Sitting of 14 August 1913

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

WOMEN FRANCHISE.
Petitions in favour of the extension of the franchise to women were presented by:

Mr. Wedgwood, from Chester, Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, and other places.

Mr. Agg-Gardner, from Dulwich, Clapham, and other places.

Mr. Hodge, from Preston, Liverpool, and other places.

Mr. King, from Sutton, Kennington, Southwark, Islington, Battersea, Walthamstow, and other places.

Mr. Stephen Gwynn, from Dublin, Limerick, Sligo, and other places.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5180 to 5183 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 296]
NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

FORESHORES.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 14th August, 1913, directing the application of Moneys received by the
2620
Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1913, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 12th August, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance (Joint Committee), entitled the National Health Insurance (Rate of Interest on Sums in Investment Account) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 297.]
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 13th August, 1913. made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 4) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 298.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for Grants for Medical Treatment of Children attending Public Elementary Schools during the year ending 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations dealing with Grants and Loans in aid of Museums, Educational Exhibitions, and Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Abstracts of Accounts of Secondary Schools on the Grant List in England, 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
Copies presented of Seven Orders in Council, dated 12th August, 1913, constituting Winter Assize Counties Nos. 1 to 7, for the purpose of the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Scheme for the improvement of Live Stock [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES AND QUARRIES (ACCIDENT AT RUFFORD COLLIERY (NOTTS).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by W. Walker, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, on the causes and circumstances of an Accident which occurred in a Sinking Shaft at Rufford Colliery, Nottingham-shire, on 7th Feburary, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (ACCIDENTS IN SHIPBUILDING YARDS).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by H. M. Robinson, His Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, and H. J. Wilson, His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, Glasgow, on Accidents occurring in Shipbuilding Yards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ALIENS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Return of the Alien Passenger Traffic between the United Kingdom and Ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea during the three months ending 30th June, 1913, together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Return of Orders made by Local Authorities under The Shops Act, 1912, during the twelve months ended 30th April, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPHIC COMPANY (PATENTS).
Return ordered, "of patents in respect of which Royalties will be payable under the contract, with the Marconi Wireless Telegraphic Company; the dates when such patents were granted; the areas in respect of which they run; and the dates when they expire in the ordinary course." —[Mr. Frederick Hall (Dulwich)]
BURGHS (AREAS AND RATES) (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered, "showing for the year 1911–12 with respect to each Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burgh in Scotland the area in acres of the burgh, and of the agricultural lands and heritages therein, as defined by the Agricultural Rates, etc., (Scotland) Act, 1896; the total amount of rates collected within the burgh; and the amount of rates collected in respect of such agricultural lands and heritages."— [Mr. Charles Price.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,
Bishoprics of Sheffield, Chelmsford, and for the County of Suffolk Bill,
Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill,
Telegraph (Money) Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill,
Finance Bill,
Hatfield (Yorks, West Riding) Calvinistic Chapel Charity Bill,
Great Haywood and Tompkin Congregational Chapels Charity Bill,
Hulme Trust Estates Charity Bill,
Kingswood Chapel Charity Bill,
Padiham Horeb Union Church Charity Bill,
Roe Street (Macclesfield) Congregational Chapel Charity Bill,
Wibsey (Bradford) Independent
Chapel Charity Bill,
Preston, Southport, and Gatley Chapels Scheme Confirmation Bill,
Bosden Wesleyan Trust Property Charity Scheme Confirmation Bill,
Bournemouth Hospitals Scheme Confirmation Bill,
Alfriston Chapel Charity Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords],
City and South London Railway Bill [Lords],
Morley Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 21) Bill and Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8, Kingstown) Bill.
That they concur in the Resolutions of the Commons with regard to the said Bills communicated to them respectively on Tuesday last and yesterday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Trans-Persian Railroad.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether His Majesty's Government have in any way committed themselves to the project of a Trans-Persian railroad; and whether he can give an assurance to the House that the Government will not during the Recess take any step committing themselves to such a project?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The commitment of His Majesty's Government remains that of September, 1912, which is given in No. 341 of the Persian Blue Book No. 1, 1913. The option there contemplated may be applied for at any time, but the conditions as to construction beyond the northern part of Persia, which cannot in the ease of this particular railway take place without the consent of His Majesty's Government, will require very careful consideration before His Majesty's Government take any further commitment. I cannot give assurances to suspend during the Recess decisions on points that do not constitutionally require the consent of Parliament. It is, however, a matter of no importance in this case as the conditions necessary to any further commitment would need inquiry on the spot after the option was obtained, and it is impossible that the consideration of them should be completed before Parliament reassembles.
  Mr. DILLON: Do I understand that as a matter of fact no further commitment will be entered into before Parliament meets and has an opportunity of considering the policy?
  Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Member asks me for an assurance on a point of Executive action like that, I cannot give an assurance in that form, but the facts of the case are these: We are committed to apply for an option under the condition that the construction of any part of that railway beyond the Northern part of Persia shall not be proceeded with except with our consent: The conditions which we shall have to consider before our consent is given, owing to the necessity for inquiry on the spot, are such that it will be impossible for us to come to a decision on the point before Parliament meets again.
  Mr. DILLON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind, this being a question involving high considerations of policy, that the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion?
  Sir E. GREY: If assurances are given on one point of Executive action, it leads to assurances being asked for on other points, but in this case, as a matter of fact, we shall not be able to take action before Parliament meets again.

  China.
  Sir JOHN M'CALLUMasked if the Chinese Government is under treaty obligation to permit its subjects to buy any noxious drug other than opium, for instance, morphia or cocaine; and is it free to forbid the importation of opium from every other country except our own, and does it exercise such freedom to prohibit such importation?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the second part of the question, China is free to prohibit the importation of opium from most foreign countries, including Persia and Turkey, but the provisions of the additional article of the Chefoo Convention apply to opium imported from Macao, and there is some doubt as regards Kiaochau.
  Sir J. M'CALLUMasked whether the Chinese Government has, by means of the most drastic measures, largely succeeded in stamping out the production of opium by its own subjects; have such means involved the loss of hundreds of its subjects' lives, the immediate sacrifice of considerable national and provincial revenue, and enormous financial losses to its own

  2625
  subjects; and, if so, will His Majesty's Government take measures at once to free China from the further infliction of a traffic thrice declared by this House to be morally indefensible?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part of the question His Majesty's Government have no other information than what, was contained in the recent White Paper, No. 2, China. As regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the announcements which His Majesty's Government have already made on the subject of the opium question and the progressive steps that have been taken by them.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long this country intends to occupy a privileged position with regard to profits on Chinese vice?
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Are we to take it that His Majesty's Government have decided not to release them from the obligation to take any further Indian opium?
  Sir E. GREY: With regard to the first supplementary question it contains an assumption which I do not consider well founded, and with regard to the second there is a question on the Paper on that point.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked whether during the past winter in several provinces in China, notably Fukien, there were local rebellions by opium farmers against the central Chinese Government's anti-opium edicts; that such rebellions had to be quelled by armed force, and that many hundreds, probably thousands, of lives were lost; and has he any information that these local rebellions have greatly aggravated the difficulties of the central Government of China and have helped to bring about the civil war now in progress there?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have no other information than that contained in the reports from His Majesty's Legation at Peking which were recently laid on the Table. There is no reason to suppose that there is any connection between the anti-opium edicts and the civil war.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked whether His Majesty's Government has
  2626
  received from the Chinese Government a request to be released from the obligation to purchase any further Indian opium; if so, when was that request received; whether such request was accompanied by an offer by China to pay the freight to some other country of the stocks of Indian opium now awaiting entrance to China in the treaty ports; and what was the answer of His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The reply is in the affirmative. The Chinese Government's proposal was made in June. His Majesty's Government have not yet sent a reply to the Chinese Government, but we cannot undertake to agree to the proposal except as regards provinces where production of native opium has ceased.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: How long is this country to labour under the imputation of imposing this evil on China?
  Sir E. GREY: We promised China that pari passu with the restriction of the production of opium in China our exports of opium to China would cease.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked if the opium shops in the Chinese-governed city of Shanghai are all closed; if so, does this closing cause loss of revenue to the Chinese authorities; has the number of opium shops in the foreign settlement of Shanghai lately increased, and how many such opium shops are now open there; is the municipal authority of the Shanghai foreign settlement mainly British; and will His Majesty's Government induce it to follow the example of the Chinese city and suppress the retail sale of opium there?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information as regards the first three parts of the question, but I am aware that a Proclamation was issued at Shanghai last winter by the Chinese Civil Administrator, ordering all opium shops to be closed by 31st December last. The Shanghai Municipal Council is an independent international body, over which His Majesty's Government have no control, though I believe the majority of the members are British subjects.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Have the Government no means whatever of influencing the Shanghai Municipal Council?
  Sir E. GREY: We cannot control that body.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the municipal authority or from the residents in the foreign settlement of Shanghai, asking for the annexation of a further portion of Chinese territory to the foreign settlement there; if so, whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any action in response to such request; and, if so, what action?
  Sir E. GREY: The proposed extension of the international settlement at Shanghai is a matter which has been under the notice of His Majesty's Government for several years past, but no recent communication has been received from the Municipality on the subject. His Majesty's Government have always been prepared, as they still are, to support any reasonable scheme of extension which may be initiated by the Consular body at Shanghai and receive the approval of the Diplomatic Representatives at Peking.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Are we to understand that the Chinese Government is included amongst the foreign diplomatic representatives?
  Sir E. GREY: Of course the Chinese Government is not included among the foreign diplomatic representatives at Pekin. This is a question which has to be discussed between those representatives and the Chinese Government.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the outskirts of Shanghai Municipality there are a number of gambling places which are a source of considerable trouble owing to people who are wanted by the police escaping over the border?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot answer in detail, but I am aware there has been a desire expressed for an extension of international settlement.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the public opinion in China against the continuance of our compulsion upon her to take our Indian opium; that such compulsion is a continual source of friction and difficulty with the Chinese officials; and whether be can now see his Way to terminating such compulsion at once?
  Sir E. GREY: The compulsion to which the hon. Member refers is the obligation of China to carry out the agreement,
  2628
  freely entered into by her Government, and, as has already been stated, His Majesty's Government see no justification for releasing her from that obligation except as regards provinces where production of native opium has ceased.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Are we to understand that the Government have finally decided, whatever sacrifices are made by China, they will go on compelling that country to take Indian opium for an indefinite period?
  Sir E. GREY: That is not a fair inference to draw from my answer. A fair inference would be that wherever China succeeds in stopping the production of opium in her borders, we on our part withdraw our claim to import Indian opium.

  Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the case of the paper-promoted teachers in Ireland has been under consideration now for months and that it is one which all are agreed should be settled, he can give any assurance that a satisfactory settlement will be reached in the near future?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Commissioners of National Education do not altogether agree with the views put forward on behalf of the teachers as to the financial effect of the extension of the limits at present fixed for each grade. They have, however, now submitted proposals for a substantial extension of those limits on the distinct understanding that in the event of such extensions being sanctioned no promotions will in future be made beyond the authorised numbers in each grade. These proposals I have recommended to the Treasury for their favourable consideration.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the proposals, and when may a reply be expected?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am doing my best to press this matter on the Treasury, and I hope a reply will be given shortly. I will certainly publish it.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland applied to the Treasury for funds to enable them to give a third year's training in one of the Irish universities to

  2629
  specially distinguished training students; what is the estimated cost; and what answer have the Treasury given?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that arrangements have been made, with the sanction of the Treasury, under which a third year's course of training has been available for certain teachers and King's scholars of superior promise. This does not involve any increased expenditure from public funds. In the case of one of the training colleges where it was proposed that the third-year students should attend a course of lectures in a university, the Treasury were asked to sanction payment of an extra Grant for each third-year student attending a university, but they were unable to sanction this proposal.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what steps have been taken to frame a scheme for the medical inspection and treatment of children in Irish national schools; and whether schemes of this kind have been for years in operation in England and Scotland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have invited the managers of the national schools to submit schemes for the dental inspection and treatment of the pupils, and approved schemes are in operation in a considerable number of schools. The Commissioners have not up to the present adopted any scheme for general medical inspection and treatment. I understand that such schemes have been in operation in England and Scotland for some time.

  Tralee and Dingle Mail Service.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the proposed reduction of the mail service from Tralee to Dingle; whether, seeing that the alteration would be ruinous to trade, and more especially to fishing on which the whole district relies, he will take steps to prevent this step in the interest of a congested district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has not been called to this matter, but inquiry is now being made.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked whether Mrs. Agnes McDonnell and Mrs. Pike have yet lodged with the Congested Districts Board maps and other necessary documents,
  2630
  with a view to sales through the Board of their estates in Achill, county Mayo?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The maps and other documents in connection with the estate of Mrs. Agnes McDonnell have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board, but those relating to the estate of Mrs. Pike have not yet been lodged.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the trustees of the Achill Mission have yet complied with the request of the Congested Districts Board to lodge the outstanding maps of their estate in Achill, county Mayo, or have they refused to do so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The outstanding maps have not yet been lodged with the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. DORISasked when the Congested Districts Board intend to distribute the Killery farm (late Lucan estate), county Mayo, amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board cannot definitely state when the Killery farm will be divided, but the matter will be dealt with as soon as possible.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the property of Lord Avonmore (in Chancery), situate at Killavalla, county Mayo, has yet been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, having regard to the poverty and congestion on this estate, whether the Board will apply to the Lord Chancellor to facilitate proceedings for the acquisition of the property by the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are in communication with the agent of this property, who has informed them that the maps and documents necessary for a preliminary inspection of the estate with a view to purchase are being prepared for lodgment with the Board.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued an offer for the estate of Mr. F. C. Garvey, Murrisk Abbey; and, if not, when they intend to do so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have decided to make an offer for the purchase of this estate, and it will be issued as soon as practicable.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether the Congested Districts Board have purchased the estate of Mr. B. P. Persse, Boyhill, Athenry; and, if so, when it is proposed to prepare a scheme for the allotment of the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have decided to make an offer for the purchase of the estate referred to, and it will be issued as soon as practicable.
  Mr. DUFFY: When will it be practicable?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. F. S. Taylor. Castle Lambert, Athenry, offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners about 300 acres of land out of his estate at Castle Lambert; can he state if the lands were inspected; was an offer for purchase made; and, seeing that Mr. Taylor is willing to sell as much land as will benefit a number of small holders of land in the district, will be again bring the matter to the notice of the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The lands arc situate in a congested districts county and the Estates Commissioners informed the owner that, in their opinion, if the lands were to be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, they should be sold to the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in the locality have requested the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners to take over this land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no doubt that the tenants are interested in getting the lands purchased, and I hope they will be acquired by the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. DUFFYasked if the Congested Districts Board received a resolution from the Loughrea Rural District Council asking the Board, in the interest of the small farmers in the district of Castle Lambert, Athenry, to arrange, as between the Estates Commissioners and themselves, for the acquirement of 300 acres of land offered for sale by Mr. F. S. Taylor, Castle Lambert, Athenry; and if any steps have been taken to give effect to the representation made by the people of Athenry and the Loughrea Rural District Council?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received a copy of the resolution, but they could not purchase the lands for the purpose of distribution amongst the persons to whom the lands are proposed to be given as these persons are not landholders.
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether the purchase of the John Sands estate, of which Mr. Denny, of Tralee;, is the receiver, has yet been completed; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are not now negotiating for the purchase of this estate. They have agreed to give their consent to a direct sale to the tenants under Section 58 of the Irish Land Act of 1909.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Have the negotiations stopped because the landlord and the receiver are anxious to sell to the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. I will inquire.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the result of the negotiations between the Congested Districts Board and Mr. P. D. Griffin, Cork, for the purchase of 100 acres of untenanted lands situate at Caharden, near Bally-bunion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are not at present in a position to reply to this question. Further inquiries are now being made.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Have any communications passed between the Board and Mr. Griffin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot tell.
  Mr. FLAVINasked when Mrs. Glazier, an evicted tenant on the Palmer estate, at Banemore, will be reinstated in her holding, which has been acquired by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The Estates Commissioners have not acquired the holding referred to. The estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings between the owner and the tenants, and the Commissioners have informed the owner of the price they would be prepared to advance if an agreement is entered into between the owner and the former tenant, but up to the present no agreement has been lodged.
  Mr. FLAVIN: The right hon. Gentleman must be told by the Estates Commissioners. They have acquired an evicted farm compulsorily, and, knowing the exorbitant price fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, the Estates Commissioners will not take security for the money.
  Mr. FLAVINasked why the Congested Districts Board have not taken some practical steps to acquire the tenanted and untenanted lands of Mr. Eyre Stack situate at Ballyconnory and Meyvoo, North Kerry, which proposed sale is now pending for over five years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 6th May last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. FLAVINasked what further steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to purchase the Studdert estate, situate at Ballyyouneen, Liselton; and whether writs have been served on the tenants to pay rents which are impossible owing to the poor condition of their lands and the extensive flooding of the same?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are in communication with the owner, but so far the maps and documents necessary for a preliminary inspection of the estate with a view to purchase have not been lodged. The Board have no information in reference to the writs stated to have been served on the tenants.
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether the agricultural tenants on the estate of Viscount Gough, Gort, have signed agreements to purchase their holdings; whether an understanding was arrived at as between Viscount Gough, the Estates Commissioners, and the town tenants of Gort, on Viscount Gough's estate, that an inspection would be made of the town section of the property immediately after the agricultural tenants had signed their agreements; and what action the Estates Commissioners propose to take to carry out the agreement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have had an inspection made of this property and have made a proposal to purchase the agricultural holdings, and the owner has been requested to lodge undertakings signed by the tenants to purchase at the prices fixed by the Commissioners. As regards the premises in the town of Gort, which are subject to rents payable to Lord Gough, they are, in many cases,
  2634
  held under Fee Farm Grants and long leases, and in a number of cases sublet to monthly, weekly, and other tenants, and do not, in the opinion of the Commissioners, afford security for advances under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. DUFFY: Seeing that in the first instance all the tenants upon this estate consented to buy from the landlord on the distinct understanding that the town section of the property would be included in the general sale, and seeing that the House is about to adjourn and that I shall have no other opportunity of referring no the matter for some time, will not the right hon Gentleman interpose with the Estates Commissioners and get them to make an offer to try to include the town section of the property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir; I am anxious that the town of Gort should, if possible, be enabled to purchase in that way, but the Commissioners are of opinion that Gort does not afford sufficient security for the advance. The matter is still receiving consideration.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he will state what steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to prosecute the appeal in regard to the judgment delivered in the Clanricarde estate; is he aware that a considerable number of evicted tenants on this estate, evicted under the Plan of Campaign, are still on the roadside; and can any hope be held out of restoring them to their former holdings or providing them with other holdings in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have taken steps to have the appeal heard at the earliest possible date next term. Sixty-two of the evicted tenants have been provided with new holdings by the Estates Commissioners and the names of forty-four others have been provisionally noted for consideration in the distribution of such additional untenanted land as they may acquire for distribution on the estates.
  Mr. DUFFY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "next term"?
  Mr. BIRRELL: November.
  Mr. DUFFY:Will the trial come on in November?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly.
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners on the application of P. J. O'Leary, Gortnagoum, Kenmare estate, county Kerry, who was evicted from his holding thirteen years ago; whether they will refuse to sanction the sale to Denis Cahill, who has been permitted to sign a purchase agreement for the farm from which Mr. O'Leary was evicted; and, if the landlord refuses to reinstate Mr. O'Leary, whether they will refuse to pay the purchase money till his case is dealt with?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The holding formerly occupied by P. J. O'Leary is in the possession of his brother-in-law, who has, as tenant, signed an agreement to purchase the holding in connection with the sale of this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Estates Commissioners are not prepared to take any action in the matter of O'Leary's application for reinstatement. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked whether an inspector from the Estates Commissioners visited Kilmurry, Castleisland, county Kerry, for the purpose of taking steps to arrange for the reinstatement of Mr. Walsh, an evicted tenant; and, if so, whether he has been able to effect a settlement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The inspector visited the Mahony estate in connection with the allotment of the turbary, and when there the question of the reinstatement of Walsh was discussed, but the Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to make any statement in the matter.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Seeing that this matter is causing considerable trouble in the county, will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Estates Commissioners and make another attempt to secure a settlement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. The Commissioners are fully alive to the importance of the matter, which, as the hon. Member knows, is a very difficult one, but I will draw their attention to it again.
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of Daniel Myers, of Barley-mount, on the Ventry estate, Killarney; and whether steps will be immediately taken to have him reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inquired into Daniel Myers' application for reinstatement, and have decided not to take any action in the matter.
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked what steps have been taken to reinstate Mr. Timothy Brosnahan, of Inchicurrigane, on the Busteed estate, county Kerry, in the holding from which he was evicted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The holding formerly occupied by Timothy Brosnahan's mother is now in the possession of another tenant, and the Estates Commissioners cannot take any action in the matter of his application for reinstatement.

  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the cause of the delay in requiring a second language from students entering Irish training colleges; and whether, seeing that the Commissioners promised to have this rule in operation for the year 1911, he will take steps to have the matter dealt with immediately and the rule enforced next year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, proposals have been made by the Commissioners of National Education in favour of the payment of fees for instruction where Irish is not taken up in national schools in French, Latin, or German. These proposals have been considered by the Treasury, who have not seen their way to give effect to them. The Commissioners, in view of this decision, do not consider it desirable at present to prescribe as a condition for entrance to a training college the knowledge of a second language.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it not a fact that nearly three years ago the Commissioners made an announcement that they would require the Irish language to be learned by these students?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I believe that is so, and I am anxious that that knowledge should be insisted upon.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: In order to teach the Irish language properly is it not necessary that students in training should get proper facilities during their two years to learn the language, so that they may teach it properly?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no doubt that anybody who has experienced the difficulty of learning any language would recognise the truth of that statement.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Treasury to get the Irish language taught to these students
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir. I am engaged in that enterprise.

  Veterinary Dispensaries (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received a resolution from the Tralee Rural District Council requesting him to establish veterinary dispensaries in Castleisland, Knocknagoshal, Brosna, and Kingwilliamstown, and also to appoint a veterinary surgeon who will reside in the district and attend to them; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The resolution referred to has been received by the Department. Of the four places at which the Tralee Rural District Council desired veterinary dispensaries to be established, two, namely, Knocknagoshal and Castleisland, are already provided with these dispensaries. The dispensary at Knocknagoshal is sufficiently near Brosna to be availed of by farmers from the latter place, and similarly the Castleisland and Rathmore dispensaries are within reach of farmers living in the neighbourhood of Kingwilliamstown. The Department do not propose at present to alter these arrangements, which have been settled after full consideration.

