at at the time, but in the interval the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he had not got what he wanted from the doctors, proceeded to make a violent and outrageous attack on the whole body of the profession, a most undignified and unwise attack, and one certain to cause irritation and difficulty. In consequence this settlement has been rendered possibly nugatory, and I am quite certain that if the panel doctor continues to be deluged as he is by patients you must have a further Bill. A gentleman who has been inquiring into the treatment of patients by the panel doctors was told by one doctor that he was unable to give more than a minute or a minute and a half to each patient because he had to get rid of them at the rate of forty an hour. That cannot continue. The whole thing is due to the determination on the part of the Government to treat social reform as a sort of sandwich to be edged in between constitutional changes, and to send up Bills of this character without the consideration we have a right to expect from them. I must say that this Bill, with its forty-three clauses, does little credit to the Government. When it was introduced in the House of Commons it contained only thirteen. Does anybody remember a Bill introduced with thirteen clauses and emerging with forty-three? Does that show due consideration on the part of those who prepared the Bill? Does it not show that the thing was simply thrown on the floor of the House of Commons to be made the best of in the scramble that ensued? What likelihood is there that out of that scramble the most salient points in the Bill in the interests of those concerned have not escaped proper con-
1874
sideration? That is the objection to the Bill as it is brought forward.
I want to enter a protest against the representations that are being made on platforms throughout the country, even up to Saturday last. I protest against all these benefits being represented as a free gift from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to the poorer classes in this country. You are collecting vast sums of money—£26,000,000 in 1913, of which £15,000,000 come from the State and the employer; and £31,000,000 in 1915, of which £18,000,000 are to come from the State and the employer. Last Saturday the insured were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were not paying a penny out of their money for all the administration of the Act. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone on to tell the insured what the Act is costing the country. It was a slip of the tongue, of course, to tell them that they were not paying a penny towards administration; because on other occasions we are assured that they are paying a very much larger amount of the general taxation of the country than could reasonably be expected. At this moment these four Commissions, which involve eight sets of books being kept by the friendly societies, are costing £400,000 a year. The printing bill is a very heavy one, and it is increasing, and the administration I have no doubt will soon reach £1,000,000 a year. If by any measure of Parliament you raised £30,000,000, the least experienced among us could readily apply that so as to do a considerable amount of good to the working-classes of this country. You might by merely a rule of thumb give a million people 10 s. a week and still have £4,000,000 left for sanatorium benefit. The whole point we are interested in is: Is it the best plan, is it the cheapest plan, and is it the one that will secure most permanency? I think it is very unfortunate that this Act, instead of being represented as an honest effort on the part of all parties towards the amelioration of the condition of the working-classes, is represented in the country as a class measure in which the employers have had that filched from their pockets which they desired to retain, and in which the workman has been asked to pay the minimum. It is the old story—the workman is to receive 9d. for 4d., and the doctors are represented as standing out for improper terms.

1875
Then, again, all those who are to work the Act and to contribute to it are painted as endeavouring to serve their own interests. On the top of that we have a grotesque war dance with respect to the enormous sums which have been extracted from these unwilling persons and spent by a Government which fears nobody and does justice between man and man. That is not a system under which you can hope to have a successful Act. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it, and I believe that this Bill is not a final one. There is absolutely at this moment no class which is satisfied with the Act, not because the principle is bad but because of the hasty and injudicious manner in which it was pressed into being before it was complete, and because of the unfortunate manner in which its authors have described it. The insured are not satisfied; the doctors are now being much more largely paid, and they are not satisfied; and the employers are not unreasonably angry that for two years they have been paying the whole of the insurance which has been paid for 90,000 persons who have received no benefit at all from the Act. We always said that that could not continue. It has continued for two years, but it is now at last set right by this amending Bill. My feeling is that your Lordships can do no good by discussing individual clauses. It would certainly require a much longer time than is allowed us to set right the very wide language of Clause 1, language which we may live to regret that we passed through this House and which practically leaves Parliament at the mercy in that respect of the Government of the day. We can only accept the Bill rejoicing that a good many mistakes which were pointed out before have now at length been set right, and leaving the Government to bear the responsibility for a measure which, however good in its intentions, has been carried through in such a manner as to commend itself to hardly any class of the community.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have listened with deep interest to the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I thought that at last we should learn something of what the ideal Insurance Bill was to be, which we gathered from his tone he had in his mind. He told us that he approved of the principle and was a warm supporter of it, but it was not this principle but a better one which he
1876
had in his mind; and because the existing Act was a bad one he set out to condemn it. I listened in vain for some suggestion from the noble Viscount of any better principle or of any better scheme than the one we have here, but I could gather nothing but a multitude of carping criticisms, many of them quite inaccurate. He began by suggesting that Clause 1 would enable the House of Commons without any further legislation to alter the proportions of the employer's and workman's contribution. Needless to say, there is not a shadow of foundation for that suggestion. The only purpose of Clause 1 of this Bill is to deal with the amount of the new contributions which the Bill provides for, and there is nothing in it from beginning to end which gives power to alter those contributions which have been laid down by the original Act.
Then the noble Viscount went back to the debates of 1911 and gave a mythical account of a speech which I made in introducing the Bill. He said that I had laughed at the fears expressed from the other side of the House that the doctors would not act and that the whole thing would be one mass of confusion. I remember the moderate speech made by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and who always speaks moderately and to the point, in reply to the speech which I made in introducing the Bill of 1911. He intimated certain doubts, and certain points were taken; but that was the only speech which came from that side of the House which evidenced the least interest in or study of the details of the Bill. The littleness of the interest that was taken in it is shown by this, that the benefit of none of the studies in which the noble Viscount has been immersed was given us on that occasion. The noble Viscount went on to draw a lamentable picture of the operation of things under this Act. I agree that in a great change of this kind you must have a deal of friction in the carrying of it out. It was so in the case of Germany. The experience of the first four or five years in Germany was at least as difficult and harassing as it has been here, and so it will be whenever you make any effort to raise the people up to a level which they have failed to attain because of their own inertia. Does the noble Viscount think that with 15,000,000 insured persons a change of this sort is going to be carried out without any effort, with-

1877
out causing some friction, and without complaints from panel doctors and from various other people who have to pay the cost? I think we should be serving the interests of the State best if, instead of making carping criticisms, we made an attempt to deal with a subject which is a very difficult, one by throwing ourselves in a more whole-hearted manner into assisting what is going on.
The noble Viscount used the old suggestion that vast sums were being raised representing more than the interest of any war debt and as being some huge capital burden being imposed on the nation. They represent nothing of the kind, and they are no more analogous to a capital burden than is the expenditure of the noble Viscount on his own household. It means this, that the time is coming when those who cannot help themselves must, receive outside assistance. That is the standard we are setting up, and I trust it is not a standard which the noble Viscount disowns. The sense of obligation is growing, and if a larger contribution is exacted now from those who are wealthy than has been exacted in the past it is because they are wealthier than they ever were before, and in the vast aggregation of national life the time has come, in the interests of the great majority of our population, when the means of well being ought not to be the monopoly of a small class but ought to be more evenly distributed. It is a moderate measure in this sense, and the contribution required is a small one compared to what the standards of social life in a country like ours require.
Proceeding, the noble Viscount touched on a variety of topics. He said, "Look at this Bill. Originally there were only thirteen clauses and those clauses are now swollen to forty-three." I think that is not an unhealthy symptom. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons with as few clauses in it as would do the work, but such was the general interest taken in it—so different from the attitude of mind of the noble Viscount—such was the disposition not to carp but to try to help, and help came from a good many members on his own side of the House of Commons, that all these other clauses were proposed and accepted by the Government. The Bill contained only a few
1878
clauses at first because the Government were prudent. Had they thought that they would get the necessary support in the House of Commons the Government would have put them in at the beginning. It is infinitely better than criticism to say, "We know that this is a difficult matter and will join in an effort that can hardly be made by any one Party to make it a success; we care about social reform and we show the reality of our care, not by lip service, but by a practical contribution to this difficult subject." The noble Viscount said that he did not desire to stand in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill. But obviously he regards it as a bad Bill, and that being so the logical consequence of his attitude ought to have been a Motion to reject the Bill. Instead of that he tells us, "No, I have nothing to suggest except that the Bill should go on."
The reason why this Bill has been proposed is that we feel that it is a Bill that is needed. Two years have elapsed since the main Act came into being, and the experience which we have had since has disclosed to us points such as have appeared under the German system and have appeared in a manner analogous to the experience there. This Bill attempts to deal with those points which experience has disclosed. I do not doubt that further experience will disclose other points, and that further difficulties will arise in connection with this insurance scheme. The marvel is, not that there should be such difficulties, but that so many of them should have already been overcome. We shall go on resolutely, so long as the country will support us, in the attempt to give more and more reality to this great scheme of social reform, and we shall go on with the full consciousness that difficulties of the kind that have arisen must recur and must be overcome in the same way, by patience and by forbearance, and I trust with more disposition to co-operate in their solution than we have had from the noble Viscount to-night.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I should like to make one or two very brief observations on this Bill, but before doing so I cannot help making one remark on the statement of the noble and learned Viscount as to the finance of the Bill. I understood him to declare that the object was to provide money for the special purposes of

1879
the Bill. It is nothing of the kind. If he had read the first clause he would see that it says—
"There shall be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards such costs expenses and purposes, such additional sums as Parliament may from time to time determine."
It is quite obvious that there is there held out to your Lordships the prospect of a continual tapping of the public purse for the purposes of the Insurance Act. I remember very well when this Act was introduced in another place that we had all sorts of statements as to the beautiful watertight compartments in which it was divided, and that they were all contained within the provisions of the Act itself. Only two years afterwards we are threatened with what I might characterise as a sort of dripping demand on the finances of the country. That is a very different matter from what one would think from the very light way in which the noble and learned Viscount, if I may say so, presented it. I do not wish to follow the noble Viscount below me (Lord Midleton), although I cordially agree with what he said about the finance of the Insurance Act. For myself, I thoroughly distrust Celtic finance, although I admire the Celts as poets.