  Rhodesia.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office is aware that the Liebig Company, to which the British South Africa Company has assigned 1,200,000 acres of land in Rhodesia at per acre, prohibits the public from entrance into this area and prevents the natives from selling cattle to any other buyer than the Licbig Company, whose agents fix their own prices for such sale and have warned cattle traders and natives alike that the company would not permit them to buy or sell cattle on this land, and have prohibited the removel of cattle when bought by cattle traders from the natives, there being no proclaimed roads through the land so transferred by the British South Africa Company to the Liebig Company; whether the Colonial Office is aware that the Native Commissioner at Gavanda, Mr. H. A. Elliott, is himself interested in mining
  2638
  transport and cattle dealing and carries on these businesses in his wife's name, and is charged with neglect of the interests of the natives and collusion with De Loessa, the manager of the Liebig Company; and what steps, if any, does the Colonial Office intend to take for the protection of natives and whites alike against the combined efforts of the British South Africa Company and the Liebig Company to ruin freedom of contract and establish a monopoly in this area?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir, I have no information to the effect of the question, and I am not prepared to accept charges of this kind against officials, unless they are supported by definite evidence. I may add that the reference to "this area" appears to imply some misaprehension. The 1,200,000 acres do not constitute one area, but lie in scattered blocks.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Lie in scattered blocks which are the very best lands in Rhodesia.

  British South Africa Company.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the incursion into the South African Republic of an armed force was likewise appointed to inquire into the administration of the British South Africa Company and to report thereon, and further to report what. alterations are desirable in the government of the territories under the control of the company; whether he is aware that the Select Committee in their Report, dated 13th July, 1897, stated that the part of the inquiry relating to the administration of the British South Africa Company would require a lengthened investigation with which it would be impossible to deal at that period of the Session; whether any inquiry was held into the administration of the British South Africa Company by any Select Committee of the House, and, if so, when; and was any Report of such Committee presented to the House, and, if so, when; and whether it is proposed, having regard to the provision in the charter reserving to the Crown the right and power under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom at the end of twenty-five years, the date of the charter,

  2639
  29th October, 1889, to add to or repeal any of the provisions of the charter or to insert other provisions in substitution for or in addition to its other provisions so far as relates to public and administrative purposes and the charges preferred from time to time against the methods of administration of this company, that inquiry into its administration will be instituted with such expedition as to enable a Report to be furnished to Parliament before the 29th October, 1914, the time of the completion of twenty-five years from the date of the granting of the charter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No further Select Committee was appointed and the question of alterations in the administration was dealt with by the Government, whose proposals were laid before Parliament in February, 1898, and received legislative shape in the Southern Rhodesia Order in Council of 20th October, 1898. With regard to the concluding part of the question, steps are being taken largely to increase the number of elected members, and with what is substantially a general election impending in Southern Rhodesia, His Majesty's Government do not at present contemplate any action such as is suggested.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the second part of the reference to the Raid Committee was never carried into effect, and that from that day to this there has been no Parliamentary inquiry into the administration of this company?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think that is so.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I am very sorry to hear it.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that Sir Leander Starr Jameson has been appointed president of the British South Africa Company in succession to the late Duke of Abercorn, and that, in February, 1892, when Sir Leander Starr Jameson caused their kraals to be burnt and several natives to be shot on the suspicion of their being implicated in the death of an adventurer, named Guerolt, in the Maroe district. the late Lord Loch, as High Commissioner, had to remind him of the importance of observing strictly all legal require
  2640
  ments in the treatment of prisoners, and that no sentence of death can be carried out without the consent of the High Commissioner, the Colonial Office will exercise a still stricter supervision of the relations between the British South Africa Company and the natives of the territories over which that company has control, with a view to their protection from oppression, the security of their property, and the maintenance of their civil rights?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The reference in the first. part of the question is, I understand, to Sir H. Loch's letter, which is printed at page 12 of the Parliamentary Paper 'C. 7171. I would, however, observe that in judging Dr. Jameson's action in the matter it is only fair to consider Sir H. Loch's later letter printed at page 21, in which he disclaimed a desire to interfere with Dr. Jameson's discretion. I do not, however, in any case see the relevance of this correspondence to questions relating to the present position of the natives in Southern Rhodesia, which is regulated by the Order in Council of 1898, and is the subject of constant attention by the Resident Commissioner and High Commissioner for South Africa.

  Labour Exchange (Canning Town).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state when the building for the Labour Exchange for Canning Town, E., will be built?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): This matter is the subject of present negotiation with the Treasury, but I hope to be able to communicate with my hon. Friend on the subject shortly.

  Lighthouse-Keepers (Pay and Allowances).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the President a the Board of Trade what would be the annual cost of the increases of pay and allowances to the lighthouse-keepers in the service of the general lighthouse authorities which were recommended by those authorities to the Board of Trade in April of this year; and whether, in view of the nature of the work of keepers, the additional work which is being put upon them, as, for example, by the introduction of gas-buoys involving work which would otherwise require to be done by trained mechanics, the slight difference in remuneration of assistant keepers and supernumeraries, and the increased cost of

  2641
  living, the Board of Trade will reconsider its decision not to increase the pay of these men and deal at once and generously with such servants?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The cost of the increases recommended by the general lighthouse authorities would be about £2,600 per annum. In coming to their decision the Board of Trade gave consideration to the increased cost of living and other circumstances of the case, as well as to the increase of the wages of these men in 1909.
  Mr. HOGGE: If this only involves less than £3,000, seeing the nature of the work of these men, will not the Board of Trade reconsider the decision?
  Mr. BUXTON: Although the amount involved is under £3,000, the number of men involved is very small. The matter was very carefully considered. I do not say it is a final decision for all time.

  Sight Tests (Mercantile Marine).
  Mr. WALTER REAasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the form vision standard for officers in the mercantile marine?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have considered very carefully the representations which have been made to me with regard to the form vision standard which it was proposed to bring into force next year. That standard required a candidate to have normal vision in one eye and half-normal vision in the other. I have decided to make a substantial modification in this standard by omitting the requirement for the weaker eye and by making the standard normal vision only. To reach this standard a candidate will be allowed, at his own option, to use either both eyes together or either eye separately.

  Railway Rates (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the feeling of the traders and others in all parts of Ireland against the proposed increase in freight charges for merchandise and otherwise; will he state the net increased wages paid to railway men in
  2642
  Ireland and the net increased revenue received by the railway companies under the additional charges for week-end and excursion tickets; and will he say whether, in view of the opinion of the Irish people, his Department has taken any action in connection with the proposed increase in the traffic rates?
  Mr. BUXTON: As regards the general position I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast on the 7th August, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I am not in a position to furnish the figures asked for.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: During the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the dislocation of through traffic from Ireland to Great Britain, and compel the railway companies to fall back upon the former practice of through traffic?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I have no such power as that. The matter would be taken into account by the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the nominal increase in the wages paid by the railways in Ireland to their servants under the agreement of last year, and is he aware that the increased charges made by Irish railways for excursion and week-end tickets is much more than the increases which the servants of the companies have received?
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend is aware that so far as the Act of last year is concerned it allowed the railway companies to increase their rates where they increased the wages of their servants. Ireland was excluded from that Act in consequence of the action of the Irish railways, therefore that point does not arise in connection with this matter.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many important towns in Ireland railway porters and servants are doing heavy laborious and continuous work for 8s., 9s., and 10s. a week?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of that. It is not affected by this, because of the fact that the Act of last year does not apply to Ireland. That was done with the assent of hon. Members coining from Ireland as well as the House generally.

  Ancient Charitable Trusts.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that certain proposals for the better application and uses of ancient charitable trusts are obliged by Statute to be presented to Parliament as public Bills, and when put forward in this way by the Charity Commissioner have only the chances of private Members' Bills; that in consequence such Bills are blocked not on their merits but from purely party or personal reasons; and that certain trust funds are at present prevented from being applied to any useful purpose at all; and whether, next Session, he will, by legislation or otherwise, initiate some new method by which ancient benefactions may with less expense and delay be devoted to ends consonant with the wishes of their founders and the interests of the people concerned?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith):I will consider whether some better method than the existing one can be devised of dealing with Bills proposed by the Charity Commissioner.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman look over the speech delivered yesterday—a short and pithy one—by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Allen), who referred to this matter in Debate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

  Home Rule (Scotland).
  46. Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the various associations formed for the purpose of advocating the cause of Home Rule for Scotland intend carrying on active propaganda work during the Recess; and whether, in anticipation of the more serious consideration of the subject next Session and the possibility of the consummation of this reform without resort to the provisions of the Parliament Act, he will set up, without unnecessary delay, a Committee to consider the financial relations of England and Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated on 28th July, I am not prepared at present to promise to appoint such a Committee.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: If it is intended to grant Home Rule to Ireland and Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending it to England on the lines suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider all relevant facts.
  Mr. F. HALL: Under these circumstances will England be left out in the cold to be governed by Ireland and Scotland?
  Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, as a further instalment of the policy of devolution and in view of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law next year, he proposes to introduce early next Session a Bill for the better government of Scotland on similar lines?
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake to give facilities for a Bill in the next Session to deal with disinterested management in public-houses in Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can make no statement on these subjects as regards next Session.
  Mr. HOGGE: If the Prime Minister does not do so will he not cause great disappointment among his own colleagues in the Cabinet both in this House and the other House, who have expressed their desire and willingness to see a Bill introduced next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All I say is that. I cannot at present make a statement.

  Public Rights of Way Bill.
  Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the amount of support which public bodies throughout the country have given to the Public Rights of Way Bill, which has in several Sessions received a Second Reading in the House of Commons, and has now been passed by the House of Lords, he will take steps to secure the passage of this non-contentious measure through its remaining stages in this House before the prorogation of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER:Inquiry showed that this is not an uncontentious measure; and having regard to the period at which it was introduced into the House and the opposition it aroused, I regret that it has not been possible to proceed further with it this Session.
  Mr. COWAN: Considering that the Bill is starred in the last days of the Session, thereby indicating that the Government approve of it, and considering its great

  2645
  public utility, will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing it as a Government measure next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I will take that into consideration.

  New Admiralty Buildings.
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether a mistake occurred in selecting the designs for the new Admiralty buildings, so that the said buildings were selected from designs which it had not been intended to choose for the purpose
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner has no knowledge of any such mistake.

  House of Commons (Government Whips— Telephone).
  Mr. GIBBSasked whether a telephone has been installed in the cloister,close to the entrance to the Speaker's Yard; and, if so, for what purpose it has been installed there?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: A telephone has been installed for the use of the Government Whips.
  Mr. F. HALL: Was it placed there at the public expense or at the hon. Gentleman's own private expense?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: All the telephones in this building are placed here at the public expense at the request of any Department which requires them.
  Mr. KING: Will the Opposition Whips be allowed occasionally to use it?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Yes.

  Banagher, King's County (Postmastership).
  Mr. REDDYasked the Postmaster-General whether the vacancy which exists at Banagher, King's County, for postmaster has yet been filled up; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The appointment to this vacancy was made some weeks ago and the officer selected is now in charge of the sub-office.

  Manchester and Salford Post Offices.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Postmaster-General whether he has
  2646
  now been able to consider further the question of the extra work imposed upon the Manchester and Salford Post Office officials in virtue of the National Insurance Act; and whether he will take steps to see that adequate remuneration is paid for such extra work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies given in this House on the 28th of July as regards scale payment sub-postmasters, and on the 6th of January last as regards other officers?
  Mr. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to carry the matter any further? I understood it was to be considered further.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I am not in a position to say more.
  Mr. CLYNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received and considered any representations from the officials referred to in the question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, representations have been received from time to time.

  Motor Cars.
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the. Local Government Board whether he is aware of the extent to which the orders prohibiting the use of cut-outs are disregarded by the motoring and motor-cycling public; and, having regard to the contravention of regulations issued by him, whether he will take steps to ensure obedience to the regulations?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have received a few complaints that the regulation referred to is being disregarded. As I have stated in answer to a previous question, the enforcement of the regulation rests with the police authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, has addressed a circular to them on the subject.
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the number and variety of different sounds emitted by warning instruments on motor vehicles in London is constantly increasing; and whether he can yet hold out hopes of such regulations as will ensure greater uniformity of sound?
  Mr. BURNS: I am afraid at the present moment I cannot do more than refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to a somewhat similar question on 27th May last, but he may rest assured that I shall be happy to do anything I can to lessen the amount of needless noise caused by motor ears.
  Captain MURRAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider it necessary to the safety of the public that these noises should be reintroduced in London?
  Mr. BURNS: No, I do not think such noises are either essential for the public or the people who ride in motor cars, and if it had been possible by regulation, without legislation, to deal with it I should have done so; but I am looking forward to a favourable opportunity of considering and perhaps acting in the matter.

  Poor Law Officers.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that largely the indoor subordinate staff of Poor Law union institutions are on duty for seventy-five to eighty hours per week of seven days; that the National Association of Poor Law Officers have compiled a Return which affords; particulars and ample proof of this; and whether he is prepared to issue an instructianal letter to the boards of guardians of England and Wales on the subject, recommending that their indoor subordinate staff should not be employed for more than sixty hours per week of seven days?
  Mr. BURNS: I have not yet received from the association a copy of the Return referred to, and at the present moment I could hardly say what course I could adopt in regard to it.

  Census of Production.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked (1) what are now the five largest industries or occupations in the United Kingdom and Great Britain, respectively, in order of the numerical strength of the persons employed therein, as shown by the Census of 1911; and (2) what is the number, according to the Census of 1911, of agricultural workers in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively; and how such number compares with that shown by the Census of 1901?
  Mr. BURNS: Detailed statistics of the occupations of the people and of the industries with which workers are connected arc in course of preparation. Until they are complete no comparisons are possible between various parts of the United Kingdom. The Registrar-General informs me that the figures at present available show that in England and Wales the occupational classes in order of the numerical strength of the persons employed therein in 1911 were—

  1. Domestic offices or services.

  2. Workers and dealers in metals, machines, implements and conveyances.

  3. Conveyance of men, goods, and messages.

  4. Workers and dealers in food, tobacco, and drink, and persons engaged in providing board and lodging.

  5. Workers and dealers in textile fabrics.

  6. Persons engaged in agriculture.

  7. Workers and dealers in dress.

  8. Workers and dealers in the products of mines and quarries.

  The Census Returns show some increase in the number of agricultural workers in England and Wales, but the precise figures are not yet available.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT (REFUND).
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked whether, in the cases where an employer shuts down his works in order to give a holiday to his workmen, he will lose the benefit of the refund provided by Section 94 cf the National Insurance Act, 1911, in respect of continuous employment of a workman?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Under the terms of Section 94, a refund to an employer can only be made in respect of any workman who has been continuously in his service throughout the prescribed period of twelve months ending 14th July. As regards the meaning of the term "continuity of service," the Board of Trade propose in general, and subject to the consideration of exceptional circumstances in particular cases, to act on the principle that continuity of service for the purposes of Section 94 is not broken by the recognised annual holidays of the trade or of the employer's business, but that it is broken if for reasons of production—e.g., slackness of trade—the employer extends such holidays

    2649
    beyond the usual limit or if for similar reasons he gives special holidays without wages or "stands down" individual workmen.

    POOR LAW MEDICAL SERVICE (TREASURY GRANTS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked (1) the average annual amount of the Grants paid by the Treasury towards the cost of the Poor Law medical service in England and Wales in the ten years preceding the operation of the National Insurance Act; if those Grants continue in addition to the National Insurance Act, will he state the present annual amount of them for England and Wales; and (2) the average annual amount paid by the Treasury towards the cost of the Poor Law medical service in England and Wales before the National Insurance Act came into operation and since, respectively; and will he state the grounds upon which the additional 2s. 6d. per insured person, since voted and now being paid to doctors in Great Britain, is not also being paid towards the better working of the Act in Ireland?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Such Exchequer assistance as is given in England and Wales towards the cost of the Poor Law medical service forms part of the general subventions for Poor Law services, and cannot be specifically earmarked. As regards the latter part of the second question, I cannot add anything to my previous answers on the subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the Treasury extend to Ireland the 2s. 6d. per insured person added to the previous cost of insurance in England and Wales?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: I cannot say anything but what I have said already, but the Report on the whole question of medical benefit in Ireland is either out or immediately to be published. Perhaps the hon. Member will study it.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a public call office has been in existence at a shop in Lincoln's Inn Gate, Carey Street, for the last three or four years under the National Telephone Company, and has been largely used by the public; and, if so, whether he will explain the refusal of the Post Office to continue this public call office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The agreement in respect of this call office provides for a commission payment which is much higher than that usually paid by the National Telephone Company or by the Post Office to call office keepers; and notice to terminate the agreement has been given for that reason. The intention is not to withdraw public facilities from the locality in question, but to arrange for the continuance on reasonable terms.
  Mr. BARLOW: Will the Postmaster-General state what circumstances have arisen since the Post Office took over the telephones which did not exist before and which require that the previous arrangement should be discontinued?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The National Telephone Company, for reasons known to themselves, occasionally, but very rarely, made payments in excess of the normal scale. The Post Office is not prepared to continue these payments.
  Mr. BECKasked the Postmaster-General whether he can furnish statistics showing the relative efficiency of the London telephone service during the present year as compared with the year 1911, when the service was partly in the hands of the National Telephone Company as well as of the Post Office, as illustrated by the average speed of answering by operators, and also by the number of engaged and no-reply calls and of cut-offs, and the percentage of effective calls?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The following table gives the information required by the hon Member. The percentages were obtained by the special observation of about 50,000 calls in each half-year:—

  January to June.

  1911.

  1913.

  National Telephone Company.

  Post Office.

  Post Office combined System.

  secs.

  secs.

  secs.

  Average speed of answer

  5.8

  5.1

  5.1

  Percentage of total calls.

  "Engaged" calls

  18.6

  18.9

  17.4

  "No-reply" calls

  4.5

  2.9

  4.1

  "Cut-offs"

  .7

  .4

  .6

  Effective calls

  65.9

  68.7

  70.5

  Mr. COWAN: Can the Postmaster-General tell the House how it is that the number of complaints from the public who use the telephones have, during the period under review, considerably increased?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number of complaints during the past twelve months has very largely diminished. There were a great number of complaints in the first few months after the telephone service was taken over owing to dislocation of the service in some of the exchanges, but I am happy to say that the complaints have since fallen in a remarkable degree.
  Mr. F. HALL: Are these figures based on the number of complaints made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; these are the results of observation calls. There are a certain number of officers—clerks in the Department—whose sole duty it is to watch, unknown to the operators, the way in which calls are attended to, and they know how the calls are handled. About 50,000 are watched in each half year, and the figures are based on these observations.

  Wireless Station, Aberdeen.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to make any statement in regard to the proposed wireless station south of Aberdeen?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been necessary to call for fresh tenders for this station. They are to be sent in next week, and I hope that it will be possible to proceed with the erection of the station very soon afterwards.
  Captain MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what locality the wireless station will be erected?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; not without notice.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the station will be erected before or after the next storm?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member can tell me when the next storm will be, I may be able to answer him.

  Petty Sessional Benches.
  Mr. KINGasked the Attorney-General whether Lords Lieutenant have been called upon to secure the retirement of magistrates who, through illness, removal of residence, or other cause, have become ineffective members of their Petty Sessional benches, as recommended
  2652
  by the Royal Commission; whether any magistrates have actually resigned; and, if so, whether the numbers can be stated?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Lords Lieutenant and Advisory Committees have had their attention drawn, by a special memorandum of the Lord Chancellor, to the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to the resignation of justices, Effect has been, and is being, given to these recommendations throughout the country, and, as a consequence, many justices have resigned. To give the exact numbers would involve a large amount of research, and the result would in any case be misleading, as many gentlemen have asked voluntarily to have their names removed from the Commissions, in deference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and without any suggestion from outside.

  School Buildings (Loan Charges).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the disappointment to local education authorities by the failure of Parliament to pass the Education (No. 2) Bill, under which £100,000 would have been distributed in relief of the loan charges for building schools, this sum, which has been voted in the Estimates and included in the Appropriation Bill, can in any way be made available in relief of education rates during the current financial year?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): The money was placed at the Board's disposal conditionally on the passing of the Bill, which was directed to the establishment of a principle and clearing the way for a more substantial increase of relief. I ant not prepared to spend the money in a way which does not give effect to the intention of the Bill.

  Teachers' Pensions.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the old teachers who were pensioned between 1898 and 1912, and previously have not shared in the increase to the teachers' pension that was granted by Parliament in 1912; and that there are old teachers whose salaries were on an average about £300 a year and who are now getting only about one-seventh of that sum as a pension; and whether, seeing that the cost

  2653
  would be trivial, will he consider the desirability of including them in the scheme of 1912 or provide for them in some other way?
  Mr. PEASE: I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich on 15th April last, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

  Boarded-Out Children.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the Thetford (Norfolk) board of guardians' refusal to pay 25s. per head for boarding out poor children educated in Suffolk; whether the West Suffolk Education Committee have intimated that such children will be excluded from their schools after the summer vacation; and what action he intends taking in the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: I am aware that the West Suffolk Education Authority have requested the Thetford (Norfolk) Poor Law Union to contribute under Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, towards such expenses of maintaining the public elementary schools in West Suffolk as are certified by the Board of Education to have been incurred in respect of scholars taught at those schools, who have been boarded out in West Suffolk.
  understand that on the 28th May last the West Suffolk Education Committee resolved to exclude such children from their schools after the end of the summer holidays unless the guardians agreed to make such contribution. I am not aware of any grounds for my intervention. I do not know what arrangements the guardians propose to make for the education of the children in question.

  Elementary Schools (Medical Inspection).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether, in consequence of the Government deciding not to proceed with the Education Bill (No. 2), the Government intend to distribute the £50,000 provided for in the Bill to assist the various local authorities in carrying out their medical inspection of school children; and whether it is the intention of the Government to distribute the £10,000 provided for in the same Bill to the various local education authorities whose rate exceeds 1s. 6d. in the £?
  Mr. PEASE: The £50,000 referred to by the hon. Member was not dependent upon
  2654
  the passage of the Bill, and it will be distributed this year under regulations which I hope may be presented this day. In regard to the £100,000 (not £10,000), it is not possible for me to distribute it in the way suggested.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to distribute the money in precisely the same way as was done by his predecessor, the present Home Secretary?
  Mr. PEASE: I explained in introducing the Bill the reasons which actuated the Government in proposing this £100,000, and I have nothing further to add.

  Small Holders, Lochranza, Arran (Rents).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Land Court intend to issue the fair rents for holdings in the Lochranza district of Arran; and whether there is any means whereby a small holder can obtain a loan, apart from the ordinary channels, for rebuilding such buildings as dwelling-houses on small holdings?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr.. McKinnon Wood): Some of these fair rents are ready for issue; others require further consideration. No prejudice will be suffered by the small holders, as the fair rents when fixed date back to the receipt of the application by the Land Court. At present the funds of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are all required to provide new buildings on new holdings, and the Board can only deal with demands of this description in exceptional cases.
  Mr. HOGGE: Would the Board not consider that old buildings which are absolutely dilapidated are equivalent to the position where new buildings are required?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I do not think they are equivalent. I think new buildings are much more essential in the one case than in the other.

  Eggs for Hatching.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked what were the number of eggs for hatching sold from the egg stations tinder the Board of Agriculture this year; and how many of them required to be replaced as unfertile?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This question did not appear in the Paper till yesterday, and I am sorry it has not been possible to obtain the statistics on such short notice.

  New Prison, Edinburgh.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland the extent of the site for the new prison in Edinburgh; the price paid for it and its present rateable value; and whether he can give any idea of the scheme of the proposed buildings, and the kind of work proposed to be carried out by the prisoners on the new site when it is completed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The site is about 40 acres, but I am not yet in a position to give the other details asked for. I may say, however, that it is in contemplation to utilise part of the land to provide outdoor occupation for prisoners.

  Leith Dock Strike.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked what number of gunboats or other Admiralty craft are now stationed at or near the Port of Leith in connection with the dock strike; whether any Marines or other members of the Army have been landed, and, if so, for what purpose; and what special reason there is for the presence of ships of war in that particular port at present?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There are no ships at Leith. The First Flotilla is at its ordinary base in the Forth, off South Queensferry. With regard to the remaining parts of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the full reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 7th instant.

  Highlands and Islands (Medical Service).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now communicate to the House the names of the Board who are to administer the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The names are as follows:—
  Sir John Dewar, Chairman
  Sir Donald MacAlister, Principal of the University of Glasgow.
  Lady Susan Gilmour, Honorary Secretary of the Queen Victoria Jubilee Institute for Nurses.
  Dr. McVail, of the Scottish Insurance Commission.
  Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, of the Local Government Board.
  Dr. John Macpherson, of the Lunacy Board.
  Mr. J. L. Robertson, Chief Inspector under the Scottish Education Department.

  Alice Broughton (Vitriol Throwing).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to consider the case of Alice Broughton, who, on 18th February, was convicted at the Manchester Assizes and sentenced to three years' penal servitude for throwing vitriol; whether he is aware that she acted under great provocation, as her husband was then, and is said to be still, living with the woman she assaulted; and whether, seeing that she has always borne an excellent character and kept the home together, and brought up the child, he can see his way to reconsider the case with a view to a remission of a portion of the sentence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have considered this case very carefully. The offence was a most serious one, and the judge in passing so lenient a sentence must have taken account of all extenuating circumstances. I regret that I find no ground to justify departure from the decision which I communicated to the hon. Member in April last.
  Mr. BARLOW: Is the Home Secretary aware that on 20th July, 1913, a precisely similar case of a Mrs. Haddon came before the Assize judge at Birmingham, being a case of wounding by shooting, and the judge inflicted only eight days' penalty, which meant that the woman was discharged at once?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is quite possible, but the cases were not at all similar.

  Prisoner Released on Licence (Disappearance).
  Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Johnson, a prisoner released from prison on a seven days' licence, at Heworth Green, on Friday, 1st August; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the rearrest of Johnson and the prosecution of any persons who aided and abetted his flight?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, and the case is having the close attention of the police.

  Piccadilly Flat Case.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary how much money was found in the possession of the woman Queenie Gerald, recently convicted of keeping a brothel; whether this money has been, or will be, returned to her at the end of the period of her imprisonment; how much money was found on the premises of the Women's Social and Political Union on the occasion of the police raid last May; and whether this money has been returned to the union?
  Mr. McKENNA: The sum found in the possession of Queenie Gerald was £202 18s. Of this a sum of £100 was handed back to her, by order of the magistrate, on 16th June. Part of the remainder will be applied to paying the costs of the prosecution, the taxation of which is not yet complete, and the balance will be returned to her on her release. On the premises of the Women's Social and Political Union there was found about £18 in cash, and postal orders to the value of about £35. The question whether this money can be applied towards the cost of the prosecution will shortly come before the Courts. If it cannot be so applied, it will be returned to the persons who may be found to be entitled to it.
  Viscount WOLMER: If there is anything left over after the costs of the prosecution have been met, will the right hon. Gentleman sec that it will be returned?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that is exactly what I have said.

  Police Weekly Rest-Day.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to take any steps to secure that the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) Act, 1910, shall forthwith be put into force in the counties of Hereford. Carmarthen, the East Riding of Yorkshire, the Isle of Wight, Montgomery, Northumberland, Stafford, and East Suffolk, where no arrangements whatever with that object have as yet been made, or in counties like Wilts, Lincoln, Anglesey, Cardigan, Carnarvon, Flint, and Radnor, where, after prolonged delay, the matter is still under consideration?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I have no power to compel any police authorities to put the Act into force before July, 1914. It is clearly the intention of the Act that time should be allowed to county police
  2658
  forces to bring its provisions into operation gradually, and that these provisions should be modified where the circumstances of rural districts require it. I may say, however, that within the last day or two I have received notice than Wilts and Anglesey are increasing the forces for the purposes of the Act; and no doubt other counties will follow.

  Women Suffrage Pilgrimage.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked whether any efforts have been made to trace the instigators of hooliganism at meetings held in connection with the recent women suffrage pilgrimage in cases where the disorder was apparently organised; and if any evidence has been obtained to lead to the conclusion that the disorder at all places was organised from one centre?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to two questions by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin. I received yesterday a statement of the complaint made by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, and I propose at once to communicate with the police authorities concerned. No suggestion has been made by the National Union that the disorder was organised from any centre, and all the evidence that I have tends to show that it was due to outbursts of local hooliganism.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the case at Cirencester in connection with the action of students of the Royal Agricultural College?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, my attention was called to that particular case.

  Colliers (Cases at Newport).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of a decision given by Judge Hill Kelly, at Newport, on Friday last, by which a number of colliers were mulcted in 50s. damages each for having absented themselves from work, whilst a claim by the workmen for five days' wages in respect of the same period was rejected; whether the evidence showed that there were faults giving off gas in the part of the mine where the men refused to work and that the safety lamp of an examiner showed a blue cap of flame half an inch to an inch, whilst the assistant mines inspector found 2 per cent. of gas in the air; whether there was gas lying accumulated

  2659
  in the gob or waste which, had it been fired, would have caused a disastrous explosion; whether, under these circumstances, the men were justified, under Clause 67 of the Mines Act, in refusing to go on working; and whether he will now take action to have the damages against the men cancelled or, as an alternative, obtain a Grant from the Treasury to recoup the men for their loss?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. According to the reports which I have received, the counterclaim of the company against the men was dismissed as well as the claim of the men against the company.

  Children Act.
  Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evasion of the provision of the Children Act, which excludes children from the bars of licensed premises, by women who, while in charge of young children, obtain drink at the doors of public-houses; and whether he will take steps to have the Act so amended as to deal effectively with this abuse?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been drawn from time to time to cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, but the information in my possession does not indicate that the practice is by any means general. The matter will receive careful consideration when the opportunity comes for amending legislation.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that on wet days in the Metropolis at the doors of very many public-houses a most scandalous state of things exists, the children being left in the rain while the parents are drinking inside?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been drawn from time to time to cases of the kind. As T have said consideration will be given when opportunity occurs of amending legislation.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HASLAR CEMETERY.
    Mr. HODGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the neglected condition of t he Royal Naval Cemetery at Haslar and of the difficulty experienced by parents of locating the burial place of their sons; is he aware that artificial wreaths have been removed from
    2660
    some of the graves; and will he take action to have the cemetery put and kept in decent condition and also take such steps to make it easy for parents to find out the spot where their sons are buried?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that there is any ground for complaint as to the condition of the Royal Naval Cemetery at Haslar. A caretaker is provided, who is in constant attendance, and has assistance for the upkeep of the graves; if visitors would make application to this man, no difficulty in locating graves would be experienced, and a notice to this effect will be put up. In all cases where no memorial is erected by the relatives a simple cross is provided by the Admiralty. No complaints have been received respecting the removal of artificial wreaths. It is necessary at times, in order to trim the graves, temporarily to remove these tokens, but every care is taken to ensure their correct replacement.

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (STRIKE AT WEYMOUTH).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the Great Western Quay labourers are on strike at Weymouth to obtain a wage of 6d. per hour; whether he is aware that a signal has been issued to the Fleet that time-expired men may have employment to fill the places of the quay labourers; and whether it is with official sanction that Government machinery and His Majesty's forces are used in the interests of the Great Western Railway Company, and seamen encouraged to act as strike breakers and work at less than the trade union rate of wages?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am informed that the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleets received the following message on the afternoon of Saturday, the 9th August, from the marine superintendent of the Great Western Railway: "If you have any time-expired men desiring civil employment, I can engage about forty immediately on loading and unloading steamers. Minimum wages 5d. per hour, fairly regular employment, March to November, and may develop into permanent employment. Kindly reply." Being unaware of the circumstances which led to the issue of this request, and being anxious to assist men to civil employment, the Commander-in-Chief caused the message to be circulated to the ships present.

SAN FRANCISCO EXHIBITION.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR:I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether any representations have been made by or on behalf of the traders, merchants, and manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland or any of them in respect of the forthcoming Exposition of San Francisco? Has any desire been expressed by them or by any chambers of commerce for representation under official sanction at such exposition, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman publish the same?
Mr. BUXTON: I only received notice of the question a short time ago, and I have not had time to find out how many representations have been made. I will find out and communicate direct to the hon. Member the information which he desires.
Mr. O'CONNOR: If there are any representations, will the right hon. Gentleman publish them for the information of the House?
Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say until I see what they are.

SOMALILAND.
Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the serious situation in Somaliland, will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies be able to lay Papers, and, if so, how soon does he expect to be able to do so?
Mr. HARCOURT: During the night I received entirely satisfactory accounts of the situation in Somaliland. I do not propose to read the telegrams to the House or send them to the Press, because they concern the present disposition of the Camel Corps, and the House is probably aware of the incredible rapidity with which news made public here reaches the utmost corners of Somaliland. For that reason I would earnestly deprecate any discussion to-day on the insufficient knowledge which we have at present as to the incident which occurred recently. I shall publish full Papers at the earliest possible date, and all possible information will be included in them, subject to the proviso that information must not be given which if it reached Somaliland would be damaging to our forces and add to their trouble.
Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman include Papers going back for the last
2662
six months or a year, so as to give details of any change of policy that has taken place in Somaliland?
Mr. HARCOURT: I will include as many Papers as I safely can, subject to the proviso which I have mentioned. I may say at once that there has been no change whatever in the policy of His Majesty's Government in Somaliland.
Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the loyal tribesmen who have depended entirely upon us for protection will be given protection, and that the word of Englishmen to give protection having once been pledged will be kept?
Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think it desirable at this moment that I should go into further details as to what steps I shall deem it necessary to take in order to maintain, as I shall do fully, our position in Somaliland and on the coast.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
Mr. SONAR LAW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether it is true, as reported in the daily Press, that the Lord Chief Justice has resigned or has tendered his resignation, and, if so, when such resignation was first tendered, and when it was accepted; and also whether the right hon. Gentleman has advised the appointment of any successor, and, if nor, when is it intended t o do so?
The PRIME MINISTER: No; so far as I am aware, the Lord Chief Justice has not resigned. The last communication which I had with him, I am glad to say, led me to entertain the hope that in the course of time he will be able to resume his active duties.
Mr. MacVEAGH: Another mare's-nest.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us a final statement for this Session as to business?
  The PRIME MINISTER: After the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill the Lords Amendments still on the Paper will be considered. To-morrow we propose, for general convenience, that the House should meet at eleven for formal business and at twelve for the Royal Commission.
  Resolved, That this House do meet tomorrow (Friday) at eleven o'clock.—(The Prime Minister.)

BILLS PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION ACTS (1870 TO 1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, and to make provision for regulating Parliamentary Grants to secondary schools." Presented by Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Alfred Cripps, and Mr. Pollock; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 324.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (NO. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1909, and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, and to encourage the private ownership of dwelling houses and business premises amongst the working classes." Presented by Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW; supported by Mr. Joynson Hicks, Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 333.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. GRANT: I desire to say a few words in connection with the administration of the Colonial Office in regard to railways in British East Africa and Nyasaland. I very much regret that the Colonial Secre-
2696
tary has had to leave the House, but he has had the courtesy to give me to understand that it was not from any lack of interest in this question, or from any lack of courtesy to the House, but that he had to leave through circumstances over which he had no control. With regard to the railways in British East Africa, hon. Members will recollect that the Uganda Railway was built in the nineties at great expense, and I would like to see that important policy followed still further. Hon. Members are doubtless aware of the extraordinary development that has taken place in British East Africa since that railway was built, but I think they arc not aware that the rolling stock on that railway and the facilities of transport are, at the present moment, less than they were when the line was first opened. In face of the extraordinary development which that country has experienced, I think it must be obvious to everyone that there must be a vast amount of inconvenience caused to the settlers who, by want of rolling stock, sidings, and capacity of accommodation on the line, are unable to get their produce dealt with. There is also the question of the lake steamers, which are entirely insufficient to deal with the produce, while the ports are all full up. I am aware that at the present moment there is an order for more steamers and more rolling stock for the railway, but, as everyone acquainted with the circumstances knows, those orders are entirely inadequate to deal with the produce. Even if they had been carried out, and if the rolling stock had been furnished soon after the orders were given, they would be to-day quite inadequate to deal with the exports of the country. More rolling stock and more steamers are wanted, together with a great many more sidings. There is also the question of the ports. The lake has fallen some 6 ft., and at Port Kasumo the steamers touch 3 or 4 miles out from it, and it looks as if in a few years that port will be absolutely useless. The Government ought to see the necessity of a deep water port on the lake.
The matter is sufficiently serious from the settlers' point of view, but there is another point of view which in some respects is equally serious. Hon. Members are aware that the Germans, who have territories to the South and West of Victoria Nyanza, depend entirely on our railway to export their produce. The Germans are bitterly complaining of the inadequate facilities which are granted to them by the line. They also complain of

2697
the rates. They find that the railway is entirely inadequate to deal with the
development of their own territory. They do not, however, make so much a point of the rates; what they ask is that there should be a line sufficient for their purposes. They do not want to spend their money in making a line of their own, but so inefficient do they find the existing railway that they are considering the advisability of themselves, building a line from Tabora to Mwanza, and making a junction with their main line from Daresalam to Ujiji, tapping the trade of Victoria Nyanza at some one of the ports. But they would much rather use what funds they have for the development of their country than on a railway, but so inefficient is the service of our line that they are contemplating tapping, and no doubt will tap the trade of the lake, unless the Government wakes up to its responsibilities in this matter. It must be obvious that if the Germans do what I have indicated we shall lose a great carrying trade, a trade which undoubtedly will largely increase in the future. I do hope that the Colonial Office will take some further interest in this matter, and not be so apathetic as they have been. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, the other day with regard to this matter, and he told me that the orders were already in, and he trusted it would be possible to deal temporarily with the expansion of trade. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), added:
I am now considering what further action it is desirable and practicable to take. and I hope next year to be able to commence a considerable further expenditure fit these purposes."
I am very much disappointed with that answer. All the facts were before the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody knows about them, and why should he be considering instead of determining the matter now I Why he should leave over to next year that which ought really to have been done at once, indeed, done years ago, I cannot understand. It appears to me that there is a lack of foresight, a lack of interest in this matter over which the right hon. Gentleman has supreme control. It is most deplorable, and it is very Antagonistic to the interests of our settlers that it should be so.
4.0 P.M.
There is one other part of Africa, in regard to which I desire to criticise the policy of the Colonial Office in the matter of railway extension, and that is British
2698
Central Africa. There is at present a railway from Port Herald on the Shiri River to Blantyre. It is an isolated railway built by private enterprise, a railway without any beginning or any end. It does not go to the coast and it does not touch the lake; but it already pays 3 per cent., though a railway without beginning or end; it does not really tap the rich lands around Nyasa, and it is not linked with the coast. The matter of continuing that railway has been long considered, and I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of considering how important such a line is to the settlers. Railway extension is certainly in the interests of this country, and it ought to be pushed forward without any further delay. From Port Herald down to the Zambesi, I am happy to think that the line is being extended, and that there is a proposed line from Port Tabora on the coast of Portuguese East Africa. I understand that a company is ready to build the line from Port Beira to the Zambesi, and connect it with the sea. There is some hitch, I believe, with the Portuguese Government, but the matter has been practically settled, save with regard to some unimportant point. I asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to lend this powerful aid, if he could, to getting this line started. I was disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's reply in regard to the matter. I regret That answer from the Foreign Secretary very much, and I do hope he may reconsider the situation and may make sonic friendly representations to a friendly country like Portugal and impress on them the importance for our Colony that we should have direct communication with the sea. That has been foreshadowed and practically promised by our Colonial Secretary, and I do hope that the Government may, in the interests of the settlers and of the development of the country, take some further action, and that this policy, in those interests, will change to something more active.
Mr. MULDOON: I rise to draw the attention of the House and of the Postmaster-General to the action of the Cunard Company in abandoning that part of their contract which obliged them, in the carriage of the American mails, to call at Queenstown. I am sure the Postmaster-General did not expect that we on these benches would allow this, the only opportunity we will now have, to pass without calling attention to this rather

2699
discreditable transaction—and a transaction which has a very sinister aspect of secrecy and of surprise, and which, although it has been brewing for nearly six months past, only came to our knowledge within the last three days. Although I represent the particular Constituency which comprises Queenstown, I desire to say that, upon this occasion, I speak not for Queenstown alone, and not for Cork alone, but also for the commercial men of Dublin and Belfast, and for the commercial interests of every part of Ireland, which are menaced by the action which is now proposed to be taken. What are the facts of the case? In the year 1903 the then Postmaster-General, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), concluded a contract with the Cunard Company to which there were four parties—the Board of Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Postmaster-General, and the Cunard Company. I may say at once that that contract was an exceedingly useful and favourable contract for the company. It increased the subsidy which the company received for the carriage of those mails from £57,000 per year to £67,000 per year, and, in addition, there was a loan made to the company of £2,600,000 for the purpose of increasing their fleet that was to be used for this service. I ask the attention of the Postmaster-General to the precise terms of the contract. This company undertook solemnly by their engagement when they signed that contract to put on two additional vessels of suitable dimensions, capacity and speed for the Queenstown service, and the same as regards Liverpool.
I may say at once that in this contract the position of Liverpool and of Queenstown is on a precisely similar footing. The obligation upon the Cunard Company to go to Queenstown and take the mails and carry them to New York is precisely the same as it is to go and deliver them. I would like to ask in this case, if the Cunard Company had said to the Postmaster-General, "We find Liverpool a very unsafe and very insecure harbour, and we do not intend to go there again"—and, let me incidentally remark, there would be a great deal more foundation for that remark than the charge of insecurity which is levelled against Queenstown—would the Postmaster-General, I ask him, allow them to run away from their solemn obligation? That is precisely what has been done in reference to Queenstown.
2700
There was a loan given to this company of £2,600,000 for the purpose of putting on two vessels that would be suitable for this service. The public have an enormous interest in this matter. It was in the public interests that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester entered into this contract, and he gave splendid terms to the Cunard Company in order that they should give the best service possible to the public, not only of Ireland but of Great Britain also. The complaint I have to make against the Postmaster-General is that the company now have used the very position which the State has given to them practically to impose terms upon him and to absolutely flout his authority and the public interests which are concerned. The next step in this transaction was that the same company, upon the return voyage from New York, were in the habit of calling at Queenstown. They took an early opportunity of getting rid of that obligation. I may say that, from the very start, there was evidence that the visit to Queens-town on either journey was irksome and very unpopular with the Cunard Company, and there was also evidence that at various times the interests of Liverpool were opposed to the Queenstown call, and to that circumstance, I think, the-present Postmaster-General never gave sufficient attention. Once in this House an hon. Gentleman who sits on the other side actually asked that, upon the grounds of inconvenience, the Cunard Company should be relieved from calling at Queenstown at all, but the Postmaster-General,, like every other Postmaster-General, said it was an imperative and important and vital part of their contract that the call should be maintained at Queenstown.
The Cunard Company were taken in no way unawares or by surprise when they entered into that contract. They had been trading with Queenstown, the port of Queenstown, for over seventy years. They knew every detail and every particular of the accommodation which could be placed at their disposal there, and it would be absurd to pretend that they did not know of the circumstances. Not only did those four important parties enter into this solemn engagement in reference to the carriage of the American mails, but that transaction and that very agreement which was signed was ratified by this House in the Session of 1903, and ratified after a controversy which, so far as I can remember, can only be equalled in its importance and dimensions by the discus-

2701
sions which have taken place over the Marconi contract, which contract reminds me of this fact. The Postmaster-General came down to this House last Friday and asked the House to ratify the contract he had made with the Marconi Company and, as we all think, it was a wise and prudent contract and forms a monument to his wisdom. But if the Postmaster-General had said to this House when he was proposing that contract, "This is a most important contract and binds both parties for a considerable time, but I think it right to tell the House it is taking part in something like a farce, because, if the Marconi Company come in a few years' time and tell me some of these conditions are inconvenient or impossible or dangerous, I will allow them to run away from their contract." I ask the Postmaster-General to consider this question of the Queenstown route from our point of view, and our point of view distinctly is this, that this contract was made in the public interests ten years ago and ratified by tins House after not only discussion, but lengthened discussion extending over years, and the Postmaster-General as the trustee and guardian of the public interests has himself no right to run away from a contract of that kind, and when the first intimation was given to him that it was the intention of the Cunard Company to take this step he ought to have told them, in my humble judgment, that it was a contract which was entered into and ratified by those parties with the concurrence and assent of the House of Commons, and without going to the House of Commons, every part of it would have to be absolutely fulfilled.
I have said that at a very early date, 1909, the Cunard Company gave up calling into Queenstown on their return voyages from America. When they did so they raised no question whatever except one of inconvenience. It was never suggested at that time in all that controversy for one moment that the port of Queenstown was unsafe, never could be suggested, and I think I will be able to-day to explode the charge of unsafeness that is now made. It was never made or suggested at that time, but their action was put entirely on the ground of inconvenience adding unduly to the length of the journey and putting them at a disadvantage with their competitors. Let me also say these two large vessels, about which complaints are now made and which it was part of the 1903 contract should be built and should be suitable for the service comprised in that contract, had
2702
been using the Queenstown Harbour now for seven years and there never was a suggestion of any inadequate accommodation there, and there never was any complaint except one, and that one was absolutely set aside by the action of the Cork Board in representing to the Company the facts as they occurred. The excuse which is now being made for the Cunard Company in retreating from their contract was first conveyed in a letter from the general manager of the Company to the Postmaster-General, dated 19th March, 1913. I must say that that letter is one of the coolest propositions which I have ever heard. Without any reference to the obligation on the company to continue their calls to Queenstown he suggests it is to be abandoned, and the only circumstance relied upon is the so-called mishap to the Mauritania which was alleged to have occurred on the 23rd February last. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, got that letter he sent an answer to the company putting them off. In my humble judgment, when he got that statement from the general manager of the Cunard Company, his answer should have been that he himself had no power to relieve them or to release them from this contract, and that the contract must he continued and that he would seek a proper remedy from any violation of that contract, and that he would ask the advice, if necessary, of the Law Officers of the Crown.
That is followed by another letter from the chairman of the Cunard Company. I do not propose to read all the correspondence, as I am sure hon. Members have seen it. That letter from the chairman was dated the 19th June, 1913, and in it he refers to an interview which he had with the Postmaster-General with reference to this subject, and he adds an additional complaint to that made in the general manager's former letter. All this took place behind the backs of those who are vitally concerned in maintaining this contract in the interests of Ireland, and in the interests also of Great Britain, because there can be no doubt that the interests of both countries are menaced by what is now proposed to be done. I must say a cooler or more audacious proposition I never read than that which was made by the chairman of the Cunard Company in this letter to which I am now referring. There is not a particle of compunction in his mind when he asks the Postmaster-General to join with him practically in a little conspiracy to get rid of