The noble and learned Viscount referred to the experience of Germany. He is constantly making incursions into that country for various purposes, but I think if he were to draw upon his experience of the insurance system in that country and how the costs had gone up, it would not be considered a very good augury for the Bill before the House. This Bill does not touch the really serious matters at all, one of them being the question of administration. In many of the friendly societies the costs of administration have nearly doubled, and trebled in some cases, for wholly unnecessary reasons, such as the making of a mass of returns which I do not suppose anybody ever reads and which certainly occupy a great deal of waste paper. Then as to the question of the increasing demand for sick benefits. That matter has not been dealt with either. The noble and learned Viscount made a remarkable statement about wealth not being the monopoly of one class. I confess I did not see the relevancy of those observations to the Bill before us. This Bill has for its object the arranging of difficult
1880
and complicated matters, and of fairly and properly distributing the funds under it. There is no question of any monopoly of a class. I feel quite sure of this, that this is only the beginning of a set of amending Bills to the Insurance Act. It is impossible to suppose that these clauses complete the entire chapter.
I could not help smiling at the ingenious account which the noble and learned Viscount gave of the history of these thirteen and forty-three clauses in the other House. His account was not entirely the picture that I had formed in my mind. One of the reasons why the Bill only contained thirteen clauses at first was that it was to be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, and if a magnificent array of forty-three clauses had been inserted I do not think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have forced the Bill through the narrow dimensions of that particular regulation; and, if it had been attempted to be forced through, there would have been so many demands from all sorts of interests that it would have been quite impossible for the Bill to have gone through on that particular occasion.
Now I turn to one or two of the points in the Bill itself. The noble Lord opposite, in dealing with the Bill, made, I thought, a great point about the sick pay commencing on the fourth day. He rather treated it as a bit of a concession. But I would point out that that was intended all along, and that this amendment is really one of a drafting nature. He compared it with the Employers Liability Act and said that it was on all fours with that Act. The noble Lord forgot to mention that under that Act when a man has been ill for a week the payments date back to the first day, which they do not do under this measure. The friendly societies in the past paid sick benefits from the first day. Why do they not do so under this Bill? The reason given was that it would cost another £600,000 or £700,000 a year. I should have thought with this extending finance that that was a matter which might have been got over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter which falls very heavily especially on young people. We have been told by the noble Viscount below me that the younger people suffer very much because under some of the provisions of this Bill the

1881
sinking fund payment is extended, and that the younger members would come into benefit sooner if this had not been the case. When they are young and are ill for three or four days they are penalised twice, once under the extension fund, and a second time in losing the payment for the first three days.
There are one or two other points to which I should also like to refer. The noble and learned Viscount has said something about the different sets of Commissions in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. These have been much criticised on the ground of expense merely. But there is a far more serious ground than that, because you have these four separate Commissions dealing in several cases with societies—international societies they are called—with headquarters in England and branches in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. What happens? For the purpose of their benefits the unfortunate people who belong to the different societies in the different countries have to deal with four separate sets of Commissioners, and these four separate sets of Commissioners all send out an enormous quantity of Regulations. I have had all these Regulations, and have been busy, every day almost, throwing them into the rubbish basket. You can imagine how difficult it is for the different societies and different secretaries to prepare and collate Regulations issued by four different sets of Commissioners. I challenge the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill to give me any reason, except that of a political nature, why you should have these four sets of Commissioners. We were told that they assisted the administration of the Act while it was being put into operation. But surely that period is approaching completion. Are we going to maintain these expensive four separate Commissions? Then there is another point. They are not separate in their action in some respects, because as regards valuation these international societies are allowed to be valued as a single unit, all the different branches; so that you have as the result the taking away from the activities of the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish Commissioners a great part of their work. In Scotland alone, I am told, half the insured people belong to societies in England which therefore will be valued as English societies; so that really the Government by that change cut at the root of the necessity of having separate
1882
Commissions at all, and I think it is high time they were abolished.
There is one point with regard to the doctors which I should like to mention. The Government have never redeemed their pledge as to the free choice of doctor. I was entertained to see in a platform speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he rather contended that that pledge had been redeemed because a man could always go to a panel doctor, and if all the doctors joined the panels the insured persons could choose what doctor they liked. That is not quite the same as the promise that was made some two years ago. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill why it is impossible to allow a man to have the doctor of his choice? It was promised over and over again by the Government, and it is obviously right that some of these men who are coming into insurance and have been treated for years past by a doctor should continue under that doctor if they like. It has been suggested that that would destroy the panel system. It would do nothing of the kind. And as regards the committees themselves who have the power of allowing a man to make separate arrangements, they are far too busy to deal with separate cases, and in many instances they have rejected these demands in batches without any consideration at all.
I could not help being rather amused by the ingenious way in which the noble Lord opposite dealt with the question of the casual labourer. When the Bill was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer prided himself that he was going to deal with the problem of the casual labourer. It is a very difficult problem, we know; but when we come to the Bill we find that Parliament absolutely retreats from the problem altogether and hands it over en bloc to the Commissioners. That is hardly the way of dealing with the question of the casual labourer, and I do not think you could have a better instance—and there are a great many instances in this Bill—of legislating by Commissioners and officials. And really it is very kind of the noble Lord that he should actually allow these Regulations to be laid upon the Table of Parliament in order that they may be discussed some time or another.