2703
the solemn obligation which he entered into with the Postmaster-General in 1903, and he informs him a decision was duly arrived at after full and careful consideration and must be regarded as absolutely final. That was as if the chairman of the company was the only real party to this agreement. Apparently the public interest is not to be considered. An unfortunate passage deals with a complaint which had not been made before—that the "Lusitania" touched ground in Queenstown Harbour. A more audacious suggestion was never made. That was one of the complaints reported to the Cork Harbour Board, and they were able to deal with it. The other complaint in reference to the "Mauretania," on the 23rd February, we never heard of until the other day, and if an inquiry were granted we might be able to show that it is as groundless as the other. What is said about the "Lusitania"? This is a letter dated the 19th June, 1913, and it refers for the first time publicly to what took place on the 29th December, 1907:—
"On 29th December, 1907, the 'Lusitania,' when entering Queenstown Harbour, touched ground despite the precautions which were exercised by the pilot and the captain, and had subsequently to be laid up at serious expense to the company in connection with the necessary repairs."
Let me explain what took place. That incident was reported to the Cork Harbour Board, who made inquiries and sent a long reply to the secretary of the Cunard Company, stating:—
"Having regard to the report of the Pilot Committee, and to the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioners, they are of opinion that the pilo upon the Lusitania was guilty of a serious error of judgment if he piloted the ship as he appears to them to have then done."
The reply of the company, signed by the general manager, was—"
"With reference to your letter of the 6th inst., concerning the 'Lusitania' touching the ground when entering Queenstown on the 29th December list, we beg to say that in consideration of the long service of the pilot, we do not wish anything else than a severe reprimand being given to him for the error which it seems clear he committed."
Imagine the audacity of the chairman of the Cunard Company saying that that incident took place despite the precautions which were exercised by the pilot and the captain! It would be un-parliamentary if I properly described the action of the chairman of the company in conveying these two statements, one to the Postmaster-General, who never heard the real facts, and the other to the Cork Harbour Board, who made an inquiry into the subject. The only other incident relied upon by the company for running away from the contract is that
2704
which happened to the "Mauretania" on the 23rd February last. That incident was never reported to the Cork Harbour Board; it was never publicly referred to in any way. So far as the authorities at Cork are concerned, they only heard of it when the correspondence between the Postmaster-General and the company was published. We have had no opportunity of going into the matter, but we challenge inquiry generally into the fitness, security, and safety of Cork Harbour. We have some reason to complain. There is one incident into which we have had an opportunity of inquiring and which is found to be absolutely groundless, and there is another into which we have had no opportunity of inquiry, but which is relied upon for getting rid of this important contract. When the Postmaster-General received this complaint in reference to the "Mauretania," I submit that his first duty was to make inquiry on the spot of the Cork Harbour Board, asking to be informed of what took place, and at the same time to tell the company that he could not allow them under any circumstances to run away from the contract which had been ratified by this House. He did not take that course. On the contrary, he appears to have applied to the Board of Trade for information, and also to his nautical adviser, whoes name is not, given. Did any representative of the Board of Trade go to Cork Harbour to make inquiries? Did he take any measurements, or did he go to a chart in the office of the company or of the Board of Trade and look at figures which are years old? We do not know. That is one of our grounds of complaint. We do not know what was done. The report as it appears is most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it gives no data upon which it is founded. It states:—
"In reply to your letter of the 30th inst. with reference to the request by the Cunard steamship Company that they might be relieved of the obligation for outwardbonnd packets to call at Queenstown. I am directed by the Board of Trade to state, for the information of the Postmaster-General, that they are advised that owing to the narrowness of the entrance to Queenstown Harbour, the small depth of water, and the restricted area of the anchorage, the navigation of the harbour by a vessel of the size of the 'Lusitania' or 'Mauretania' would, in many cases, be attended by considerable risk."
Who was their adviser That is what we want to know. He speaks of the narrowness of the entrance. Did he go and measure it? If so, when? Was it after the recent improvements, or did he get his information from an old and out-of-date chart. We say that the statement is absolutely false. There is no harbour in the United Kingdom with the same

2705
dimensions or with the same depth of water at low tide as Queenstown Harbour now enjoys. The second advice which the right hon. Gentleman received was from his nautical adviser, who, instead of giving any recent particulars as to the entrance to Cork Harbour, repeats the mythological statement of what happened to the "Mauretania" on the 23rd February last. Was he a witness himself? Where did he get his information? Was it in the office of the Cunard Company? We have no firsthand information at all as to what took place on the 25th February. The company say that they received a serious report from their commander. That report has never been given to the public. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen it? That is the important document. What we say about all this hubbub with regard to the unsafety of Queenstown Harbour is that it is an excuse for getting rid of the inconvenience of calling at Queenstown Harbour. Ever since 1909 the company have been seeking for opportunities to give up Queenstown, and to violate their contract, as if Parliament was making a joke with them when it said that they must go to Queenstown as certainly as to Liverpool.
What is the broad, general answer to the suggestion that it is unsafe for these vessels to go into Queenstown Harbour? It is that the "Olympic" constantly uses the harbour for the purpose of taking up mails and passengers. Perhaps at this very moment at absolutely low water the "Olympic" is in Queenstown Harbour. What are the facts in reference to the "Olympic" and these other vessels? The "Olympic" has a tonnage of 45,342; the "Mauretania," 31,937; the "Lusitania," 31,550. In other words, the "Olympic," which is perhaps in Cork Harbour at this moment, has 15,000 tons more than these other vessels, which, according to the company, cannot be navigated into the harbour. The length of the "Olympic" is 852 ft.; of the "Mauretania," 762 ft.; and of the "Lusitania," 762 ft. The largest vessel goes into Queenstown Harbour even at the very lowest tide, and is quite safe, and yet it is suggested that it is so unsafe for the smaller vessels that they cannot undertake the service. The largest "Dreadnoughts" of the Navy frequently go into Cork Harbour without the slightest suggestion of danger. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that it has always been held that the "Olympic" is a more manageable vessel than the other two.
2706
But when those two vessels were being built by the Cunard Company they were under contract to provide suitable vessels of a requisite speed for the Queenstown and Liverpool service. Since these two vessels were put upon the service there has been more difficulty and more trouble in Liverpool in one year than at Queenstown in all the period. There has been only one suggested mishap at Queenstown, into which we have not had an opportunity of inquiring, but we have read that the "Lusitania" on one occasion was driven from her moorings in the Mersey and ran ashore, and there have been many occasions in New York Harbour. Why is it only when an incident occurs at Queenstown, and there is a delay of four hours upon the occasion of an exceptional storm, that advantage is to be taken of it to drop the service altogether?
I submit that as this contract has been ratified by Parliament, no part of it should be annulled until Parliament has the result of an inquiry on the spot. The harbour authorities will be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman says that there are two sides to the question, and that he will cause inquiry to be made by competent seafaring men—not commanders, who sometimes cannot see icebergs in the middle of the Atlantic. If a full inquiry is made into what happened on 25th February, we are convinced that we shall be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that there is no reason whatever why this contract should be annulled except that it is inconvenient to the Cunard Company, but I submit that he is there to see that the contract is carried out, whether it is inconvenient to the company or not. Other points concerning the importance of this question to the commercial interests of Ireland other hon. Friends on these benches will deal with. I must, however, point out that on numerous occasions, owing principally to the intentions of Liverpool, frequent suggestions have been made that the call at Queenstown should be abandoned. From the time of the Postmaster-Generalship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, down to the time of that of the present President of the Board of Trade and to the time of the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself, these suggestions have been put forward. They said that it was a thing that was certainly not to be entertained. In reply to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for East Wick-

2707
low, the right hon. Gentleman wrote on 26th April, 1912:—
"I have taken occasion to point out to the Cunard Company that the Postmaster-General attaches great importance to the fulfilment of the contract as regards calling at Queenstown."
I think it is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not write in the same terms to the company when he first got the intimation that they were relying on the bogus incident of 13th February. Again I find that one of the hon. Members for Liverpool suggested in this House that the call at Queenstown should be abandoned.
The right hon. Gentleman then said:—
"The omission of the call at Queenstown by the Cunard Packets sailing from Liverpool would, as I have previously stated, involve in the present circumstances a serious curtailment in the facilities for late posting throughout the United Kingdom."
It is not merely an Irish question. It is a question, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that affects every part of Great Britain as well as Ireland. A contract of the kind is not lightly to be annulled. I assure the right hon. Gentleman upon this question there is the very deepest feeling in Ireland. It is not con-find to the Southern Counties. It is as strong in Belfast and Londonderry as it is in Dublin and Cork. There will be no peace if this company is allowed lightly to run away from the solemn contract into which they have entered. On every occasion upon which there is a violation of this contract it will be challenged in this House and before the country.
Captain DONELAN: My hon. Friend the Member for East Cork has dealt so deeply and fully with this case so that little remains to be said. As one who is very deeply interested in this question, however, I should like to support my hon. Friend, and I should also like some specific information from the Postmaster-General on a few points which I will put to him. Seeing that the final letter from the Cunard Company is dated 19th June, why was the publication of this correspondence on a subject of such vital consequence to Ireland postponed until practically the last day of the Session? When the Cunard Company informed the Postmaster-General on 10th April last that instructions had been issued that under no conditions had the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" to enter Queenstown Harbour in the future, why did not the Postmaster-General immediately inform the Cunard Company that any such instructions would be regarded as a breach of their contract? When the Cunard Com-
2708
pany on the same date suggested to the Postmaster-General the desirability of omitting the call at Queenstown altogether, why did not the Postmaster-General inform the Cunard Company that under no circumstances must the interests' of Ireland be ignored? Did the Postmaster-General request the Cunard Company to explain why the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" should be exposed to such dangers and difficulties in navigating Queenstown Harbour, when, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the "Olympic," which is of a much larger size, finds no difficulty whatever in navigating the-harbour, and comes in and out by night as well as by day, and in all weathers?
In face of the fact that the Cunard Company could only produce one solitary instance to support their contention, that being an occasion when a violent hurricane-was raging, why did not the Postmaster-General call for a report as to the security and accommodation of Queenstown Harbour from some independent authority? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not at once communicate with the port authorities? In view of the large amount of Irish money given to the Cunard Company to enable them to build these ships, why did not the Postmaster-General inform the Cunard Company that if they failed to fulfil their contract the extreme penalty would be enforced against them, and that negotiations would be at once entered into with the White Star Line or some other company? Taken in conjunction with the former proceedings of the Cunard Company the present proceeding is a clear attempt to wriggle out of their contract. I hope the Postmaster-General will see his way to give satisfactory answers to, these queries in order to satisfy the Irish people that some attention has been paid to their interests in this discreditable and deplorable transaction. I will also ask the Postmaster General to give some assurance that the White Star Line or some other company will be invited to tender for the contract which has been so shamefully violated by the Cunard Company. From the mere casual reference to Ireland in the correspondence which has just been published, the Postmaster-General scarcely seems to realise the incalculable loss and injury to the general community in Ireland. If they are cut off from postal communication with the United States, not only will Irish trade and commerce be heavily handicapped, but the tourist and passenger traffic will be very seriously affected. No matter what

2709
obstacles may lie in the way, I venture to think that the Postmaster-General is bound by every consideration of justice and pair play to spare no effort to avert this misfortune. At the same time, I would strongly join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Cork in urging the Postmaster-General to at least hold his hand until he has received a report from a thoroughly independent source.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND:I desire to say a very few words to emphasise, so far as I can, the case made by my hon. Friends. In the first place, I would like to say that the Postmaster-General and the Government cannot too thoroughly understand the absolute correctness of the statement made by the hon. Member for East Cork that this is not a mere local matter affecting only Queenstown and Cork, but that it is a matter which, as the Postmaster-General himself in one of his letters published in the White Paper shows, affects the whole of Ireland, from Belfast to Cork and from Galway to Dublin. The whole community in Ireland is affected by this dc vision of the Cunard Company to cease calling at Queenstown for the mails. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers this matter, will do so from the point of view that it is not a question merely affecting the port of Cork, but that it is a question affecting the whole of Ireland, and largely affecting the commercial life of the country. Anybody reading the correspondence would be amazed to find that the Cunard Company have been allowed by the Government practically to break their contract. The only threat held out to them in the letter from the Postmaster-General is that if they do not call at Cork the payment for the conveyance of the mails under the contract of July, 1903, will be reduced from £68,000 to £65,390. A reduction of a few thousand pounds in the amount paid by the Government to this company surely is no adequate punishment—if you like to call it so—for the action of the company in deliberately breaking a contract, upon the faith of which they received a subsidy—indeed, were allowed to carry the mails at all ! I think the Postmaster-General certainly would be seriously lacking in his duty in this matter—I am certain he has not the slightest desire that way; on the contrary, I think he most thoroughly realises the facts of the case—if he did not point out that action of this kind must involve something more than the reduced payment of a few thousands. What makes
2710
this matter all the worse is that of all steamship companies in the world flying the British flag the Cunard Company ought to be the last to break a contract with the Government, or to depart from any undertaking given. I, myself, some years ago, had the advantage of sitting upon a Select Committee which considered the whole question of subsidies to merchant vessels in this country. It was pointed out that Germany had extended her trade by subsidising merchant vessels. The result of this Select Committee's consideration—I think my memory serves me correctly—was that the Cunard Company, and the Cunard Company alone, were picked out of the shipping companies of the nation for special consideration by the Government.
I have not by me at this moment an exact record of the transactions of the. Cunard Company—because this matter has come out somewhat unexpectedly—but, broadly speaking, it was this: The Government advanced to the company upon exceedingly easy terms enormous sums of money to enable them to increase their fleet and to build large ships. I need hardly point out to the House that that was giving the Cunard Company very exceptional treatment. It was placing them in a position of advantage over every other commercial company in the United Kingdom. While I am not prepared here to either justify or condemn the action of the Government in regard to these subsidies to the Cunard Company—I express no opinion upon it whatever—I do say this, it having been done, it ought certainly have secured for one thing that the Cunard Company would pay the greatest. possible respect to the opinion of the Government and endeavour to do all they could to carry out faithfully the contract entered into with the Government. Yet we now find this company that has received special favour from the Government, with little or no notice, coming down and calmly saying that they will not carry out the contract, upon the faith of which they received special treatment in being allowed to carry His Majesty's mails. We all must admit that the argument of public safety, especially at sea, is an argument which cannot be ignored, and the only possible earthly justification of the Cunard Company or their friends inflicting this severe blow on the Irish public generally, and the business public in particular, is what we may call nothing else but a vague statement that some danger would be

2711
run by these ships calling above every other port at Queenstown Harbour. I heard for the first time in my whole life, and I have been associated more or less with the city of Cork and the districts surrounding it for twenty-five years, that Queenstown Harbour is unsafe for ships. I venture to say it would be the easiest thing in the world if we had time and notice to bring expert nautical opinion before this House, such as would prove that the pity is that Queenstown Harbour is not more used, and that it is one of the greatest harbours, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the whole world.
His Majesty's ships of the Fleet come into Queenstown Harbour frequently with perfect safety, and, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Muldoon) has told us, the largest ships afloat come into that harbour with perfect safety, and without any complaint of danger. We are told now that this harbour is dangerous, and I think it is right not to let a single moment pass without challenging that statement, and I say it is a statement entirely unwarranted. If the contract is broken, let it not be broken at the expense of this magnificent anchorage, which is well known to be one of the best in the world. The hon. Member for East Cork has already pointed out that the Cunard Company's ships, as well as the White Star Liners, have used this harbour with perfect safety for years. Yet on the strength of one mishap, this contract is to be broken. It is impossible to expect that Queenstown, any more than any other harbour, will be entirely immune or free from accidents or mishaps when the weather is very boisterous. I defy the President of the Board of Trade to say that there is a single harbour in the whole 'United Kingdom in which from time to time there is not some sort of delay or accident following upon exceptional weather, and because in Queenstown, owing to exceptionally heavy weather, there has been a delay, and, because two or three times the commanders of these vessels have thought it better, in view of a hurricane, to come straight on to England, this contract:is to be broken, and the whole business community of Ireland and America as well is to be thrown into confusion. I can only say that, whatever the result of this Debate may be, I for one will refuse to believe that the Postmaster-General is indifferent in connection with this matter, or feels anything but
2712
indignation at the action of this company in breaking this contract. We are sometimes accused in Ireland of being in the habit of raising grievances that are trivial and unreal.. Be that as it may, this is a matter of the most serious description affecting the whole country, and which the Post Office authorities in America and the public of the United States will resent as the people of Ireland.
I appeal to the Postmaster-General not to be satisfied merely with the action of the Post Office in telling this company that for breaking this contract, they are to have a few thousand pounds deducted from their payment: but I ask hint to relieve the whole public mind in Ireland by saying that the matter will be kept open and that the company will not be allowed to break its contract and that a full and fair inquiry will have to be held into these statements as to the dangerous condition of Queenstown Harbour—statements which I characterise as untrue and scandalously unfair. I ask the Postmaster-General to assure us that this great injustice will not be done to the people of Ireland, and that his great Department, one of the most useful and respected in the State, will not allow these flimsy pretexts to be availed of by this company or any other company, but that contracts solemnly and carefully entered into by the Government and ratified by this House, for which large sums of money are paid must be kept by the Cunard Company or any other company. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that this correspondence has only been put into our hands at a very late hour. I dare say it was done as soon as possible, but it is to say the least of it an unfortunate thing that at the very last expiring moments of this Session, we should have these documents given to us when there is really little time to have the matter adequately discussed. But such is my opinion of the fairness of the Postmaster-General that I believe he will give us some assurances which will go far to prove that he sympathises, as he must do, with the indignation on this particular question in Ireland—the action of the Cunard Company.
Mr. JOYCE: I desire to put before the Postmaster-General another phase of this matter. The Cunard Company, to my mind, in the most audacious manner, have made charges against the Port of Queenstown that were never heard of until the Cunard Company thought it well to try and get out of their agreement with the

2713
Government. Let me put this to the Postmaster-General. I think I know something of the harbour of Queenstown, and I think I know something of some of the principal harbours in the United Kingdom. I have seen a hundred large ships, from 1,000 to 3,000 tons, at anchor in the Port of Queenstown at one time. Does the Postmaster-General think that the "Mauretania" or the "Lusitania" will take up as much room as a hundred ships? Does not that phase of the question give the lie direct to the charge made by the Cunard Company as to Queenstown being dangerous to these steamers? I have seen that not once, but scores of times. I have seen a score of Her Majesty's ships, and His Majesty's ships in later days, including the largest ships of war in the world, steam into Queenstown three, four, five and six abreast at all stages of the tide. Does the Postmaster-General think that the "Mauretania" or the "Lusitania" will take up more room than two or three ships of His Majesty's Fleet? I confess I was amazed, on reading the correspondence that passed between the Postmaster-General and the Cunard Company, and I was still more amazed to see the statement made by some nautical adviser to the Board of Trade backing up the statement made by the Cunard Company. Let me call attention to the Cunard Company's dealings in other directions. I suppose the Postmaster-General knows that the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" come into Fishguard Harbour now and again. I have looked over Fishguard Harbour; it is a small, artificial harbour that is certainly most unsafe, to my mind as a seaman, and I am only speaking now as a seaman, for ships of that kind to come into. The Postmaster-General must be aware that time and time again, in certain stages of the weather, these ships dare not approach Fishguard, and did he ever hear word from the Cunard Company, or the Post Office or anybody else, to say that owing to the danger to their ships coming into Fishguard Harbour they would not call there again?
5.P.M.
Is the Postmaster-General aware that Queenstown is a safer harbour than Liverpool? I will stake my reputation as a sailor, and I am not pretending to be anything else, that Queenstown Harbour is more easy to approach and less difficult to attain and that it has better anchorage than the great port of Liverpool, and I am not hurting Liverpool in the least by making that statement. I have seen some
2714
of those large steamers in Liverpool surrounded by tugs to keep them in safety in bad weather, but never a word from the Cunard Company or any other Company that they would prevent their ships going into Liverpool; and, while the bone and sinew of the Irish nation were flying from our shore, there was not a word from the Cunard Company about not sending their ships into Queenstown to take away the young men and women from Ireland. I think the Postmaster-General and his Office have been too lenient with this company. Why did not the Postmaster-General put down his foot and say, "I will not allow you to get out of that contract. You entered into this contract with all this knowledge, and you knew the class of ships you were building"? They knew, and they know now, that Queenstown is as safe a harbour as there is in the world. Now as to what occurred on the 23rd of February last. On the 23rd February it was blowing a terrific gale of wind. The "Mauretania" got into Queenstown. I think the commander of' that ship should have been very glad to have got into a safe anchorage even with such a ship as that during such a terrific gale of wind. The charge is now made by the company that she was delayed four hours because, when she came to anchor with the tide running one way and the wind blowing in the opposite direction, she had to wait until flood tide in order that her bow would be brought abreast the harbour and she could steam out. The delay was four hours. How many times before was this ship and other ships delayed four hours, and fourteen hours, in Liverpool? It is little wonder that men who do know something about ships and harbours and sea matters generally laugh sometimes when they see documents of the description of those I have read that passed between the Cunard Company and the Post Office. The commander sent in a report to his company saying that Queenstown is unsafe. I consider that the commander of that steamer would never-have sent in that report off his own bat, so to speak, unless he got a quiet word. to damage Queenstown as far as he possibly could. But did anything happen at Queenstown? The vessel came to anchor; there was a terrific gale of wind; she rode safely at her anchorage and never touched"
the ground. What more do they want? I think the Cunard Company should have been very glad, considering the bad weather, that

2715
their vessel was safely at anchor in Queenstown, and that there was only a delay of two or three hours. The Cunard Company have been trying to get out of their responsibilities so far as Ireland is concerned, for some reason or other, for several years past. My hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond) mentioned the shipping subsidies. I was also a member of the Committee to which he referred, and we sat for two years and went into the whole question of shipping subsidies, and we took an enormous amount of evidence. We found that the mercantile marine of this country was so great, amounting, I think, to 15,000,000 tons, that generally it could not be subsidised, and the amount of money required to do this would be so large that it could not be found. We do know, however, that some of these great companies, in the face of our report, have been subsidised since, and they receive very large sums of money, and in many cases they carry out their contract in a proper spirit and run the mails all over the world. Some of the mail ships have to go into dangerous harbours in the East along the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and in Australia, and it remains for the Cunard Company to try and get out of their contract with the Government to allow their ships to enter Queenstown. When the mails can be shipped outside the harbour the Irish people are quite satisfied that this should be done, but when the weather is so bad that this cannot be done, there is a splendid harbour at Queenstown easy of approach, able to accommodate the largest ship afloat. The Postmaster-General must possess the general knowledge that Queenstown is a harbour easy of approach with safe anchorage, and able to accommodate the largest ship in the world, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to put his foot down and not allow this company to ride roughshod over the Post Office and the interests of the Irish people. If they do not do this I hope the right hon. Gentleman will penalise them to the full extent of his power and force them to carry out their contract.
Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: This is not. really a question of Queenstown Harbour, but of the entire interests of commercial Ireland. It is a question of the interests of all the Irish railways and Irish exporters, and it is a question of enormous importance to the general commercial body all over Ireland, North and South. I remember when this contract
2716
was being made. I recollect at first it was suggested that Queenstown should not be made a port of call, and every single Irish Member then rose and protested that they would never allow this thing to be done. At that time the great majority of hon. Members of the House would not entertain for a moment the idea of permitting the Cunard steamers not to call at Queenstown, and they considered that this was in the interests of the Post Office as well as the general community. I think it is extraordinary that this astounding proposal should be made on the last day of the Session. Goodness knows the question is important enough, and everybody in Ireland is sufficiently interested to expect that a question of this sort ought not to be decided without due notice, full investigation and deliberation, and with full regard to all the very great interests concerned. I think that the least thing the Postmaster-General could do, seeing the conditions under which this contract was originally entered into, the great interests at stake and the enormous concern Ireland has in this question, is to insist upon the contract standing at least until such times as we can properly and adequately discuss the whole question in the House of Commons. The settling of such an important question as this on the last day of the Session is something which hon. Members representing Ireland cannot tolerate for a single moment.
My hon. Friend (Mr. Joyce), in his interesting and breezy speech, spoke of Queenstown. Harbour from a nautical point of view. I am not a sailor, and I cannot speak of the question from the navigator's standpoint, but I have seen a great many harbours in many parts of the world under various conditions, and 1 have been in and out of Queenstown Harbour many times in all kinds of weather. I want to know what is the matter with Queenstown? Who would think of saying that large ships were not to come into Sydney Harbour, or Simon's Bay, or Halifax In my humble opinion Queenstown Harbour is just as good as the best of them. It has enormous ground inside, it is easy of approach, and possesses good anchorage. I know there is some difficulty when there are fogs, but that difficulty applies to every harbour in the world, and Queenstown will rank with the very best of them. We have had the largest British ship in the world in Queenstown Harbour at low water per-

2717
fectly happy, discharging her passengers and embarking her mails, and I think the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" can go there equally well. It is quite easy for the mails to be taken on board outside, and I again ask the Postmaster-General to consider the advisability of insisting on this contract being kept until such time as we are able properly and fully to discuss the matter. With regard to Liverpool, I have been in and out of that harbour under all sorts of conditions—in liners, tramp steamers, and all kinds of ships—and there is no comparison at all between Liverpool and Queenstown. Liverpool is an extremely difficult place to get into, and it cannot be compared in this respect with -Queenstown. I do not wish to disparage Liverpool, because it is a wonderful place, but I would like to submit this general consideration, and it is that to my mind both Liverpool and Queenstown are in the same boat, and if the Cunard Company succeed in getting out of their obligation to call at Queenstown they will not be long before they stop sending their ships to Liverpool. Therefore, their interests are bound up with us in this matter, and I ask the Postmaster-General not to allow this breach of the contract until everybody interested in the question has had -a full opportunity of being heard.
Mr. FIELD: As the Member for Dublin, I would like to point out that the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin has always opposed any idea that steamships should cease to call at Queenstown. If the American mails do not call at Queenstown it will undoubtedly delay an enormous mass of commercial correspondence in this country discharged at Chester for Lancashire and Yorkshire—in fact, it would upset the whole arrangements made for the commercial correspondence for England and Ireland. This is not alone an Irish question, but it is also an English question. As a member of the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin, I know that when this question was agitated before we had -correspondence with all the great commercial centres in Lancashire and Yorkshire asking the Irish Members as a body to oppose any change by which the mail steamers would not be allowed to call at Queenstown. As one in touch with the commercial interests of Dublin, I protest most vehemently and strongly against any change being made in the present arrangements. I think it is an extraordinary thing that a matter of this kind should be brought up on the last day of the
2718
Session. This appears to be a kind of endeavour to boycott Ireland by the great steamship companies. I have studied the history of Ireland, and I know that all the great commercial shipping companies in England have endeavoured as far as possible to boycott Irish trade and commerce, and this is the latest attempt, which I admit has been very carefully and skilfully engineered. This correspondence has only been brought before the House just before we are going to prorogue, and the matter has been kept secret from the Irish Members, public opinion has not been aroused, and the whole thing is in a state of chaos. I rather think that the Postmaster-General has been frightened by the Cunard Company. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to our representations in his own interests. I have no private interest in this matter, and we are speaking in the public interests, and in the interests of the commercial people both of Great Britain and Ireland, and I hope the reply of the Postmaster-General will be satisfactory to us all.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): No doubt hon. Members who have spoken represent a feeling which is widespread in Ireland, which is not limited to Queenstown, and which, I am afraid, will increase as public opinion in Ireland becomes more fully acquainted with the facts. It is impossible for me to deny that the step which has been taken by this company must necessarily be injurious to the interests of Queens-town, and must also cause no small inconvenience to commercial men throughout Ireland, whose mail postings must be earlier in consequence for America than they have been in the past. It is not the case, however, as suggested by the hon. Member who has just spoken that in England and Scotland the mails will be injuriously affected, because the time of sailing from Liverpool is being put to a later hour so as to render the time of posting in London, Scotland, and indeed, all parts of this island the same as previously. So far as Ireland is concerned, the time of posting in Belfast will have to be seven and a half hours earlier, and in the South of Ireland no less than a day earlier. In these circumstances, it certainly would not be the convenience of the Cunard Company which would induce me to give any kind of acquiescence in their proposal. Hon. Members have already quoted speeches of mine on previous occasions to

2719
the effect that I attach the greatest importance to the calling of the Cunard packets at Queenstown, and that I think it a most desirable thing that calling should be maintained. Clearly, the company are bound by the terms of their contract to call at Queenstown for the embarkation of the mails. The consideration, however, which is now raised is one of the safety of the ships. The Cunard Company wrote to me a letter on 19th July, summarising previous correspondence, in which they said this:—
"When the existing mail contract was concluded between the Postmaster-General and the Cunard Company in 1903, the company did not realise that the great increase of length of the Lusitania' and 'Mauretania' (790 feet), as compared with the largest steamers of which the company had experience at that time (' Campania' and Lucania,' 525 feet) would affect the risk of entering the Port of Queenstown in the way which experience has now proved to be the case. On 29th December, 1907, the 'Lusitania' when entering Queenstown Harbour to embark the mails, touched the ground, despite the precautions which were exercised by the pilot and captain, and had subsequently to be laid up at serious expense to the company in connection with the necessary repairs."
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether it is not the fact that if it is not properly conducted in coming to port, any ship can be put aground in any port in the world?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not merely acting on the allegations of the company. The letter goes on to say:—
"On the morning of 23rd February, 1913, the 'Mauretania' arrived at. Queenstown and was obliged to enter the harbour as a gale from the S.S.E. made it impossible to work outside. After the vessel had anchored inside the harbour and the mails had been embarked, it was found that the weather was so severe that the ship could not leave the harbour until the flood title hail swung her head to the southward. In the meantime, owing to the strong wind on the one side and the ebb tide on the other, the vessel lay athwart the tide with her anchor cable strained at right angles. The precarious position in which the vessel was situated may be judged from the fact that she was drawing thirty-five feet, while the depth of water fore and aft was only about thirty-eight feet. If the anchor had dragged, or if the cable had parted, the damage incurred would have put the vessel out of commission for a long period. On the return of the vessel to Liverpool the captain reported so seriously with regard to this accident and the risks which must always be run when the Lusitania or' Mauretania' enter Queenstown Harbour in bad weather, that the Board decided,"—
These are the words to which I invite attention:—
"after consulting their nautical experts, that these two steamers could not be allowed to enter Queenstown Harbour again when the weather was such that the mails could not he taken on board in the outer roads. This decision was only arrived at after very full and careful consideration and must be regarded as absolutely final."
I did not accept the opinion of the company on this matter. I went to the nautical authorities open to me to get their opinion as to the validity of the company's contentions. I first wrote to the Board of
2720
Trade, who referred the matter to their' Marine Department, and replied, on April 4th, as follows:—
"They are advised that, owing to the narrowness of the entrance to Queenstown Harbour, the small depth of water, and the restricted area of anchorage, the navigation of the harbour by a vessel of the size of the steamship `Lusitania' or the steamship Mauretania would in many cases be attended by considerable risk."
The letter proceeds:—
"Having regard, therefore, to these navigational considerations, the Board are of opinion that the Cunard: Steamship Company's representations are well founded, so far as vessels of the size of the steamship 'Lusitania'
and steamship 'Mauretania' are concerned."
I also referred the matter to Captain Foakes, lately of the Royal Navy and now employed by the Post Office as nautical adviser, for his opinion, and it was as. follows:—
"Although Queenstown Harbour may be described as one of the most spacious and secure harbours in the British Islands, the effective area of deep water available as au anchorage for large vessels of heavy draught is considerably restricted. Owing to the great length and draught of water of the Insitania and Mauretania.' it is not only hazardous, even in fine weather, for them to-proceed into the harbour at any time near low water, but it is also almost impossible to select a billet in which they can swing clear of shallow water at single anchor."
These difficulties would, of course, be greatly increased during a gale, and I ask hon. Members to remember this:—
"It is only in heavy weather that the packets cannot work from t he tender outside the harbour."
Then he refers to the incident of 23rd February, and concludes:—
"Her position was very critical, and, in the circumstances, it appears that Queenstown Harbour is unsuitable for the accommodation of such large vessels as the Lusitania' and 'Mauretania."
Mr. MULDOON: Has he visited Queenstown?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say what steps the nautical adviser took He was chosen from the Admiralty as a man highly competent in his profession. I, of course, am not an expert in these matters. I make no pretence to be an expert. I can only go to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade and to the technical adviser of the Post Office, and I can do no other than accept the opinions they lay before me. Within two months from now the "Aquitania" will come into the service of the Cunard Company, and the "Aquitania" will be even longer than the "Lusitania" or "Mauretania." These two vessels have a length of 790 feet., and the "Aquitania" will have a length of no less than 900 feet. Therefore, whatever difficulties may arise at present, they will be greatly increased when one week in three the voyage is conducted by this large new ship. It is

2721
suggested that the "Olympic" finds her way into the harbour and out again, and it is said that she is now in the harbour. At the present time, of course, there is fine weather. The Cunard ships have no difficulty in going in and out the harbour in fine weather, but the mails, as a matter of fact, are in fine weather embarked outside the harbour. The "Olympic," I am advised, is a much more manageable ship than these other vessels, because she has reciprocating engines, and for other technical reasons into which I need not enter. She is, as a matter of fact, a more manageable ship and easier to turn than these other vessels.
The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Joyce) mentioned Fishguard Harbour and spoke of the absurdity of the company's contention when Queenstown Harbour is much safer than Fishguard Harbour. The cases, however, are entirely different. When these big vessels find it dangerous to enter they pass Fishguard Harbour by and do not enter at all. They do not attempt the dangers of navigation, and the mails have to pass Fishguard. That is not a great matter, because the mails are disembarked two hours later at Liverpool. The vessels are on their homeward voyage, and it is only a question of a few hours whether the mails are disembarked at Fishguard or at. Liverpool. If, however, the mails arc not taken on board at Queenstown on the outward voyage, they are left until they can be taken by another vessel in the following week. What course ought to be taken by the Post Office in the presence of these circumstances? It has been suggested that, instead of accepting the contentions of the Cunard Company, I should at all events hold up the matter until inquiry is made and take no action of any sort. What. would be the consequences? The company some months ago formally and officially gave me notice that these two ships will not enter Queenstown Harbour in bad weather. Of course, the risk of bad weather during the summer months is small, but there will come occasions in September, October, and November when the weather is bad and when the mails cannot be taken on board outside the
harbour. What will happen then? I have been told as Postmaster-General by the contracting company that on account of the dangers of navigation their ships will not enter the harbour when bad weather occurs, and, if I take no action, whenever bad weather occurs, as it cer-
2722
tainly will occur later in the year, the whole of the American mails from England, Scotland, and Ireland would be left there on the quay at Queenstown and the ship will proceed on her way to New York. What would the commercial community of this country and of Ireland say with regard to that? The mails would all be held over until the Wednesday in the following week, and there would be a very considerable delay. Business would be disorganised and the commercial community throughout the whole of the country would blame the Post Office, because, having had clear notice from the company as to what would occur, they took no steps.
Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is not that a bit of a hypothesis?
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Could not the right hon. Gentleman, as the company have given notice that they will violate the contract, at once ask for tenders for a new contract?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am coming now to the various alternatives. I have dealt first with the one suggested in this Debate by several hon. Members. An hon. Member below the Gangway asks, "Is not that a hypothesis. No, it is not a hypothesis. It is a certainty, because every year it has been found impracticable in the winter months for the ships to take on the mails outside the harbour, and they have been obliged to embark the mails. within the harbour.
Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Have the mails been left at Queenstown?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, certainly not.
Mr. W. A. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman said that the mails would be left.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly, I have had notice, which they declared to be definite and final, that they will not enter the harbour. Therefore, I think it is perfectly clear that it is impossible for me as Postmaster-General, responsible to see that this most important mail shall go to its destination in the United States and Canada at the due time, to run what is not merely a risk, but a certainty, that some time during the winter months of this very year the whole of the American mail will be left on the quay at Queenstown.
Mr. MULDOON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is no line in the contract to give notice to bring any part of it to an end?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am coming to these points one by one. I am dealing with the suggestions that have been made.
Mr. JOYCE: Who is to be the judge as to when the weather is so bad that the ship cannot go in and get the mails? Is it the company themselves?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The company are perfectly willing to embark the mails outside Queenstown Harbour, but they say they will not enter the harbour in bad weather.
Mr. JOYCE: In what conditions of weather do they say they will not enter the harbour?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When the navigating officer, the captain responsible for the safety of the ship, declares that it is dangerous to do so.
Mr. JOYCE: Dangerous from a weather point of view?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, that is the position of the company. It is not a question whether I accept that position or not. The company have made that declaration, and, in view of that declaration, I have to consider what course I can pursue.
Captain DON ELAN: Have not the company refused to allow these ships to enter Queenstown Harbour under all conditions of weather?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, it is not necessary for them to enter the harbour in all conditions of weather, because in fine weather the mails are embarked outside the harbour, and the company are perfectly willing in fine weather to continue to embark them outside the harbour. We cannot accept an arrangement of that sort, because it would mean that whenever the weather turned out to be bad on that particular day the mails would be left behind. Therefore, dealing one by one with the various suggestions that have been made, I desire to impress upon the House that one course at any rate is impossible for me to take, and that is to do nothing and merely to say I will have an inquiry. To say that the mails shall be sent to Queenstown as hitherto would thereby expose the whole commercial community of this country, certainly on one, two, or three, or more occasions this winter, to the inconvenience of having the whole American mails left behind by the Cunard vessel.
The second suggestion is that I might take proceedings against the company for
2724
breach of contract. Of course, it might be open for me to do that. The relevant clause of the contract provides that the company, among other obligations, shall embark the mails from Queenstown, and if they fail to do so shall for any such default, unless it arises wholly or partly from causes beyond the control of the company, have deducted from the annual payment to the company such sum as shall be agreed upon between the Postmaster-General and the company, or, failing agreement, shall be fixed by an arbitrator. The company are prepared to abide by that. They say, "If you desire us to do so, we will take the mails on board outside the harbour in good weather, but whenever the weather is bad we shall be obliged to leave the mails at Queenstown and proceed to New York. Then you can proceed against us for each such occasion with a view to obtaining a deduction, by arbitration, in respect of the value of the service which has not been performed." There are two objections to my taking that course. One is that it would involve the uncertainty, which I have already dwelt upon, namely, that while the company would carry the mails whenever the weather was fine and embark them outside the harbour, whenever the weather was bad the mails would be left. here till the following Wednesday. The commercial community would say that the fact that I may be able to obtain a penalty from the company is no compensation to them for having the whole mail delayed from Saturday till Wednesday.
Secondly, I am advised by my legal advisers—I am not stating a final conclusion—that it is doubtful—or, at any rate, it is arguable — that I might obtain no deduction at all, on the ground that the leaving of the mail behind was not due to any default on the part of the company. If it is due to default on their part, then I could get a deduction, but if it is due to stress of weather or dangers of navigation, dangers the reality of which are endorsed by the opinion of the Board of Trade and by the nautical advisers of the Post Office, then it might be argued that the fault was not due to them, but to natural circumstances, such as stress of weather or the condition of the harbour, and it would be doubtful whether, in fact, I could get any monetary compensation for the undoubted breach of the contract. But neither of these courses I have mentioned is really practicable, however, prima facie, they might seem to be desirable.

2725
The third course is to terminate the contract and ask for fresh tenders. The company would be only too glad if that course were adopted. They have given me notice they are perfectly 'willing at any time to terminate the contract, and, therefore, I have to consider whether the termination of the contract would be more to the advantage of the company than of the Post Office. If it should be more to the advantage of the company, I should not be inflicting on them a penalty, but I should be releasing them from their obligation. The contract in the ordinary course would run on to the year 1927. The company cannot terminate it. I can terminate it for persistent breach of contract. There is no reason to doubt that. I have not taken legal advice, but I have no doubt I could terminate it on the ground that the omission of the Queenstown call was a persistent breach. The company has written me pointing out that -when the remuneration was fixed at £68,000 a year—
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: This has not been published.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; this is a matter of finance. They have pointed out to me that the number of bags of mail in 1906, when the contract was made, was 87,000. It is now 141,000, largely owing to the reduction of the rate of postage from 2A. to id., which was not contemplated when the contract was entered into, and they have received no additional remuneration in respect of the fact that the number of bags of mails have thus increased. The number of parcels post packages has increased from 1,500 to 6,500—more than fourfold—per year. I am comparing the totals for 1912 with those for 1906, and the company still receives the sum of £68,000 which they received six years ago, when they carried little more than half the present number of bags. Take their service, on the other hand, with the United States Post Office for the return or eastward trip. The number of sacks of mails carried by them was 34,000 in 1906, and it is 88,000 now. The United States Post Office has no contract with the Cunard Company. It pays them under the Postal Union rates according to the mass of mails carried. The payment to the Cunard Company by the American Post Office has increased from £30,000 six years ago to £73,000 now, while we are paying the 'Cunard Company £68,000 for carrying 141,000 bags of mail, the United States Post Office, which
2726
has no contract, is paying them £73,000, or £5,000 more, for 88,000 bags of mail, or only about two-thirds of what they carry for us. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, I have to consider very carefully whether the Post Office would not be losing more than it gained if it terminated this contract and asked for fresh tenders.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The interests Of Ireland would be saved.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: But I should have to make sure that any other company would call at Queenstown. That would have to be made a condition of the contract, and, as the Cunard Company would not tender under those circumstances, the competition with other companies which have ships capable of carrying mails at anything like the speed made by the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" would probably not be very large. All these circumstances have to be taken into account, and the matter cannot be lightly dismissed. The hon. Member for East Wicklow complains that the Papers have only been laid towards the very end of the Session. He said the final letter of the company was dated 19th June. But, after the receipt of that letter, I had to go into very important legal considerations. I had to take the advice of the Law Officers, and I had to consult my colleagues, because the matter is one of very great importance not only to Ireland, but to the whole country. I was only in a position, therefore, to send my letter in reply on the 8th August, and still the correspondence is not complete, because the company's reply has not reached me. But being anxious that Papers should be laid before the end of the Session, I published the correspondence in an incomplete form, in time to have this discussion which has taken place to-day. If I had held back the correspondence and only made this announcement after the House had risen, then I think hon. Members would have had some cause for complaint. I deliberately did not do that. I took care the Papers should be laid before the House rose, in order that there might be an opportunity for hon. Members to voice the complaints which I felt certain would be made heard through the representatives of the Irish people. If hon. Members opposite have any practical suggestion to make, I shall be most grateful to them, and will give it my most sympathetic consideration, for I am wholly at one with them in thinking that serious

2727
injury is being done to the Port of Queenstown and serious inconvenience imposed on the commercial community in Ireland. I am entirely at one with them in that, and I am most reluctant to acquiesce in any degree in the omission of the Queenstown call. I have resisted it on previous occasions, and should resist it now if I had any weapon with which I could combat it. But in view of the opinions I. have received from my nautical advisers, and from the Board of Trade, I cannot dispute the contention that risk is inevitable in taking the ship in, and I have unfortunately no reason to think that to terminate the contract would be other than to meet the desires of the Cunard Company.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I only desire to say a few words in continuation of this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said he has published these Papers at this time in order that we may have an opportunity of voicing our complaint. It is not much gratification to us to have an opportunity of voicing our complaint if the deed is done. The complaint I have against the right hon. Gentleman is that when this question was raised last April by the Cunard Company he did not at once take us into his confidence. I do not think it was fair for him to carry on these investigations with the Cunard Company during those months behind the backs of the local harbour authority and of the Parliamentary representatives of
the country. I think we should have been taken into consultation, and should have had an opportunity of laying our views and our expert report before the right hon. Gentleman before he came to any decision in the matter. However, the right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by a suggestion or invitation which seemed to me to hold out some promise of a way out of the difficulty. He said, as indeed we knew, that he was personally most averse to agreeing to any variation of the contract which would he injurious to Queenstown or to Ireland. He thinks he is coerced by the report of his nautical advisers, but he has not yet had an opportunity of consultation with the local harbour authority; he does not yet know what proposals they may be able to make to him for further improvements in the harbour, if such are necessary, and he does not know what further independent nautical testimony may be put before him. I submit that he has only heard one side of the case, and
2728
for him to come to a final decision under these circumstances would be I think he, as a fair-minded -man, will admit a most unfair proceeding. He said if the objectors to the new arrangement had any practical proposal to put forward, he would be delighted to consider it. I have a suggestion to make to him. He has not yet come to a final and definite decision upon this matter, and I suggest he should not do so until a local inquiry had been held, until the local harbour hoard had been consulted, and until they are able to present him with a report from nautical experts, such as they- can easily obtain, on the alleged dangers of the Queenstown Harbour. Let the right hon. Gentleman make a limit of time within which the matter will be held up, and if within that limit we are not able to show him that the danger is an imaginary danger, then there will be reason for him saying, "I cannot hold the matter up indefinitely." But I submit he ought to hold it up for a sufficient time to enable the local authorities to take counsel and put a report before him. That is a- most moderate request. We have been kept in the dark up to the very last moment. We are now at the end of the Session, and, if things are left as they 'are at this moment, the matter will be decided without any opportunity for the local people to explain their views or to put practical proposals before the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the hon. Member to tell me what he thinks would happen if a storm were to take place next week or the week after?
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That has not happened during all the years the contract has been in existence, but if, unfortunately, it should happen, I think that the interests which would be damaged by the-delay and the loss of a day or two would not be comparable -with the injury which would be done if, without full consultation and without full knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman comes to a definite decision upon this matter now. I will not go into the question of renouncing the contract. I think that might very properly be done. I confine myself to what I regard as a practical proposal in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. Will he hold up this matter for a specific and definite decision until he has heard the other side t Is it fair for him to come to this decision behind the back of the local authority, without giving any opportunity to those