1883
Then as to Clause 8, which deals with the calculation of arrears. Under the original plan a man was allowed three weeks before he fell into arrears—three weeks did not count against him, and if he paid his contributions for forty-nine weeks he had the full benefits; and not only that but the arrears were averaged over the number of years for which he had been in insurance. If he had been for ten years in full insurance he could go for some time without paying contributions and not forfeit his benefits. But under this clause—a very complex and exceedingly difficult clause to understand, and some of it, may say, is absolute nonsense—that opportunity is taken from the man absolutely and each year is considered separately. If a man pays for one year he gets full benefits, but if he only pays for forty-five weeks the next year he falls into arrear and loses the great advantage he would otherwise get by averaging his arrears over the whole period during which he had been insured.
The last point about which I should like to make complaint is this. I think it is very hard indeed that no consideration has been given to the case of the agricultural labourer as against the town dweller. We all know that the agricultural labourer is a healthier person and poorer paid than people engaged in industrial occupations, yet he has to pay the same amount to get the same benefits. In my opinion he ought to pay a less amount for the same benefits, or have larger benefits for the amount he pays. The result is that the townsman gets the advantage of the agricultural labourer. It is very hard and very unjust. But that would not matter so much if the old societies with which we are so familiar in the country had been left in life, but they have been destroyed by the Insurance Act. They have been forced to enter these large societies, and their healthy lives have been of considerable advantage—but a most unfair advantage, I submit—to the less healthy, but better paid, dwellers in the towns. I regret that the time at our disposal makes it absolutely impossible to deal with the Bill properly. A great deal ought to be done both as regards drafting and matters much more important than drafting. I regret that this Bill is rendered necessary at all; but, as we know, the little attention, or careless attention that was given to the parent measure when it was going through the House of Commons was due entirely to the
1884
fact that room had to be made for the Home Rule Bill. The result is that to the Nationalists of Ireland the interests of 14,000,000 insured persons in this country have been wholly sacrificed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I suppose there are very many who believed that when the Act of 1911 was placed on the Statute Book the Government were taking a step forward of a very necessary kind, but it was inconceivable that a step forward on a subject so momentous, on a subject which must necessarily on so many points come into conflict with the natural indolence of mankind and the selfishness of so many different interests, could be taken without a great deal of resistance and difficulty, and without incurring a great many mistakes. I am not concerned to estimate whether the Act of two years ago was the best possible or not. At any rate, I understand that there is universal agreement that that Act was a step forward, for better or worse, in a necessary direction, and that it is to stand. That being so, it became very soon obvious that there were points on which remedies would have to be provided and amendments made. Personally I think there is hardly any more complicated individual subject than this one; therefore I was not at all surprised to find that there were many points on which amendment would be necessary. One noble Lord stated that even now we cannot expect finality. For many generations to come I, for my part, do not expect finality in this matter.
The question I ask myself with regard to this amending Bill is whether the improvements and amendments which are introduced are good ones; and on that subject I gather that the noble Lords who have spoken on the other side of the House agree that, so far as they go, the amendments are good ones. In my view the amendments adopted in this Bill are most necessary, and that is, after all, the one point from which those who desire that this subject should pursue its course in the future with as little friction as possible must consider it. Lord Peel complained about the question of the casual labourer being left so fully to the Insurance Commissioners. In my opinion there is no subject with which this Bill deals which is more complicated

1885
than the question of the casual labourer. Any one who knows anything about this subject in different departments of industry knows that it would be impossible to deal with the matter in any other way than by giving the fullest possible discretion to the Insurance Commissioners; and for my own part I believe that the proposed amendment on that point is the best which could have been made to meet the undoubted injustice in the incidence of the original Act.
The only other point with regard to which I wish to say a word is that which concerns the maternity benefit. That is one of the matters in which experience has shown the extraordinary injustices perpetrated under the Act of 1911, and I think it was necessary in the highest degree that that Act should in this particular be amended as proposed in this Bill. I do not propose to delay the House with regard to the provisions of the Bill. The question I ask myself is, Is this amending Bill one which improves in necessary points the Act of 1911? I gather from what has been said this evening that there is on the whole complete agreement upon that. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, recognised in the amendments now made alterations in the direction of what the other side of the House had wished for. In my view this Bill will introduce undoubted improvements into tae system of national insurance, and I trust that it will become law without delay.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I merely rise to express complete concurrence with the right rev. Prelate in what he has said about Clause 14, which deals with maternity benefit. I think the possibility of a very great wrong has been righted, and I sincerely trust that there will be no attempt in this House to undo what has been done in the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, after the extraordinary acerbity with which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack attacked my noble friend beside me, it really requires some courage to lift up one's voice and say anything at all disrespectful about the Bill on the Table. The noble and learned Viscount suggested that my noble friend's speech was "carping criticism" of the Bill. I listened to the speech, and I am bound to say that it seemed to me to
1886
contain nothing but legitimate comments both upon the Parliamentary history of the measure and upon those particular provisions which my noble friend singled out for his observations. And I observe that the noble and learned Viscount did not attempt to meet the criticisms made by my noble friend. The noble and learned Viscount poured forth eloquent passages in which he dwelt upon the growing sense of obligation which was noticeable amongst the people of this country, and expressed his conviction that the time had come when the wealthier classes should be prepared to make larger contributions than heretofore for useful and philanthropic purposes. There was, however, not a word in my noble friend's speech suggestive of the idea that he was in any way opposed to spending public money, the product of taxation, of which the main burden, of course, falls upon the wealthier classes, upon philanthropic objects. That was not at all the purport of my noble friend's speech. What he complained of was that this vast expenditure had been incurred recklessly and without adequate consultation with the country, and without adequate examination of the facts. That part of his case I think my noble friend made out completely, and I am bound to say that the Parliamentary history of this legislation entirely bears out what my noble friend said.
What is happening now entirely justifies, in my view, the attitude taken up by noble Lords on this side of the House when the Insurance Act came before us in the year 1911. In that year we received the Bill on the 6th of December, about eight or ten days before the end of the session. We pleaded earnestly for some postponement. We pleaded for the postponement of the Bill; we pleaded that if it was to pass into law some additional delay might at any rate be given before it came into operation. Those pleas were unheeded, and I think the result has been very unfortunate. Looking back, I cannot see why in that year His Majesty's Government should not have done what the noble and learned Viscount himself has done quite lately with regard to his measures of legal reform—that is, introduce the Bill one year, allow it to remain before the public to be criticised and examined, and then resume it in the following year in order to put it on the Statute Book. The noble and learned Viscount told us that

1887
the debate of 1911 was a perfunctory debate—I am bound to acknowledge that he made a very kindly exception in favour of something I had the honour of saving on that occasion—but, my Lords, if it was a perfunctory debate what else could be expected when we were discussing that Bill, as my noble friend put it, with a halter round our necks?
Let us turn from that to the history of this Bill. It was introduced in the House of Commons under the Ten Minutes Rule, as if it were a comparatively trifling and unimportant measure, and it then contained thirteen clauses. My noble friend pointed out, however, that those thirteen clauses were extended in Grand Committee to over forty. I do not think he told the House, but I believe I am right in saying that twenty-five of those clauses made their appearance in a single day. The noble and learned Viscount said, "What a splendid proof of vigour and elasticity! Here is this little bantling which suddenly assumes colossal importance." If the number of clauses in the Bill had increased up to a point at which the Bill could have dealt adequately with the whole of the unsolved problems of national insurance, it would have had to increase, not to forty-three clauses, but to 143. These forty-three clauses were under discussion in the House of Commons as lately as, I think, Friday last. Now we come to the appearance of the Bill in this House. It appears to-day when we have only two more working days of the session left to us. We have no time to consider, or even to make ourselves aware of, what has been happening in the other House of Parliament; and of course we shall have a debate which I dare say the noble and learned Viscount will describe again as perfunctory. It is not our fault. The fault lies with the 'Government who impose these conditions upon us. I venture to say that the treatment meted out to us is not only monstrously unfair to this House, but most unfair to the fourteen millions of insured people in this country, whose interests we have at heart just as much as the other House of Parliament, and whose interests we are not allowed to pay any attention to owing to the conditions under which these Bills come before us.
To-day we are again face to face with the old dilemma—the dilemma of having
1888
either to abdicate our functions or to lose the Bill, and, of course we make no secret of it, we do not want to lose the Bill. The Bill contains some provisions which are of Unionist origin. I could quote several of them. I could refer, for example, to the extension of the medical benefit to the older members of the friendly societies; the introduction of greater facilities for the redemption of arrears by people who have been out of employment, a clause upon which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill dwelt with great satisfaction; and I could mention other cases. But the fact remains that the consequence of this helter-skelter mode of legislation is that to begin with, as my noble friend pointed out, you can never get an even approximately accurate estimate of what a measure of this kind is going to cost. You had an original estimate of £3,500,000, which we now learn has become an estimate of £7,000,000—exactly double.
And there is worse besides. Unless I entirely misread this Bill, it facilitates great additional extravagance in the future. I listened to what the noble and learned Viscount said in reply to my noble friend as to the operation of Clause 1. I own that it did not seem to me that the noble and learned Viscount's reply was a conclusive one. Under Clause 1, unless I entirely misunderstand it, power is taken for Parliament to provide additional sums from time to time for the various purposes connected with insurance; and the clause goes on to say that the provisions of the principal Act—that is, the provisions containing all the restrictions with which we are familiar, the two-ninths and seven-ninths, and so forth—are to be—
"construed as applying only to the balance of such cost and expenses after such additional sums have been applied for the purposes for which they have been provided."
Now, if that clause means anything it seems to me to mean this, that the Government of the day in the House of Commons, by putting down an estimate for a sum sufficient, let us sac, to double the benefits of a certain class and taking the necessary steps in the Appropriation Bill, can not only impose a fresh burden upon the country, but in doing so entirely escape all the restrictions which the Act of 1911 contains, and by which the framers of that Act intended to afford some safeguards to the public. I hope, if

1889
any noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite follows me, that that point will be made a little clearer than it has been up to the present. I cannot get it out of my head that under this Bill the Government of the day will have, as it were, two pockets to draw upon. In respect of what it draws out of one pocket it will be subject to the restrictions of the Act of 1911, but in respect of what it draws out of the other pocket it will not be liable to any restrictions whatever except those which Parliament may choose to impose from time to time.