2729
who contend that Queenstown Harbour is safe? Will he hold up this matter long enough to enable the local authorities to hold an inquiry and to submit testimony to him from the nautical point of view in contravention of the view of this defaulting company?
Mr. J. HOGGE Mr. J. HOGGE rose—
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some answer to my question, as I presume the hon. Member is going to another subject?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: By the leave of the House, I would say that I have not given any formal assent to the course taken by the company. I have abstained from doing so, and, as at present advised, I am not proposing to give any formal assent. But I have to provide against the eventualities to which I have referred. The company, having definitely stated that their ships will not in future enter the harbour, the mails will, on the next occasion of bad weather, be left behind, not for a day or two, but from Saturday till the following Wednesday. While the matter can no doubt be reviewed subsequently if any suggestion is made, I must now provide against that very fact as Postmaster-General charged with the responsibility of securing the proper transport of the mails, and I must provide some steps to secure that it will not happen.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that once the mails have been taken from Queenstown, the case will be prejudiced, and it will be very much more difficult to get them back. Cannot the inquiry I have suggested be made before any such arrangement is entered into?
Mr. JOYCE: If the mails are delayed on Sunday, cannot they go on another day, and are there not other boats?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, but they are very slow.
Mr. HOGGE: I wish to deal with one topic in connection with the administration of prisons in Scotland. I fully recognise it is almost a crime to deliver a speech at this period of the Session, and I shall attempt to mitigate it by being as brief as possible. This is the only opportunity which has occurred this Session—indeed, for a great number of Sessions—of raising a point which involves the work, wages and conditions of the staff of men in Scotland connected with our prisons. On the last occasion when this matter was
2730
raised, my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) put a series of questions to the Secretary for Scotland with which he was unable to deal, because of the conditions that exist at Question Time. The points I desire to put are three in number. The first concerns the head wardefs in Scottish prisons. 1 ask my right hon. Friend whether there is going to be any increase in salary and in status afforded to them as a result of the representations which have been made to the Scottish Office by that class of men. I would remind my right hon. Friend that the chairman of the Scottish Prison Commissioners stated a few weeks ago before the Royal Commission upon appointments in the Civil Service, with regard to the head warders in Scotland, that
"they occupy a position of importance and great responsibility, and are equal in position to the Deputy-Governor in English prisons."
Whereas in Scotland the salary of these men begins at £95, and reaches a maximum of only £;120, the comparable rank in England begins at £250 and rises by increments of £5 and £10 to £350. What is the reason for that disparity between the remuneration of the men in Scotland, whose position and work is equal to that of the Deputy-Governor of Prisons in England? My second point is with regard to the revived office of clerks in Scottish prisons. That office has remained in abeyance for a period of twenty years, but has now been revived. I dare say there are very good reasons for reviving it. I can very well conceive that on the administrative side of the prison it may be important to have men whose work is particularly concerned with the clerical side only, and that there should be men concerned mainly with the stores in connection with the prison. But in appointing these new men. it is extremely desirable that they should not disturb the position of the existing officials in the prison. I understand that that is what is occurring. My right hon. Friend will remember that I represent a Division in Scotland where we have one of the largest prisons, which enables me to represent practically the constituents of all the other Members who sit for Scotland. If my right hon. Friend bears in mind what the remuneration of these clerks is to be, their hours of service, and the maximum salary to which they are to go, he will admit that the store warders will work longer hours for less money than

2731
the new type of official who is being introduced into the prison. That is obviously a state of affairs which may create dissatisfaction among a staff which, up to the present time, has given great satisfaction in the performance of its duties. The suggestion that has been made to me is that, instead of creating this new class, it might be possible to take that type of servant from the existing store warders and put them on to the clerical side of the prison work. Probably that would make it possible to remedy any dissatisfaction which does exist.
My third point is that of the conditions of the work of the store warders, as compared with the clerk and schoolmaster in English prisons. The Secretary for Scotland, in answer to a question upon this point, said that he could not at that moment discuss the difference in the condition in the English prison, as compared with the Scottish prison. That was quite true. But this is an opportunity which enables him to make a public statement as to why these men have these different conditions. I should like him to understand that the warders in Scottish prisons are not so much complaining about the fact that their remuneration is not equal to that of the clerk and schoolmaster, because they got some slight increase this year as the result of the representations made to him. But even so, while they have got increased remuneration, it is still true that both the minimum and the maximum of the class in Scotland and the class in England are such as work out to the disadvantage of the men in the Scottish prison. They also receive a smaller allowance, so that when they retire they get a smaller pension. The work of the clerk and schoolmaster in an English prison is the equivalent of that of the store warder in the Scottish prison. The clerk and schoolmaster have larger pay, a larger allowance, very much better hours and very much better conditions of service. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give very sympathetic consideration to the claim of this class of servants to be put on an equal footing with their colleagues in English prisons 1 If there are substantial reasons why that should not be done, will my right hon. Friend tell us what they are. I am certain that he, along with the chairman of the Prison Commissioners, recognises the work that is being done by these men, and that while it is true that discontent must always exist inside the cell, we ought to see that so far as possible
2732
no discontent exists outside the cell among the store warders. If my right hon. Friend can hold out any hope that he will give this matter his sympathetic consideration, I can assure him in anticipation that these men will be extremely grateful to him.
6.0. P.M.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The store warders in the Scottish prisons have, I think, no present ground of grievance. It is only a month or two ago that they obtained an increase in their wages. The second class of store warders had their minimum raised,£10 and their maximum raised £10. The first class had their minimum raised £10 and their maximum £15, whereas the head store warders had increments of £5 minimum and £30 maximum, so that the plea. raised as regards money is a plea that has been met. I know these gentlemen are very assiduous in writing to Members of Parliament. In fact, they write to Members of Parliament with a frequency and diligence which are not altogether desirable.
Mr. HOGGE: No one inside the prison has written to me, and my right hon. Friend must bear in mind that a great number of these men are constituents of mine, and, like every other constituent, are entitled to put their grievance in front of the man who represents them in this House.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's explanation, because it seems self-contradictory. He defends their right to make representations, but says they had made none. I do not think they have any grievance at the moment on the ground of wages, because a substantial increase of their wages has been made. Then, the argument of my hon. Friend in comparing their status with the status of officials in English prisons is rendered inconclusive by the fact that he compared them with clerks and schoolmasters in English prisons, who are not doing the same kind of work, and cannot fairly be compared with them. It is not a good argument to compare men who are doing entirely different work and to demand that their status and emoluments and hours should be precisely similar. With regard to the head warders, they have not had any increase of salary since 1910, and the Treasury has refused to give any increase; but, in 1910, the two head warders who are the class of person referred to by my hon. Friend -had their salaries increased. The maximum salary

2733
of one was increased from £150 to £190, and the other had the minimum salary increased though the maximum was not altered. The other point raised by my hon. Friend is this: He asked why we had not promoted store warders to the position of clerks. That is a matter which the Prison Commissioners considered carefully, and they came to the conclusion that, with exceptions, the class of store warders had not the necessary experience to fulfil the duties of clerks in the larger prisons, and they gave me a complete table of the occupations of these officials before they were appointed, and I think they made their case good.
Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the expression "experience" education'?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I mean experience. In the larger prisons they have to do clerical work, and that requires some training in clerical work. A number of these men before appointment had no training of that kind at all, and in the view of the Prison Commissioners they were not suited to fill the posts. The Prison Commissioners put before me the reasons upon which they came to this conclusion, and I am bound to say they seemed to me to be convincing. Of course, the appointment does not disturb the position of the existing officials. The existing officials, if they had qualificatons, were open to be appointed, and their position is net hindered in any way except, of course, in so far as it was necessary to find people to do their work. There is a good deal of book-keeping to be dose in the larger prisons in Scotland, and I think the Prison Commissioners are justified in seeing that the work is done adequately and correctly in the public interests. Under these circumstances, I think they were right in saying they must have qualified men to perform the duty of clerks.
Mr. CLYNES: A few weeks ago my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) raised a question respecting the conduct of the police in connection with the Leith strike. We are glad to know that the strike has been settled, but the case pressed by my hon. Friend is one into which drastic inquiry was promised, and I wish to press for some information as to what has been the result of that inquiry. On the whole, in this country we have no great cause to quarrel with the conduct of the civil authorities in connection with trade disputes, but there are occasions, and this
2734
I think is one of them, when it would appear that the power of the police is thrown too much upon the employers' side, and when apparently it is intended to use them as a force to break a strike and to unduly interfere-with the legal rights of working men engaged in a strike. We object to this civil force being thrown upon the employers' side. I need only cite one instance to illustrate the ground of such a grievance as this. On one occasion, in connection with this strike, a band of miners with their band journeyed from Musselburgh and held a demonstration in Leith. They proceeded to head a procession to collect moneys in aid of the strikers in different parts of Leith, and were then returning to a particular piece of land so as to collect the members who, formed the procession, and who were to form it on the return journey, and while they were peacefully proceeding for this purpose of merely gathering the men together, they were deliberately charged by the police and some were rather severely handled. These are points which we think should receive the attention of the Government, as it is essential that the police should retain the confidence of all combatants in connection with these disputes, and we hope investigation has taken place into this question, and that the right hon. Gentleman can give some satisfactory answer.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The inquiry promised by the Lord Advocate has commenced, but I have not yet learnt what the results are, and, indeed, sufficient time has hardly elapsed to enable one to expect that the results of an inquiry into what was a very grave and serious charge would be published. From the reports I have received from the chief constable and the sheriff, I hardly think it is correct to say that the civil forces were thrown on the employers' side. Although I believe the leaders themselves are anxious to avoid violence, there is no doubt, unfortunately, that acts of considerable violence did occur. Shops were broken into, and there was considerable rioting, whoever were the parties who took part in it, and the police certainly had a very difficult task on more than one occasion. I know no reason for believing that more force was exerted than was absolutely required by the circumstances of the moment. I can assure my hon. Friends that the matter which has been brought to my notice by the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) will be most minutely and drastically inquired into.
Mr. CLYNES: Could the right hon. Gentleman promise some inquiry into this attack on the bands?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of it, it will be inquired into.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to call attention to the question of the insufficiency of answers by Ministers to unstarred questions, particularly illustrated by one from which I am a sufferer to-day. I put this question, which I thought of considerable importance:—
"To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether advance copies of the Report of the Land Inquiry will be sent to landowners whose estate management is criticised therein and landowners in districts adversely criticised in the Report, and whether any replies such landowners may send to such criticisms will lie published with the Report, or whether any and what opportunity will be given to any landowners to reply to anonymous criticisms or statements of fact in such Report before the Report is publicly circulated."
This was the only answer which came—
"I would ask the hon. and learned Member to await the publication of the Report before making definite suggestions as to the nature of its contents."
It is of the utmost importance for many reasons, both for the sake of Ministers and others, to encourage unstarred rather than starred questions, and I certainly am not an offender in putting down starred questions and I do it reluctantly, but Ministers ought to give a full and fair answer or say they cannot do it. At this period of the Session I am entitled to plume myself to some extent on saving the time of Ministers by putting down unstarred questions. If I had put the question down starred I could have asked supplementary questions if necessary and in certain circumstances I could have moved the Adjournment of the House, but what is my position now? I have asked a question about the Report of a Land Inquiry. That Report is likely to be published in the Recess, and therefore directly it is published the mischief which this question is seeking to deal with will be done because, of course, it will be circulated amongst the public, and
the people who are affected by the Report will not know who is responsible for it, and whether there is any answer to it. That point will be a stale one next February and, of course, the Report will have gone to the public, who are liable to believe anything which appears in print, and the mischief will be done. It is important for me to get an answer this Session. I cannot ask the question in the House because it Is already unstarred. I come here upon the Appropriation Bill,
2736
and it is out of order to raise the question because it does not affect public money. I am, therefore, without remedy, simply and solely because of my tender heartedness in putting down the question as unstarred instead of starred. When you put down a question unstarred you should get an answer, and not merely be asked to wait for the publication of the Report, which is not an answer to the question. I submit that I have suffered, because unless I get an answer this Session it is no use to me. I thought it my duty to bring the matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as this is not the only occasion. I hope I shall get an assurance that in future, if I pursue the course I have always pursued of using unstarred instead of starred questions, he will give me a complete answer to any question which I put to him.
Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I ask the indulgence of the House for a short time in order to make a few remarks on a subject on which I feel very strongly, namely, the great and growing increase in expenditure on our naval and military preparations. I know that that increase is a popular one in certain quarters, and that the voice of anyone who protests against it is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. But in spite of that, and at the risk of repeating a thrice-told tale, I wish to add for myself to what my hon. Friends the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) said yesterday on the subject. What is the position in this matter so far as this House is concerned'? Parliament, so far as the principle of peace. goes, is like another place which I need not mention, and which is paved with good intentions. We are all filled with sincere and pious aspirations for peace, but I rather doubt whether we are going the right way to practice what we preach. We all remember the noble and notable utterance of the Foreign Secretary not long ago in connection with the question of international arbitration. The Prime Minister has said that the race in armaments is the greatest and, in some ways, the most tragic paradox of our time." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the expenditure devoted to armaments will, if persisted in at the present rate, "strangle civilisation," and the First Lord of the Admiralty has said that it is "the crowning folly of Christendom." In spite of that, what is the present position? The First Lord has made himself and the Govern-

2737
ment responsible along with all the other Christian fools for Estimates amounting to t sum of £45,000,000, the largest ever proposed in time of peace, and he has told us that we are now having the greatest number of warships ever delivered in the history of the British Empre. In that, and in other ways £100,000,000—two—thirds of the total revenue of the country, or an average of nearly 5s, a week for every family in the country—is being spent on payments for war or preparations for war. If these are our best methods, and that is the result from our efforts at preserving peace, I do not wonder that the Prime Minister described it as paradoxical. It seems to me much as though you proposed to lay in a supply of gunpowder in order to prevent explosions. Of course, I know that the First Lord suggested that there should be a holiday in these matters. But I see no signs of it.
I think we are engaged in a sort of rake's progress and are going from bad to worse. Why, we are putting all the elements under contribution—fire, of course, the earth, and the waters under the earth, and, as if that was not enough, we have got our heads in the air, or perhaps I ought to put it that the air has got into our heads ! We have spent so much time this Session in establishing and endowing some institutions, and in disestablishing and disendowing others, that there is very little left to which to apply the one process or the other. But there is one more world to conquer, and the War Office and the hon. Member for Rrentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) have put their heads together in an unholy alliance to endow the atmosphere, not with anything for its good, but with machines for slaughter. What are all those machinations and preparations for? I think that the dangers against which they are supposed to safeguard us are largely imaginary or, at least, hypothetical. We are told upon very high authority that it is necessary that we should all arm, because in five, ten, or fifteen years some other nation may do this, that, or the other. We do not know what we are going to do, or what we arc going to be in this country in five, ten, or fifteen years from now. We may be anything—Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, or Suffragette—and if we do not know our own minds, I do not know how anyone, unless it were possibly some member of another place, can tell what is going to be in the minds of other people. But I saw
2738
recently a rather more definite statement. I saw it stated that 150,000 Germans were going to land here in war time upon two conditions. The first was that they were not to be seen, and the second was that they were to have a calm crossing. There is to be "no moaning at the bar when they put out to sea." I scarcely think that either of these conditions is likely to be satisfied, and, therefore, we may dismiss that idea as out of the category of reasonable probabilities. I prefer myself to think that the Germans and all other nations are animated with the same feelings of Christianity and friendliness for us as I believe we have for them.
We do not know where we are going in this matter. I think we are in the position of the very small boy who was once met leading a large Newfoundland dog. Someone said, "Where are you going?" and he replied, "I do not know; it depends upon tile dog." Whether it takes us to the dogs or not, if expenditure is persisted in at the present rate it will eventually lead us to national bankruptcy. It seems to me that proceedings such as these, by which we are withdrawing men and money which might be put to better uses from productive to unproductive purposes, are bad in themselves, whether you look at them from the point of view of policy or the point of view of premium. We are about to separate at the end of the Session. In its earlier stages we were asked to vote a considerable portion of the £100,000,000
which I have mentioned for warlike preparations, and quite recently at the end of it we have been asked to vote £150,000 for the purposes of education—that is to say, we propose to spend 150,000 in putting brains into people, and £100,000,000 in providing means for knocking them out. I am bound to say I consider that a very bad bargain, the, figures of which I, for one, would like to see reversed. In spite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's counsel of despair yesterday, I do think that there is a better way before us. As a Liberal I should like to put it in the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He spoke not long ago of the ideal Liberal as he understood him. He said:—
"Such a one ought to stand as a restraining force against an extravagant policy. Be is a man who ought to keep cool in the presence of Jingo clamour. He is a man who believes that confidence between nations begets confidence, and that the spirit of peace and goodwill makes the safety it seeks."
I quote those words for the purpose of saying that I absolutely agree with them. If the First Lord of the Admiralty and I

2739
agree on the subject, I suppose the House may take it that it is fairly correct. I have only spoken because I felt that I should not be true to many of those who returned me here, as I certainly should not be true to my own convictions, unless I endeavoured to say, however inadequately, what I have said. I believe there is a great and growing feeling of misgiving and apprehension at the extension and the expansion of these bloated armaments, and all I have to say in conclusion to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the others in the Government who are responsible, is that I believe the more they act in the spirit of the declaration I have read the greater will be the gratitude which they will earn, and which they will deserve, not only among many members of their own party, but among vast numbers of the inhabitants of this country, quite irrespective of party.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am sure the House is very grateful to my hon. Friend (Sir W. Lawson) for calling attention to this matter, and especially for the admirable way in which he has done it. Not only the theme but the treatment of it reminded me of his esteemed father whom I have heard many a time expound his views on this subject with equal delight and satisfaction to the whole House. I am not at all sorry that on the very last day of the Session attention should be drawn to the peril I referred to yesterday which is involved in the enormous growth of expenditure upon armaments, not merely in this country, but throughout the civilised world. I think it is one of the greatest menaces I can see to civilisation. I ventured to give a figure the other day which I shall repeat to the House, and which I think is one of the best indications of the rapidity with which expenditure is growing upon armaments in this country and in every other country. I find that the expenditure on all the navies of the world in 1886 was not equal to what we are spending on our Navy alone this year. I think that is a very startling circumstance. We are spending alone upon our Navy about 216,000,000 or £47,000,000 this year. Taking Germany, France. Japan, the -United States of America, and ourselves together we were not spending that amount in 1886. That is an indication of the alarming rate at which armaments are growing. The size of the ships are growing, there are new ideas in submarines and in airships
2740
and aeroplanes and hydroplanes, and we are not at the end yet, because science is assisting us to spend our money. It is not merely a question of ourselves, but it is, as I said yesterday, a question for all the civilised nations of the world to take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) reproached me yesterday for what I said, and that for-saying one nation alone could not stop it. I agree with another portion of his speech. He said if the Concert of Europe could settle matters of complication and. difficulty in the Near East, and if the Concert of Europe could show a spirit of harmony and good feeling and common sense in settling a menacing situation there, it ought also to try to unravel the present entanglement of spending on armaments, and of rivalry in expenditure, and ought to substitute for that spirit a spirit of co-operation and good will. If that were done not merely our own country but other countries in the world would be better off. There was something said yesterday about money stringency. The money stringency is for the moment a very great danger to our trade. While we are spending over £400,000,000 in the great industrial countries of the world upon armaments, it is idle to talk about getting money for trade. Ready cash is found for armaments, but it would be very much better spent upon the development of industrial resources in the various countries. I am not at all sorry that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has called attention: to this subject.
I have now just a word to say in answer' to the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Rawlinson) about the Land Inquiry Committee. He asked me an important question about something that does not come under the control of my Department or of any other Government Department. The Prime Minister has been repeatedly asked questions of this kind, and he has given the only possible answer that could he given, and that is that the procedure of this Committee is a matter entirely for itself. The Prime Minister has no control over it; the Government have no control over it. We have only whatever opportunity offers to make suggestions. I have no doubt that suggestions made will be considered by that Committee, but they are perfectly at liberty either to adopt, reject, or ignore suggestions that may be made to them. Therefore I have no responsibility for the inquiry that is taking

2741
place. The hon. and learned Member has assumed something about the Report which I think he will find is utterly inaccurate when that Report is published. He is proceeding on the assumption that this is a kind of roving inquiry attacking landlords. He will find it is nothing of the kind, and therefore I think he had better wait until the Report is issued. I have not seen the Report.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Then how do you know what it will contain?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not say what I have said unless I had some information as to the character of the Report.
Mr. RAWLINSON: You have seen it then.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I have not, but I have an idea what they have in their minds. It is not based on an attack on landlords. This Committee is simply inquiring into the present condition of things. It is a Committee of Inquiry just as there is a Committee of Inquiry which the hon. and learned Member's own party have been conducting. There is a Committee in connection with his party, of which the Marquess of Lansdowne is a member and, I think, a vice-president. They have simultaneously with this Committee sent out questions, thousands of them, broadcast across the country. I would not consider the hon. and learned Gentleman responsible if he was not a member, even if he was a Minister, to answer questions as to the doings of that Committee. I have no responsibility as a Minister or as a private individual for anything that has been done by these gentlemen, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find, when the Report is issued, that the spirit in which the investigation has been conducted is totally different from what he thinks. I still say it is far better to wait and see the Report before the hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that this Committee is trying to find out disagreeable facts about individual landlords. They are not proceeding on these lines; it is not a Committee of that kind. It is investigating certain things in order to arrive at certain facts, but I have no responsibility for its work or procedure.
Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: It is with reluctance I rise to continue the Debate, and I would not do so except that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester had intended to raise the question with which I am about to deal on the Home Office
2742
Vote, but unfortunately was crowded out, and he gave an undertaking to the parties interested that the question should be raised upon the Appropriation Bill. My hon. Friend being unable to be present himself to-day, has asked me to honour that undertaking, and that is the justification and the apology which I offer for standing between hon. Members and the holidays which we all desire. The matter arises out of a question addressed by my hon. Friend to the Home Secretary on 11th June. My hon. Friend then asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a statement made regarding the treatment of Mrs. Haines in Camberwell House, in the course of which allegations were made that all the procedure necessary for her classification as a lunatic had not been gone through in the proper fashion, and my hon. Friend asked whether inquiries would be made. The Home Secretary replied that he had seen certain statements in the Press respecting this case, and that he had previously received representation to the same effect, and that he had referred the matter to the Commissioners in Lunacy, who had reported that after careful inquiry into these complaints they were satisfied that there was no ground for them. On 30th June my hon. Friend addressed a further question to the Home Secretary upon the same subject. The case seems to suggest that there are grave defects in the existing Lunacy Laws, and that great abuses are possible. The facts of this case have been supplied to my hon. Friend, who has taken considerable interest in the case, and he is convinced that it presents certain aspects which call for publicity. The facts are these:
This Mrs. Haines in question had been engaged in conducting a large boardinghouse business, and it is alleged that the strain of the business caused a nervous breakdown. A local doctor was called in to deal with the case, and the allegation that I have to make is not directed particularly against the doctor called in. because, as I understand, he referred the matter to an assistant in his service. This assistant advised the woman's removal to a nursing home, and said that her condition made it inadvisable that she should be removed to any great distance. Therefore, it was recommended that she should' apply for admission into Camberwell House. I understand Camberwell House is a place where lunatics are admitted, and