I am not going to take up the time of the House by passing in review the clauses of this Bill. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill—he is no longer in his place—gave us a very patient and careful résumé of the contents of the Bill. I will only notice, in passing, one or two points. In the first place there is the question of the four Commissions, which my noble friend Lord Peel touched upon a moment ago. The existence of those four sets of Commissioners has always seemed to be a monstrosity. The Act of 1911 created that difficulty, a quite unknown one until it came into operation. His Majesty's Government were possessed by a morbid desire to propitiate national sentiment, and in order to do so they put this measure in the Bill which has added immensely to its cost and to the difficulty of administering it. The larger societies, until the Act came into operation, knew nothing of national boundaries. A man working on the Clyde might belong to the same society as a man working on the Tyne. Now you make this attempt—a very futile attempt, I think—to divide the United Kingdom into compartments, compartments which cannot, of course, be water-tight because one compartment is perpetually leaking into the other, and you have all the trouble of watching over these transfers from one locality to another. You have the obligation upon these four Commissions to keep going no less than eight sets of books, because there are separate books for men and women, and you also have the immense difficulties of administration which arise from this state of things inside the Commission itself. I dare say I shall be told that the Bill makes some attempt to mitigate those difficulties. I think under the Bill the four national units in one society are allowed to be valued together, and I
1890
think there is something to facilitate transfers; but the eight sets of books and the four separate sets of Regulations remain; and, as we were told just now, they are four sets of Regulations which are by no means identical. There are discrepancies between one set of Regulations and another, discrepancies which must add to the distraction of those who attempt to master the interminable literature which this legislation has been the means of producing.
A word on the way in which this Bill deals with the question of the casual labourer. We all know that the casual labourer's case was the great crux of this Bill. The casual labourer gets no regular employment; he is not able to make a regular contribution; and therefore it is extremely difficult to provide him with a benefit. That has been the difficulty, and His Majesty's Government set out with the admission that the difficulty existed and with a loudly proclaimed intention of dealing with it. Now, how do they deal with it? They deal with it under this clause simply by handing it over to the Commissioners to be dealt with, as the Commissioners think fit, by Regulations. As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said, His Majesty's Government intend the Commissioners to think out and formulate a plan; and that is really the characteristic, not only of this Bill, but of the greater part of the Bills that come before your Lordships' House. His Majesty's Government, I know, are great admirers of the policy of devolution. This is one way of carrying it out. Whenever you come to a really tough nut to crack or a difficult problem to face you pass it on to some body to be dealt with by rules and regulations according as they may think fit to do so.
Again, grave doubts are arising in everyone's mind as to the soundness of the financial basis of all this legislation. There is the question of the sickness benefit. Is it not really alarming that there are districts in which the cost of the sickness benefit has risen to a percentage of 40, or even 70, above the expectations which were formed? And it is quite natural. It is not necessary by any means to assume that this excess is entirely due to malingering. There are plenty of other causes besides. What is happening, unless I am misinformed, is this, that all over the country the deposit

1891
contributors are being absorbed in these associations, and they are being absorbed under lenient conditions, conditions which admit of a relaxation of the strict health test. That means that instead of having, as we used to have, comparatively small bodies, autonomous, and carefully administered by their members, you have these large societies, almost in the position of a State Department, where you cannot have anything like the same vigilance, and where you have not the check which used to be exercised by one member upon another in the smaller bodies. That is quite enough to account for the increase in the cost of the sickness benefit; and I am bound to say that that seems to me to be a very alarming symptom which we shall have to take into account.
I agree with one observation that was made by the noble and learned Viscount. He told us that this amending Bill was likely to be followed by many other amending Bills. That, I think, is sure to happen. I should like to put it to His Majesty's Government whether the time has not come when we might cry a halt in this policy of legislating by driblets in connection with the subject—of adding one million one year, and two millions another year to the total cost of national insurance—and when the whole question ought to form the subject of a careful and comprehensive inquiry? As long as you deal with the matter in instalments, as long as you propose to Parliament a limited grant intended to deal with particular hard cases, perhaps those which cry most loudly for redress, you will not be able to obtain anything like a comprehensive review of the whole problem. We ought to ask ourselves, not whether the expenditure of this two and a half millions, or whatever it is that this Bill will cost, is necessary or is desired, but whether it is really the best way of spending the money, and whether this expenditure upon the lines proposed will fit in with the whole policy of national insurance. Those questions I do not believe you can answer without the kind of fuller inquiry which I venture to say we ought to look forward to in regard to this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friend in charge of the Bill will deal with some, or at any rate with one or two, of the specific points which have been raised from the opposite side of the House
1892
in the course of this debate. Personally I had no desire to take part in the discussion at all. I am in a somewhat disadvantageous position for doing so as compared with other noble Lords, because, as it happened, I was obliged to be away during the time that the original Act was passing through this House. I therefore only intervene in the debate in consequence of one observation which fell from the noble Marquess opposite in the earlier passages of his speech, an observation which he repeated in its last sentences—namely, with regard to the necessity of producing an amending Bill of this kind instead of attempting to produce a final scheme which would be complete in all its parts and which would enable the country to know precisely what it is spending on national insurance. As I have said, I was not in the House when the original Bill was here, but I remember in the preceding summer we had some discussion in this House, and at that time it was the earnest desire of noble Lords opposite that further delay should take place with a view to the production of a complete and final scheme. I well remember myself pointing out that in my opinion the production of such a scheme on so novel a subject was an impossibility, and that in practice there was nothing to gain by delay, or by further consideration, or by handing the subject over, as noble Lords then desired, to the country for discussion by the public; and I ventured to point out then that the only way in which it could be dealt with was by passing an Act of Parliament in a form which would enable a start to be made on sound lines, with the certain knowledge that amendment would be required and required probably more than once.
The noble Marquess called attention to the fact that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack—whom the noble Marquess, as I thought, accused not quite fairly of introducing acerbity into the debate—had pointed out that it was very likely that this would not be the last of the amending Bills to the original Insurance Act. That precisely bears out what we said beforehand, that we did not believe it possible to produce a full and complete scheme at once which would require no subsequent treatment. One is inclined to ask noble Lords opposite whether they believe that the particular amendments in this Bill now on the Table of which they

1893
approve, could by any exercise of ingenuity have been arrived at and framed by mere preliminary discussion and have been incorporated in the original Act. It is only by the trials that have taken place, by discovering where the shoe pinches in particular instances, that it is possible to know what amending steps have to be taken; and when the noble Marquess complains of what he considers our piecemeal method of proceeding, we must be, I think, content to differ, because we hold that a subject of this kind cannot possibly be rationally dealt with in any other way. It no doubt would be preferable, were it possible, to introduce a complete measure which would satisfy public opinion in the country as a perfect one for the next twenty, thirty, or fifty years; but it is, I believe, an unavoidable incident of this sort of legislation which you may like or dislike—it is the unavoidable accompaniment of this class of social legislation, that it is only as you proceed along the path that you can find what amendments have to be made. Therefore, as I say, we must agree to differ. Noble Lords opposite will not get any apology from us for the introduction of an amending measure of this hind, and they therefore cannot be surprised at the remark which my noble and learned friend made that it is possible that this will be by no means the last of the amending measures which it may be necessary for us, OT some other Government, to bring in on the subject of national insurance.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I will reply briefly to the points raised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. First of all the noble Marquess took objection to this Bill having increased in size so enormously; but may I venture to point out to him that although it is true it was introduced as a Bill containing only thirteen clauses, when it was discussed in the House of Commons some twenty-five clauses were put in, you may say, by the practically unanimous vote of both sides of the House because they thought the Bill would be very much improved thereby. Therefore this was done not by the Government, but rather by the general wish of the Members in another place. Then as regards Clause 1, if noble Lords look closer into the clause they will see, although it is quite true that provision is made for any more money which the House of Commons likes to vote, it would not have the slightest
1894
effect upon the contributions which have to be paid by the employee or the employer under the principal Act. They can neither be increased nor decreased, but will have to go on being paid in exactly the same way. I would venture to remind the noble Marquess that the Government are dependent upon the House of Commons, for any future increases of benefits to insured persons, and it is that House and not the Government who would give any extra benefits in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What is the meaning of the words at the end of subsection (1) "shall be construed as applying only to the balance of such cost and expenses after such additional sums have been applied for the purposes for which they haw, been provided?"
LORD STRACHIE: I take it that has reference to the earlier part of the clause which refers to the principal Act. It would only be so far as the principal Act is amended, as in this case the principal Act is amended, and it was necessary to vote additional sums of money. If a further additional sum of money is voted, that can be expended under this Bill if the House of Commons thinks fit so to vote it. But, as I have said, it does not alter the amount of the contributions of the employed or employer. As regards the question of the casual labourer, I made a mistake in using the word "Regulations." I had been previously talking about Regulations, and the noble Marquess will understand that it was easy to make a slip of that nature. When dealing with Clause 9 I ought to have referred to the Draft Orders. These Draft Orders are not Regulations. They have to be published for twenty-one days by the Commissioners so that during that period objections may be taken either by the employees or employers who object to the Regulations applying to the particular trade in that particular area. If Orders are not drawn then it is laid down by the Bill that an inquiry shall be held by an impartial person appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That is following the precedent of the Factories Acts, except that in this case the appointment is made by an independent person, the Lord Chancellor, who appoints an impartial person who has nothing to do with the Commissioners.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Is there anything in Clause 1 which prevents the Government, without legislation, turning the Act into a non-contributory scheme? Do not the words cover that?
LORD STRACHIE: As far as I am aware the Government cannot do that. The clause is only to provide for the case where more money is voted by the House of Commons. If there is no money voted, then of course the case does not arise; it is only in the case of the House of Commons voting more money. To return to the point with which I was dealing, the point of the inquiry. It is to be an impartial inquiry held by an impartial person who has the right to examine, if he thinks fit, witnesses on oath, and this inquiry has to be held in public. After inquiry a report is made to the Commissioners; the Commissioners have to consider that report, and they may alter it, amend it, or withdraw it. In the case of amending it, or not amending it, it becomes a Special Order. But there is this safeguard, as I have said, that the Order has to be laid before Parliament for twenty-one days.
The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, took objection to the separate Commissions, but he was under a misapprehension as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said upon that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer never said that these Commissions were set up only for a preliminary purpose and for preliminary work; he always contemplated that they should be permanent. What this Bill does with regard to these Commissions is this. It removes the difficulties of the societies, and instead of having to keep two books for a man who, say, goes into Wales from England, they will have to keep only one book. Then as regards the other point raised by Lord Peel of every man in every case not being able to choose his own doctor. I would point out that it is impossible that every man should be able to choose his own doctor after a certain time, because a popular doctor would get a very full panel indeed. And how can a doctor accept more than a certain number of people if he is to do his duty by them? Then the noble Viscount complained that it was a great hardship that agricultural labourers should be grouped in with other trades. Were that so it would be a great hardship; but I would remind the noble Viscount that these
1896
small agricultural societies have not been abolished. In the county of Somerset we have welded these small societies into one large society; the majority of the members are agricultural labourers, and they will get the advantages he referred to by being grouped together. So I think that removes the objection of the noble Viscount with regard to the agricultural labourers.
A NOBLE LORD: That is only in some cases.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is a Bill germane to the subject your Lordships have already been discussing, because it arises out of a Report of the Committee appointed by the Treasury to consider the best methods of applying the National Insurance Act in certain districts of Scotland of somewhat an exceptional character. The remote areas of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland will be readily admitted to present special difficulties with regard to the adequate supply of medical service, or of nursing. A Committee was appointed which travelled over the area referred to, and the Report which they presented and which has been printed—those of your Lordships who take an interest in the subject no doubt have read it; it is Cd. 6559—reveals conditions in many of the Highland parishes which demand very serious and urgent reform. It is obvious to any one who reads of the present conditions of some of these parishes that something should be done with the least possible delay in order to improve them.
On page 13 of the Report your Lordships will find the summarised findings of that Committee. They say that medical attendance is uncertain, exceptionally onerous or even dangerous for the doctor, and generally inadequate; that the insanitary conditions render medical treatment difficult and largely ineffective; that recourse is often had to primitive and

1897
ignorant methods of treating illness; that some of these methods are even a source of danger, especially in maternity cases; that the local rates in many cases are over-burdened; and that, generally speaking, the combination of difficulties in these districts demands exceptional treatment. As a result of the Report the Treasury agreed to make a special grant in aid of the medical service and nursing in the Highlands and islands, and the conditions under which that: grant is made form part of this Bill. The amount is £42,000 a year.
There was a great deal of discussion with regard to the meaning of "the Highlands and Islands" in Scotland, but eventually it has been defined as covering the crofting districts with the inclusion of the Highland district of the county of Perth; and your Lordships will see that referred to in the first paragraph of the Report. It was proposed in another place that other districts should be added, but His Majesty's Government decided to resist those proposals on the ground that they were not specially referred to in the Committee's Report. The general scheme by which the money will be administered is that a Board is set up under the Bill, as your Lordships will see in Clause 2. The schemes which will be presented by the various local authorities will have to be approved by the Board, who will also have authority to combine local authorities or to make additions where they think necessary. They have full powers to vary the conditions in cases where it is necessary that there should be some change from what one might call, perhaps, the normal condition of things. In view of the general acceptance of this Bill, and the urgent need that there is for a measure of this kind and for an improvement in the medical service, I venture to hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 183.)

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to a case recently decided at the Lincoln County Court in which a farmer was held liable to pay full wages during a period when a farm labourer on yearly agreement was incapacitated for work and was receiving sickness benefit under the Insurance Act; and whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the Judge before whom the case was tried is reported to have expressed a strong hope that this serious blot in the Act might be deleted by Parliament in the amending Bill now under consideration; and whether the Bill at present before the House to amend the Insurance Act makes any provision for meeting such cases, and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will propose a clause for that purpose.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl's Question, I have to say that it is the custom in some of the northern counties for certain classes of agricultural labourers to be engaged for periods of from six to twelve months. In most cases these men "live in," and the farmer is bound under the terms of his contract to pay wages and maintain them whether they are ill or well. Such men are known usually as "confined men." When these men are ill and drawing sickness benefit they are financially better off than when they are well. It has been argued that as the men are provided for under the terms of their contract they should for the time being be exempt from insurance while the contract lasts, or that as an alternative sickness benefit should be paid to the farmer who loses the services of the man while he is ill although he is bound to continue to pay wages, instead of to the man who loses no remuneration by being ill.
Special provision has been made in Section 47 of the principal Act to meet these cases. This section provides that, in the case of a person engaged for not less than six months certain, where the employer is liable to pay full remuneration for any period of disease or disablement lasting not more than six weeks, the rate of contribution is reduced from 7d. to 5d., the employer's share being 2d. and the man's share 3d. There is no reason why all employers of "confined men" should not take advantage of this section. They

1899
are not incurring any additional liability which is not already imposed upon them by their contract with the men. It is true that there will be a small residuum of cases of sickness lasting more than six weeks, but if the sickness benefit was then paid by the employer he would really be better off than he was prior to the Act; and in any case it must be remembered that the cash wages paid to these "confined men" are small, and prolonged sickness is certain to bring with it the need for extra nourishment which the farmer could not be called upon to provide under the provisions of his contract. The alternative suggestion that these "confined men" should be exempted from insurance altogether cannot be accepted. It would deprive the men of all the other benefits of the Act, and would penalise them whenever they ceased to be employed under these conditions and wished to enter insurance.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Do the Government intend to propose any amending clause?
LORD STRACHIE: No.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then the result is this, that when one of these men is sick he is paid double insurance. He is paid his wages because the farmer is held by his contract, and at the same time he receives the insurance benefit under the Act, and thereby, as the noble Lord has said, when he is sick he is better off than when he is well.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Three o'clock.