2743
the point we desire to submit here, first of all, is that no suggestion of insanity ever was advanced at that stage in the case of Mrs. Haines. Acting upon the advice of the doctor, the woman was removed to Camberwell House on 10th June, 1910. Her husband visited her the day following her admission and found her perfectly comfortable. He called again four days later, 15th June, but was not allowed to see her, and the reason assigned for that refusal was that his visit of four days previously had so upset her that they felt they were warranted in making the refusal on that occasion. The man was then asked to sign a document which would enable his wife to remain in Camberwell House as a patient, the reason for this request being that a heavy penalty would otherwise be incurred for allowing a sane person to remain in a lunatic asylum. The evidence supplied to us is that Mr. Haines did not read the form, and, therefore, of course, I am bound to admit that he did not properly perform his own duty to his wife. We know the class of people we often have to deal with, and therefore it is said the man did not read the form; that he filled in no particulars, and that it was only sometime afterwards he learned that he hadbeen prevailed upon to sign a lunacy petition. The man called several times subsequently to see his wife, and was put off for various reasons. On 25th June he insisted upon seeing her, and then he found her in a semi-conscious condition, and altogether in a very parlous state of health. Against the wish of the Camberwell House authorities Mr. Haines insisted on taking his wife away. Five days after having taken his wife away from Camberwell House he received a communication from the Lunacy Commissioners to the effect that his wife had been discharged "not improved." The husband took no notice of this communication, and nothing further was heard. The matter rested there awhile, but, upon the recovery to health of Mrs. Haines, inquiries were set on foot, and copies of the certificate in question were obtained. For the first time they were made acquainted with the fact that the doctor's certificate had attested that the facts of the woman's case indicated insanity, and they say that it was the first time that lunacy was ever suggested to them, and that, therefore, in their opinion, the woman had been kept in this place without any reasonable cause.
Another point they made was that the necessary certificate—that is, the attesta
2744
tion of the justice of the peace, as well as the certificate of the doctor—was not. properly obtained. The allegation is that the justice of the peace who made the attestation had not seen Mrs. Haines at all, and certainly, if that be the case, there was a gross irregularity, and, if that be the customary practice, then it is quite conceivable that quite innocent persons could be incarcerated in a lunatic asylum. It is that which has, of course, animated my hon. Friend in directing public attention to the circumstances of the case. The Lunacy Acts require, as I understand, that a patient should be informed within twenty-four hours of reception into an asylum that he or she has a right of appeal to judicial authority. We are informed that this patient was not apprised of this power, and certainly the evidence, as submitted to us, leads us to believe that she had no knowledge that this power did exist. Our case, then, is that the certification and the incarceration of Mrs. Haines was secured on the word of one doctor alone, originally engaged for this woman, or of an assistant in his employ. I think these are the salient facts of the case, and, as I have observed already, it is only because my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Labour party has felt that there is a point of public interest involved that he has called attention to the matter. If the facts prove that that was the practice pursued, then there is positive danger involved to the liberty of quite harmless and innocent subjects, and I would express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to relieve the anxieties that we entertain, for I think we have established a case for inquiry, with a view to determining whether or not the Lunacy Acts do afford sufficient protection to people, or whether an alteration is required, or whether, after all, the administration of the lunacy laws have been in fault in this particular case. My only reason for rising on behalf of my hon. Friend is in order to protect the liberty of the subject in similar circumstances, should they arise.
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the case of Police-constable Carr, of South Fulham, who has retired on a pension. His name has been mentioned in this House before, and he was one of the most able of constables in the country in matters regarding public morality. A testimonial is being got up for him by clergymen, Nonconformists, and others, and by a local society, be-

2745
cause of his splendid service in dealing with what is called the "white slave traffic." The man has done his duty for a great many years, but he has never been favoured by promotion, and now it is his turn to retire. These people wish to make him a present because of the manner in which he has pursued those vagabonds who run these disorderly houses and inveigle women into them. We passed an Act a short time ago which prevents any police officer receiving any testimonial. I do not think that measure was intended to apply to such a case as this; I believe it was intended to apply to officers who received rewards from interested persons. I think the Home Secretary has power to remove the obstacle to this constable receiving this testimonial, and I hope he will inquire into the case and give permission for this public testimonial to be subscribed and presented.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I desire to call attention to one aspect of the case which I brought forward the other evening. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he still adheres to his statement made in the Debate the other evening, that the report of the case which appeared in the "News of the World" did not contain the extract which I read out to the House? I ask the question for this reason. After the right hon. Gentleman finished he brought me a copy of the paper containing the report, and which he said did not contain the statement which I read out. On the strength of that I have asked the editor of the "News of the World" why this paragraph did not appear in all the editions. I have gone further, and this morning I have consulted all the editions of the paper which were issued for that week, and, so far as I can ascertain, every edition contains the statement I quoted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make the matter clear and explain why we could not find the paragraph the other evening, when the matter was being discussed. It is only fair to the editor of the paper that the correction should be made public. The point I desire to raise concerns the raising of a fresh action against the woman Queenie Gerald for procuration. The right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my former statement that he did not know what I wanted to do, and I tried to make it clear then that I wanted one of two things, either that he should publish the correspondence, or, if that was impossible, to bring a charge of procuration against the
2746
woman Queenie Gerald, so that all the facts might be brought into the light of day. In reply to that the right hon. Gentleman made statements which appeared to me to be so serious that they require some further explanation before this case is allowed to drop. In they OFFICIAL REPORT these words occur as having been used by the Home Secretary. I had quoted from: the "Times" report a passage from the speech of Mr. Travers Humphreys, in
which he was made to say:—
"Letters found on the premises made it clear that accused was carrying on the trade of a pocuress."
I quoted subsequently from the "Daily
Telegraph" and from the "News of the. World" a more elaborate report, in which the same statement occurrel, but supported by more evidence. This is what
the right hon. Gentleman said in reply:—
"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 haul acted as procuress. I think that Mr. Lawrie, in making that statement, was incorrect on the facts of the ease."
That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to cast a rather serious reflection upon the pre-siding magistrate. But as to the evidence in support of the charge of procuration it appears to me that there should not be. and could not be any difficulty in obtaining it. The question turns on the question of the letters seized by the police, and, which presumably, are still in their possession. The right hon. Gentleman said that those letters were not themselves sufficient evidence to justify bringing a charge. These were the words he used:—
"Then it was said, 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."
I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by those letters not being signed. I wish to ask was there a signature to any other letter?
The SECRETARY OF STATE for the. HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna):' No.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: No signature of any kind—no means of identification?
Mr. McKENNA: None whatever.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether those letters were bogus letters or business letters, and, if they were business letters there must have been some means whereby the woman could identify the writers. They were found in her accounts or in her diary, and it seems to me a mere

2747
quibble to say that, because the names which appear were not in the handwriting of the writer of the letters, the Home Office were not justified in taking further action to find out from whom the letters came. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
"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,"
7.0 P.M.
I ask the Home Secretary to tell us his authority for that last statement. How does he know whether she procured innocent girls for these men or not? What is his evidence on the point, and, if not, what was his reason for going out of his way to make such a very definite statement on a subject on which there appears to be considerable evidence that the very reverse was the truth? One more quotation on this point from column 2393 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 12th August last. The Home Secretary also said:—
"There is no evidence that it was a true statement 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."
Once more I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how he knows those are all the facts. Surely the fact of these men writing certain letters and sending large sums of money shows that there must be other facts which have not come to the Home Secretary's knowledge and which further investigations might bring out' We have a Scotch proverb which says, "There's aye some water where there's ice." When we have all this evidence of attempts to procure girls, and the woman's replies to such requests agreeing to procure girls, it would take a good deal to convince the average man who is not a lawyer that there is not sufficient evidence on which to base a charge of procuration against this woman. Just one more statement, and then my task is finished as far as this House is concerned. Referring to the question of the names, the Home Secretary said—and I quote from column 2395 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th August last:—
"We come to the question of names. It is said that it was in order not to disclose the 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, m a diary kept by the woman, and in a sort of ledger kept by her.
2748
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."
There is the point which is causing so much uneasiness in this House and outside of it. It is known, and it is admitted publicly, that those names were found and they are now in the possession of the authorities. Letters and other documents were found bearing upon procuration. I do not say the whole of the correspondence, but letters, documents, and other evidence, including the woman's own letters, were found bearing upon procuration. The Prosecutor for the Crown, Mr. Travers Humphreys, stated in the most emphatic manner that they had evidence to show that this woman was acting as a procuress.
Mr. McKENNA: Some evidence.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE:I think Mr. Travers Humphreys did not say "some evidence," but that it was Mr. Lawrie, the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, who said so. Mr. Travers Humphreys made no such qualification, and just to make that point clear perhaps I may be allowed to read his statement.
Mr. McKENNA: I will take the hon. Member's word for it.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: This is from the "News of the World":—
"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."
That is my case. I think it lies with 1 he authorities and the Home Office to take action to have this woman tried on the charge of procuration, and unless they do so I shall be justified in believing, and many besides me will believe, that the reason why that course has not been taken is because there are names mixed up in this case which the Home Secretary and the authorities are averse to having revealed.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I wish to dissociate myself from that view of the case altogether which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member. I do not think the Home Secretary desires to shield anybody, but I should be glad if he could assure us

2749
that the matter would be considered by these legal advisers to see whether anything could be done in the matter.
Mr. McKENNA: In reply to the remark of the hon. Member for Member, I entirely deny the charge that I have some motive in not proceeding with this case. The hon. Member asks that this woman should be proceeded against on the charge of procuration. Before such action could be brought there must be evidence upon which to found the charge. What is the evidence of procuration against this woman? First of all, let me remind hon. Members that procuration in its legal sense is a term apart, and has not got the ordinary meaning of procuring a woman, whether that woman be already a prostitute or not. In the sense of the Act of Parliament procuration means procuring a woman who is not a prostitute. How are you going to begin to establish a charge against Queenie Gerald of this kind with all the evidence which the police have got from the women, four in number, who were in her flat. It is that, on first going to the flat, she asked them whether they were already on the streets, because, if they were not, she had no use for them. It must be remembered that this case was founded upon the evidence of those women, those girls, who were the witnesses of the police; and the first question counsel for the defendant would put to the police witness would be, "Were you already a prostitute before you went to this flat?" and their answer, upon their own statement to the police, would be, "We were." How, under circumstances such as that, could a charge of procuration be founded against this woman? It is absolutely inconceivable. Even if we could bring a charge of the kind against the woman, there would be no names which could be published, except the name of Morris, which has already been published. The hon. Member for Merthyr said that evidence of procuration, if it were evidence, which is absolutely repudiated by the testimony of the girls, would be the fact that letters were found in the flat making certain proposals to Queenie Gerald.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: And letters of hers.
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but there is abundant evidence to show that there was no response to those letters. What she did was to receive the payment for procuring, but never to procure a woman who was
2750
not already a prostitute—that is to say, not to procure in the legal sense of the term. There is abundant evidence. I do not like to use the language, but I cannot make myself clear in other words, that she defrauded her clients, but there is no evidence that she was carrying on as a procuress. At a certain stage in the development of this proceeding it is quite conceivable that Mr. Travers Humphreys may have fallen into the error of believing that there was evidence of this charge. That is not so. There was no case that could be brought by the police. Even if we did bring a case, in all the letters that were written, and I am not going to say how they were signed exactly, the writers signed them, and I am not using the exact names, "Jack," "Tom," "Harry," and so on, with absolutely no means of identifying any of them, with no addresses, and not on ordinary writing paper, and the writers took very good care that they could not be identified by their letters. Having written their letters they were, in fact, not parties to real procuration, but were defrauded by the woman.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I suppose they would have been guilty of attempting to procure?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes; and if we could have got at them, we would have proceeded against them at once. In the case of the only name and address we did get, we attempted to proceed against the man Morris, but he fled the country instantly. He knew of his guilt.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: He only acted as agent.
Mr. McKENNA: Still he was guilty of attempting to procure, and we would have proceeded against him instantly if we could have got him, but he fled the country and we had no chance of doing so. How, under the circumstances, can the hon. Member intend to bolster up a case either in this House, or, as he suggests, out of it, which can only be a misrepresentation either of the facts or of the replies given to him? Let me deal with other points. The hon. Member has entirely misunderstood about the "News of the World," and about the divergence in our readings from that "News of the World" report. I saw the hon. Member's report. I saw in that report the words which he had used, and directly he read them to the House, I looked at my report and I could find no such words, but the mystery was explained at once when I observed that his copy

2751
of the "News of the World" was of one date, and the other copy of the "News of the World" was of a different date. I pointed that out to the hon. Member at the time, and what is the good of bringing it up again when the mystery was explained in an interruption.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether these reports, although of different dates, were not of the same proceedings? I am not bringing any charge against the right hon. Gentleman, but in the interests of debate I want to have it explained.
Mr. McKENNA: It is the same case, but a different part of the proceedings. The mistake was quite obvious to us both when I pointed out the different dates. Why raise the matter again when the mistake was so abundantly explained at the time? The hon. Member called attention to my having stated that none of those letters were signed in the writer's own handwriting. What I said was that there were no names in the writer's own handwriting. By names I meant names by which persons are known and could be identified. I do not call "Tom," "Dick," or "Harry" the signature of a name. The distinction I was then drawing, and I thought the hon. Member understood, was that where there are names given in the diary or ledger which could be identified in no case is the name in the handwriting of the person to whom the name is supposed to refer. The only case in which a name appears in the handwriting of the owner of the name is that of Morris. I repeat—and I am sure that the House and the public will support me in this view—that it would be a moral wrong to publish the names of men who may be possibly innocent and against whom we have no evidence whatever except the inscription of their names in a diary or ledger in the handwriting of a brothel-keeper. It would be a wrong, and would possibly inflict irreparable injury upon men who might be innocent. There is one more question. The hon. Member asked, How do I know that these are all the facts? You cannot launch a prosecution against a person on the speculative chance of discovering the facts. That is not our interpretation of the criminal law. If the hon. Member's views as to how the criminal law might be used were adopted against himself and his friends, he would be the first, and rightly, to complain that prosecutions were brought merely in the hope of finding evidence against the
2752
prisoners in the course of the trial. You must have evidence first. We have no evidence, and in the absence of evidence it is impossible to proceed. I hope I have now disposed of the matter. I think I have answered every point. I now turn to the much shorter and simpler case raised by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts). Let me remind him that the case is nearly three years old. Mrs. Haines was put into Camberwell House by her husband. It is said that the husband did not know what he was doing. That is very remarkable. But how were the Camberwell House authorities to know that the husband who signed the petition in lunacy respecting his wife did not know what he was doing? But that is not the only answer. The husband was at liberty-to withdraw his wife from Camberwell House at any time he pleased, and he did so withdraw her. What is the case? I have read that the doctors made a mistake in certifying the woman as a lunatic when she was not a lunatic. It is a most regrettable fact. But they did the best on the evidence before them. They had the husband's petition, and there were undoubtedly symptoms of lunacy. That is admitted. She was detained for only a short time altogether. I really think that to reopen the case after three years is asking too much, particularly when it is admitted that if there was any wrong, the husband, who is now complaining, was himself the chief offender. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract put a question with regard to the case of a police-constable who is now retiring. I am well aware of the excellent services undertaken by this officer, and I will look into the question whether it would be possible to do anything for him.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I wish to raise a question of considerable interest, not only to the individual immediately concerned, but also to the whole Territorial Force. The facts of the case are exceedingly simple. The Ross-shire Mounted Battery were encamped at Barry this year. On the 25th July they left Barry for Stornoway about half-past nine o'clock at night, and reached Inverness at half-past six the next morning. A corporal and two privates there left the train for an hour or two, and did not go on by the special train which took the whole of the contingent. It seems that the adjutant of the company saw the corporal at Inverness, and immediately telegraphed to the officer in charge of the company, giving instructions that the corporal should be divested of his stripes

2753
when the train arrived at Kyle of Lochalsh station. Against this officer I have nothing to say. I believe he is a very capable and excellent officer. He went to the train, took this man into the waiting room, and divested him of his stripes. From the point of view of the corporal, this is a very serious affair. A man who gets his stripes receives an award for his military ardour or excellent character, and it is a great reflection on a man's moral character that, after he has been to camp as a non-commissioned officer, his friends should find that during the time he has been away his stripes have been taken from him. It is also a serious matter from the point of view of the Territorials of the country. If it is to be published abroad that without trial of any sort, without even being asked for an explanation, a capable officer can be divested of his stripes in this summary manner, not only will the Territorials not maintain their present strength, but they will decrease in number as the days go by. I am not going into the legal question. I will only point out that under Section 257 of the Territorial Force Regulations, published in 1912, it is laid down that any man leaving before the termination of the camp without having obtained permission of his -commanding officer renders himself liable to be taken into military custody and to be tried and punished under the Army Act for the offence of absence without leave. Under Section 255, if a non-commissioned officer or man illegally absents himself from duty while subject to military law—
Mr. KINGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. MACPHERSON: He must be tried by a Court of Inquiry. All I ask is that if the adjutant in this case acted ultra vires this man should be reinstated. There is
nothing against the man's character. As I understand, there was no order against him leaving the train, and to deal with him in this summary and degrading manner is to act against the best interests of the Territorial Force. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to consider the matter very seriously.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): If we had been able to reach the question which my hon. Friend had on the Paper to-day, I should have answered him to this effect: "The General Officer Commanding in Chief has informed the War Office that the original reports submitted to him was too vague and had been returned for further details; that the non-commissioned officer in question deliberately left the train contrary to orders verbally given by the adjutant; that the inquiry is still proceeding, but that the individuals concerned are difficult to communicate with." I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend's statement except in one particular. I am informed that orders were given verbally by the adjutant that men should not leave the train. In the event of the inquiry proving that the commanding officer acted ultra wires I will endeavour to have the matter put right. I do not think my hon. Friend will expect me to go beyond that at this moment. If need be the man may be reinstated, but I must not be understood to be pledging myself that he will be reinstated. At any rate, a full inquiry will be held into the case.
Mr. KING Mr. KING rose—
Mr. R. HARCOURTrose 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, 127; Noes, 10.

Division No. 279.]

AYES.

[7.28 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Clynes, John R.

Goldstone, Frank

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

Cotton, William Francis

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Balfour. Sir Robert (Lanark)

Crumley, Patrick

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

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Cullinan, John

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

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Delany, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

Dillon, John

Hackett, John

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Boland, John Pius

Doris, William

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Duffy, William J.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Hayden. John Patrick

Burke, E. Haviland-

Esmonde. Sir Thomas (Wexferd, N.)

Hay ward, Evan

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Hazleton, Richard

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Ffrench, Peter

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Field, William

Higham, John Sharp

Chancellor, Henry George

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Hodge, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Ginnell, Laurence

Hogg, David C.

Clough, William

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Hogge, James Myles

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Morgan, George Hay

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morison, Hector

Rowlands, James

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Muldoon, John

Scan Ian, Thomas

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Munro, Robert

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Nolan", Joseph

Sheehy, David

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Shortt, Edward

Kilbride, Denis

Nuttall, Harry

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Lardner, James C. R.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Leach, Charles

O'Doherty, Philip

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Lynch, A. A.

O'Dewd, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

McGhee, Richard

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

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Maclean, Donald

O'Malley, William

Tennant, Harold John

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wardle, George J.

Macpherson, James Ian

O'Shee, James John

Waring, Walter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

White, J. Dun das (Glasgow, Tradeston)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Parry, Thomas H.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Pringle, William M. R.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

Molloy, Michael

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

NOES.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hardie, J. Keir

Bryce, J. Annan

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Watt.

Bull, Sir William James

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Bill read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Calculation of Arrears.)
    Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section ten of the principal Act insured persons who are in arrear shall be liable to such suspension or reduction of benefits as may be prescribed so, however, that any such reduction or suspension of benefit shall be approximately equivalent to the value of the loss occasioned by the failure to pay the contributions in arrear, and the provisions of the principal Act regulating the suspension and reduction of benefits on account of arrears shall cease to have effect, and the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners may prescribe the time within which, and the conditions under which, arrears may be paid up.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "suspension or reduction" ["liable to such suspension or reduction "], and insert instead thereof the words "reduction, suspension, or postponement."

    CLAUSE 12.—(Sickness Benefit.)
    (1) So much of Sub-section (5) of Section eight as requires the payment of fifty contributions between two periods of disease or disablement in order to prevent the one being treated as a continuation of the other shall cease to have effect.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "eight" ["Section eight as requires"], insert the words "of the principal Act."

    CLAUSE 14.—(Maternity Benefit.)
    Sub-section (2).—At the end of Subsection (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act the following words shall be inserted:—
    Where a woman who is an employed contributor is the wife of an insured person, or if the child is a posthumous child, the widow, then—
    (a) if her husband is, or was at the date of his death, a member of an approved society, and by reason of an insufficient number of contributions having been paid by or in respect of him, or on account of arrears, no maternity benefit is payable in respect of his insurance, she shall on her confinement be entitled to receive in respect of her own

    2757
    insurance such sum as she would have been entitled to receive if he had not been an insured person; and
    Lords Amendments:—
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "of an insured person" ["wife of an insured person"].
    After the word "widow" ["widow of an insured person"), insert the words, "of an insured person."

    CLAUSE 16.—(Provisions as to Societies Having Members is. More Than One Part of the United Kingdom.)
    (1) So much of Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-three of the principal Acts as provides that the regulations made under that Sub-section shall require that in the case of a society or branch which has amongst its members persons resident in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, or any two or any three of such parts of the United Kingdom, the members in each such part shall, for the purposes of Part I. of the principal Act relating to valuations, surpluses, deficiencies, and transfers, be treated as if they formed a separate society, is hereby repealed:
    Provided that where the joint committee are satisfied, on representations made within six months after the passing of this Act, that the members of any such society resident in a part of the United Kingdom other than that in which the registered office of the society is situated desire that they shall be treated as if they formed a separate society, the members of the society resident in that part shall for the purposes aforesaid continue to be so treated and the joint committee for the purposes aforesaid shall in each case consult -with the Commissioners for the part of the United Kingdom in question and hold an inquiry, or,, where in their opinion the wishes of members cannot otherwise be properly ascertained, cause a poll to be taken in the prescribed manner.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "for the purposes aforesaid," and insert instead thereof the words "in the exercise of their powers under this provision."

    CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to Associations.)
    An approved society may join and remain in an association for the purposes of
    2758
    Section thirty-nine of the principal Act, notwithstanding that the number of its members for the purposes of Part I. thereof is less than fifty or more than five thousand, and, in calculating for the purposes of that Section the number of persons who are such members, no account shall be taken of members who by reason of marriage are suspended from receiving ordinary benefits or who are not insured persons.
    Lords Amendment: After the word "benefits" ["receiving ordinary benefits"], insert the words "and are not special voluntary contributors."

    CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions as to the Mercantile Marine.)
    (1) In Section forty-eight, Sub-section (1) of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be inserted:—
    "Provided that in respect of that part of such period as aforesaid during which the owner of the ship is not liable to pay wages to the master, seaman, or apprentice so suffering from disease or disablement, sickness benefit may be paid in whole or part if such master, seaman, or apprentice has dependants, and was serving on a home-trade ship, and the benefit so paid shall be paid to or applied for the relief or maintenance of such dependants in such manner as the society or committee by which the benefit is administered, after consultation whenever possible with such person, thinks fit."
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "such person" ["whenever possible with such person thinks fit"], and insert instead thereof the words "the master, seaman, or apprentice."

    CLAUSE 29. —(Expenses of Insurance Com mittees.)
    (1) In addition to any allowances for travelling expenses which may be paid under Sub-section (2) of Section sixty-one of the principal Act an insurance committee may pay to the members of the committee subsistence allowance and compensation for loss of remunerative time in accordance with a scheme prepared by the committee and approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parlia-

    2759
    ment towards the expenses of an insurance committee under such scheme, such sum (if any) as the Insurance Commissioners with the consent of the Treasury, may determine so, however, that the aggregate amount so paid shall not exceed thirty thousand pounds in any one year.

    (2) An insurance committee may pay as general expenses incurred by them in the execution of their duties any sum, not exceeding ten pounds in any one year, as a subscription to the funds of any association of insurance committees whose objects are approved by the Insurance Commissioners, as well as any reasonable expenses of the attendances of representatives, not exceeding in any case four, at meetings of such associations, on a scale to be approved by the Commissioners.

    (3) At least one woman shall be on every sub-committee formed by an insurance committee for dealing with the administration of any benefit, and Section fifty-nine of the principal Act shall be varied accordingly.

    Lords Amendment: Insert the following new Sub-section:—
    (4) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Insurance Committees.)
    (1) Every insurance committee constituted or to be constituted under Section fifty-nine Sub-section (1) of the principal Act shall be a body corporate by the name of the insurance committee for the borough (or county) of, and every such insurance committee shall by such name respectively have perpetual succession and a common seal, and may sue and be sued, and (subject to the consent in every case of the Insurance Commissioners) have power and authority (without any licence in mortmain) to take, purchase, and hold land for the purpose of the principal Act and this Act.

    (2) At least one woman shall be on every cub-committee formed by an insurance committee for dealing with the administration of any benefit, and Section fifty-nine of the principal Act shall be varied accordingly.

    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "by such name respectively."

    CLAUSE 34.—(Offences and Legal Pro ceedings.)
    (1) If any employer deducts, or attempts to deduct from the wages or other remuneration of an employed contributor the whole or any part of the employer's contribution, as defined in the Second Schedule to the principal Act, he shall be guilty of a contravention of the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act.

    (2) Every person who buys, exchanges, or takes in pawn from an insured person, or any person acting on his behalf, on any pretence whatever, any insurance card or insurance book shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

    (3) The time within which proceedings may be taken under Sub-section (2) of Section sixty-nine of the principal Act against an employer charged with an offence of failing or neglecting to pay any contribution in respect of an employed contributor shall be one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence, and where an employer has been convicted of such an offence then, if notice of the intention to do so is served with the summons or warrant, evidence may be given of failure or neglect on the part of the employer to pay other contributions in respect of that employed contributor during the year preceding the date when the information was laid, and on proof of such failure or neglect the employer shall be liable to pay to the Insurance Commissioners a sum equal to the total amount of all the contributions which he is so proved to have failed or neglected to pay.

    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "exchanges" ["Every person who buys, exchanges, or takes"], and insert instead thereof the words "takes in exchange."

    CLAUSE 36.—(Change of Name of Post Office Fund.)
    The special fund constituted under Section forty-two of the principal Act shall be known as the "Deposit Contributors Fund," and, consequently, references in the principal Act to the Post Office Fund shall be construed as references to the Deposit Contributors Fund.
    Lords Amendment: After the word "Act" ["references in the principal Act"], insert the words "and documents made thereunder."

    CLAUSE 39.—(Agreements with Metropolitan Asylums Board.)
    Notwithstanding anything in any Act, it shall be lawful for the managers of the Metropolitan asylums district with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to enter into agreements with any county council or, with the consent of the county council, with any authority in a county, for the reception of insured persons and their dependants suffering from tuberculosis or any such other disease as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint under Section eight of the principal Act, into hospitals or sanatoria provided by the managers, and for this purpose the managers shall not be deemed to be a Poor Law authority. Any such agreements may provide that the cost of the treatment of the patients so received, or some part thereof, shall be borne otherwise than as provided by Section eighty of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
    Lords Amendment: After the word "council" ["with any county council or with the consent"], insert the words "or county borough council."

    CLAUSE 40.—(Revocation and Amendment of Orders and Extension of Time for Making Orders under Section 78 of Principal Act.)
    (1) Any order or special order made under the principal Act may be revoked, varied, or amended by an order or special order made in like manner as the original order.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["Act may be revoked"] insert the words "or this Act."

    CLAUSE 41.—(Special Provisions as to Scot land.)
    Sub-section (4) At the end of Subsection (4) of Section eighty of the principal Act, the following shall be added:—
    And provided further that for the purposes of Sub-section (3) of Section sixty-four of the principal Act, relating to the provision of sanatoria, burghs, and police burghs so held to be within the county may receive direct representation in groups or otherwise, on any joint committees,
    2762
    joint boards, or other bodies thereby constituted, in such manner as may be determined by the Board.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "the principal" ["Section sixty-four of the principal Act"] and insert instead thereof the word "this."

    CLAUSE 43.—(Short Title, Construction.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the National Insurance Act, 1913, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1913.

    (2) This Act shall be deemed to be part of Part I. of the principal Act, except that any provisions of this Act which supersede or amend any provisions of Part III. of the principal Act shall be deemed to be part of Part of the principal Act.

    (3) This Act shall come into operation on such date or dates as the Insurance Commissioners may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, so, however, that no date later than the thirteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirteen, shall be appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions of this Act altering the rates of sickness or disablement benefit in respect of any class of insured persons, nor later than the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in respect of any other purpose or provision.

    Lords Amendments:—
    In Sub-section (3), after the word "shall" ["Act shall come into operation"], insert the words "save as otherwise expressly provided."
    Leave out the word "such" ["on such date"], and insert instead thereof the "the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirteen, or such later."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the House that this Amendment is a breach of the privileges of the House, because it might possibly bring the Act into operation at a date earlier than that which is provided for in the Clause as it went up to the other House. It seems to me, however, to be somewhat doubtful whether it would be so or not, and I therefore suggest to the House that though

    2763
    in its wording the Amendment might do as I say, that the proper course for the House to pursue is to waive its privileges. Undoubtedly it is the desire of the House that this Act should be brought into force at the period named in the Amendment. If the House waives its privileges, a special entry will be made in the Journals of the House stating the fact.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "Insurance Comissioners," and insert instead thereof the words "Joint Committee."
    Lords Amendment: Insert as a new Subsection:—
    "The provisions of the principal Act mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed."

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Matters with respect to which Regulations may be made.
    Paragraph (e) Applying to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund and to members of that fund such of the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, relating to approved societies and to membership of and transfer to and from approved societies, as the Commissioners think necessary for facilitating admissions to and transfer from the fund and for the proper administration of the fund, and for enabling a man entitled to the payment of maternity benefit from that fund to continue to be so entitled until transferred to an approved society or until he becomes a deposit contributor, and for extending any of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the principal Act to seamen, soldiers, and marines who are not members of an approved society.
    (f) For enabling the sums to be paid or credited in any year to insurance committees under Sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the principal Act, instead of being paid or credited at the commencement of the year, to be paid or credited at such time or times and in such instalments and in such manner and proportions as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be prescribed.
    Lords Amendments:—
    In paragraph (e), after the word "for," leave out the words "enabling a man entitled to the payment of maternity benefit from the fund to continue to be so entitled until," and insert instead thereof the words "continuing the right to payment of maternity benefit out of that fund until the man is."
    In the same paragraph, after the word "or," leave out the words "until he" ["until he becomes a deposit contributor."]
    In paragraph (f), after the word "sums" ["For enabling the sums"], insert the word "required."
    At end of Bill insert new Schedule: —(Third)—(Enactments Repealed.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: The principal Act is of necessity very long and complicated, and this Bill is also of necessity largely legislation by reference. This Amendment will assist those who have to administer both the principal Act and this one by reason of its setting forth in this new Schedule the enactments of the principal Act which had been repealed. Upstairs, however, it was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that if it were possible on the Report stage to have all the Amendments shown clearly, not only the Sections of the principal Act which have been repealed, but those which have been amended or modified, it would be of great assistance to those who have to administer the Act. I think the hon. Member for Mile End asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could do something in the direction of assisting those who administer these enactments. I shall be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can undertake to print as a White Paper both the principal Act and this Act, so that it will be quite clear not only what Sections of the principal Act have been repealed, but those which have been modified or amended. There are many thousands of people who have to administer this Act, and I am sure it would be a great convenience to them if these Sections could be notified by means of a White Paper.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will see if anything can be done.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 3—(Circumstances Rendering Defec tives Subject to be Dealt with.)
  (1) A person who is a defective shall be subject to be dealt with under this Act as herein, provided—

  (a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile or is under the age of twenty-one; or

  (b) at the instance of a school board or the parish council, as the case may be, if he is a person under the age of sixteen, for whom it is the duty of the school board or the parish council to make suitable provision; or

  (c) if in addition to being a defective he is a person—

  (i) who is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; or

  (ii) who is found guilty of any offence at common law, or under any public and general Act of Parliament, or who is ordered or liable to be ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school; or

  (iii) who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a Court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory, or who is detained in an asylum or other lawful place of detention for lunatics, or a criminal lunatic asylum or criminal lunatic department of a prison; or

  (iv) who is an habitual drunkard within the meaning- of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or

  (v) in whose case such notice has been given by the school board as is hereinafter in this Section mentioned; or

  (vi) who being a woman and unmarried is in receipt of poor relief at any time during her pregnancy or at the time of giving birth to a child; or

  (vii) who during any consecutive period of six months in the year immediately before the commencement of proceedings under this Act has been
  2766
  in receipt of poor relief in a poorhouse on three or more than three several occasions:

  Provided that in the case of persons under the age of sixteen referred to in paragraph (c) of this Sub-section, the local authority concerned shall be the school board, unless such persons are, or have been, notified to the parish council under the immediately preceding Section; and in the case of persons of sixteen years or over, referred to in paragraph (c) of this Sub-section, the local authority concerned shall be the parish council.
  (2) Notice shall, subject to regulations made by the Scotch Education Department, be given by the school board to the parish council and to the Board in the case of all defective children for whom the school board in the case of all defective children for whom the school board have made provision and whose discharge from a special school or class, or from an institution, or from guardianship is impending by reason of their attaining the age of sixteen, in whose case the school board are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to or remain in an institution or be placed or remain under guardianship.
  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "as is herein provided," and insert instead thereof the words "in accordance with the provisions thereof hereinafter contained."
  In paragraph (a), after the word "or" ["or is under"], insert the words "at the instance of his parent if, though not an idiot or an imbecile, he."
  In paragraph (b), leave out the word "a" ["a. school board"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."
  In paragraph (ii.) leave out the words "at common law, or under any public and general Act of Parliament, or who is ordered or," and insert instead thereof the words "punishable in the case of an adult with penal servitude or imprisonment or who is ordered or found."

  CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Deal with Defectives at Instance or with Consent of Parent or Guardian.)
  (1) (a) The parent or guardian of a defective who is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age of twenty-one; and

  2767

  (b) the school board with the consent of the parent or guardian of a defective under the age of sixteen for whom it is the duty of the school board to make suitable provision; and

  (c) the parish council with the consent of the parent or guardian of a defective under the age of sixteen for whom it is the duty of the parish council to make suitable provision, or, of a defective of sixteen years or over, but under twenty-one years, in whose case notice has been given by the school board under the immediately preceding Section;

  may deal with such defective under this Act by placing him in an institution for defectives or under guardianship: Provided that he shall not be so placed except upon a certificate in writing (in the prescribed form) of two duly qualified medical practitioners one of whom shall be a medical practitioner duly approved for the purpose by the local authority concerned (if any) stating that the person to whom the certificate relates is a defective and the class of defectives to which he belongs, accompanied by a statement, signed by the parent or guardian, giving the prescribed particulars with respect to him; and he shall not be so placed by his parent or guardian without the consent of the Board; and he shall not be so placed by a school board or a parish council unless by reason of the attendant expense he cannot be so placed except with their assistance.
  (2) In this Section "prescribed" means prescribed under regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland.
  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section 1, paragraph (a), after the word "or" ["or is under"], insert the words "the parent of a defective who, though not an idiot or an imbecile."
  In paragraph (c), after the word ["the purpose by"], insert the word "the Board or."

  CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Deal with Defectives Otherwise.)
  A defective subject to be dealt with under this Act, and not so dealt with under the immediately preceding Section, may so be dealt with—

  (a) under an order made by the sheriff on a petition presented under this Act
  2768
  (hereinafter referred to as a judicial order); or

  (b) under an order of the Secretary for Scotland, in the case of a defective detained in a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, reformatory or industrial school, place of detention, or inebriate reformatory;

  but no such order shall be made except in the circumstances and in the manner hereinafter specified.
  Lords Amendment: In paragraph (b), after the word "asylum" ["criminal lunatic asylum "], insert the words "or the criminal lunatic department of a prison."

  CLAUSE 7.—(Procedure on Presentation of Petition.)
  (1) Upon the presentation of the petition the sheriff shall, unless cause to the contrary shall be shown to his satisfaction, grant warrant to cite the person to whom the petition relates to appear personally to show cause why an order should not be made against him.

  (2) The sheriff may before disposing of the petition adjourn the case for such time as he shall fix in order that evidence may be adduced or further information may be procured, and he may remit to any suitable person to make such enquiries as the sheriff shall direct and to report to the sheriff, or may remit to a suitable person to visit and examine the person to whom-the petition relates, or to take evidence on commission, and may order the person to whom the petition relates to submit himself to medical examination; or the sheriff may himself visit the person or take such other means as he shall think appropriate, in order to satisfy himself as to the expediency of granting or refusing the petition.

  (3) Proceedings before the sheriff may in any case if the sheriff thinks fit, and shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private, and in that case no one except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates, any two persons appointed for the purpose by the person to whom the petition relates, and the persons signing the medical certificates and the statutory declaration accompanying the petition shall, without leave of the sheriff, be allowed to be present.

  (4) If the sheriff is satisfied that the person to whom The petition relates is a

  2769
  defective, and is also satisfied that he is subject to be dealt with under this Act, the sheriff may make an order either ordering him to be sent to an institution, or appointing a suitable person to be his guardian, and the order shall state the class of defectives to which he belongs, and the circumstances which render him subject to be dealt with under this Act: Provided that where the petition is not presented by the parent or guardian the order shall not be made without the consent of the parent or guardian unless the sheriff is satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found, or unless, in the opinion of the sheriff, such consent is unreasonably withheld, and the withholding of such consent is calculated to prejudice the best interests of the defective; and provided further that nothing in this Section shall prevent an order being made, notwithstanding that the person to whom the petition relates does not appear to the sheriff to belong to the class of defectives to which he is in the petition alleged to belong.

  (5) The sheriff shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act, have the same jurisdiction, and the same power as regards the summoning and examination of witnesses, the administration of oaths, the awarding of expenses, and otherwise as if he were acting in the exercise of his ordinary civil jurisdictino.

  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3) after the word "relates" ["the petition relates"], insert the words "his parents or guardians and" ["any two persons"], after the second word "relates," insert the words "or by his parents and guardians" ["or to take evidence."]

  CLAUSE 8.—(Variation Order.)
  (1) Where an order has been made, either by a sheriff or otherwise, that a defective be placed under guardianship, the Board may, on application being made for the purpose by the defective or guardian or by the local authority interested, and on being satisfied that the case is or has become one unsuitable for guardianship, order that the defective be sent to an institution.

  (2) A person appointed to be guardian of a defective may, on the application of the local authority interested or of any other person who appears to be interested, be removed from his office by the Board, and where a person appointed to be
  2770
  guardian of a defective dies, or resigns his office, or is removed from his office, the Board may, on the like application, appoint a suitable person to act in his stead.

  (3) An order under this Section shall not be made without giving to the relative or other person who presented the original petition and to the local authority interested an opportunity of representing their view.

  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "by" ["an application being made for the purpose by the defective"], insert the words "or on behalf of."
  Leave out the word "interested," and insert instead thereof the word "concerned."
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "interested" ["on the application of the local authority interested"], and insert instead thereof the word "concerned."
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "to" ["giving to the relative"], insert the words "the local authority concerned, if any, and where practicable to the parent or guardian or."
  Leave out the words "and to the local authority interested."

  CLAUSE 9. —(Procedure in Cases of Persons Guilty of Offences, etc.)
  (1) Where a person is charged with any offence punishable with penal servitude or with imprisonment or where a child is brought before a Court under Section fifty-eight of the Children Act, 1908, and the Court is of opinion that the charge is proved or that the child is liable to be sent to an industrial school, the Court, if it appears to it that such person or child is a defective within the meaning of this Act may, without proceeding to convict or to make an order for committal to an. industrial school, as the case may be, adjourn the proceedings and report the case to the local authority concerned or to the procurator fiscal with a view to the presentation of a petition by them or him for a judicial order under this Act, provided that for the purposes of this Act a person shall be deemed to be a person found guilty of an offence where the Court is of opinion that the charge is proved.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "punishable" ["where a person is charged with any offence

  2771
  punishable"], insert the words "in the case of an adult."

  CLAUSE 13.—(Duration of Detention Not under Order.)
  (1) Where under this Act a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship it shall be lawful for his parent or guardian to withdraw him from the institution or guardianship at any time on giving notice in writing for the purpose to the Board, unless the Board, after considering what means of care and supervision would be available if he were discharged, determine within fourteen days that the further detention of the defective in the institution or under guardianship is required in the interests of the defective, and where the Board have so determined no further notice by the parent or guardian shall be allowed till after the expiration of one year from the last previous notice.
  (4) The managers of any certified institution or house may discharge any defective placed there by his parent or guardian on giving seven days' notice to the Board.
  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "days" ["determine within fourteen days"], insert the words "after receiving the notice."
  In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "seven days," and insert instead thereof the words "one month's."
  At end, insert the words "and to the parent or guardian of the defective, if known."

  CLAUSE 14.—(Power to Recover Expenses.)
  Supplemental.

  (1) Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, whether by a sheriff or otherwise, any sheriff having jurisdiction, may, on the application of the local authority concerned, or where there is no local authority concerned of the petitioner, or of the managers of the institution or the guardian, make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him, to contribute such sum towards the expenses of his mantenance in the institution, or of his guardianship or, in the event of his death in the institution, of his
  2772
  funeral expenses, and any charges incidental thereto as, having regard to the ability of the defective or person liable to maintain him, seems reasonable.

  (2) Any such order may be enforced against any property of the defective or person liable to maintain him in the same way as if it were a decree in the Sheriff Small Debt Court.

  (3) An order made under this Section may be varied or revoked by any sheriff having jurisdiction.

  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section 1, leave out the word "or" ["guardianship or"], and insert instead thereof the words "and any charges incidental thereto, including the expenses."
  Leave out the words "expenses and any charges incidental thereto."

  CLAUSE 15.—(Power to Remove to Place of Safety Pending Presentation of Petition.)
  (1) If any officer of the local authority concerned, authorised in that behalf, or any constable finds neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be a defective, he may take such person to a place of safety, and such person may be there detained until a petition under this Act can be presented.

  (2) If it appears to the sheriff on information on oath laid by an officer of, or any person authorised by, the local authority concerned that there is reasonable cause to believe that a defective is neglected or cruelly treated in any place within the sheriff's jurisdiction, the sheriff may issue a warrant authorising any constable named therein, accompanied by the medical officer of the local authority concerned or any other duly qualified medical practitioner named in the warrant, to search for such person, and if they find that he is neglected or cruelly treated, and is defective, to take him to and place him in a place of safety until a petition can be presented under this Act, and any constable authorised by such warrant may enter, and if need be by force, any house, building, or other place specified in the warrant, and may remove such person. therefrom.

  (3) Where the place to which such a person is taken is a poorhouse, the

  2773
  governor shall receive him into the poorhouse if there is suitable accommodation therein, and any expenses incurred in respect of him shall be defrayed by the local authority concerned.

  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (2), after the word "neglected" ["defective is neglected"], insert the word "abandoned."
  After the word "is" ["cuelly treated and is"], insert the word "apparently."
  At the end of Sub-section (3), insert the words, "but shall, if an order is eventually made, be recoverable from the defective or any person liable to maintain him as if they were part of the expenses of his maintenance."

  CLAUSE 16.—(Transfers from Institutions for Defectives to Institutions for Lunatics and vies versâ.)
  (1) Where the mental condition of a person detained in an institution for defectives becomes or is found to be such that he ought to be transferred to an asylum or other lawful place of detention for lunatics, the Board, or the managers of the institution for defectives with the consent of the Board, may cause such steps to be taken as may be necessary for having a sheriff's order under the Lunacy Acts, made in respect of him and for his removal to such place: Provided that where such person has been placed in the institution by his parent or guardian, the Board or managers, as the case may be, shall not cause such steps to be taken until they have communicated with the parent or guardian and given such parent or guardian an opportunity of taking them himself.
  Lords Amendment: After the word "until" ["until they have communicated"], insert the words "where practicable."

  CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions as to Religious Persuasion.)
  (1) The sheriff or the Secretary for Scotland, in determining the institution to which a defective is to be sent under an order, shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the defective belongs, and the order shall, where practicable, specify the religious persuasion to which he appears to belong, and an
  2774
  institution conducted in accordance with that persuasion shall, where practicable, be selected.

  (2) A minister of the religious persuasion specified in the order as that to which the defective appears to belong may visit the defective at the institution on such days, at such times, and on such conditions as may be fixed by the Board for the purpose of affording religious assistance and also for the purpose of instructing him in the principles of his religion.

  (3) Where a defective is sent to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which the defective belongs, the defective shall not be compelled to receive religious instruction or religious ministrations which are not in accordance with his religious persuasion, but shall, as far as practicable, have facilities for receiving religious instruction and attending religious services conducted in accordance with his religious persuasion.

  (4) Where an order is made for sending a defective to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which he belongs, the nearest adult relative or, in the case of a child, his guardian or person entitled to his custody, may apply to the Board to remove or send the defective to an institution conducted in accordance with the defective's religious persuasion, and the Board shall, on proof of the defective's religious persuasion, comply with the request of the applicant; provided that the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board that the managers of the institution named by him are willing to receive the defective."

  Lords Amendment: At the end of the Clause, add the words "and that the institution is one suitable to the case."

  CLAUSE 26.—(General Powers and Duties of District Boards in Regard to Defectives.)
  >In addition to the existing powers and duties of a district lunacy board, a district board of control are hereby empowered, and it shall be their duty, subject to the provisions of this Act and to regulations made by the Board, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland,—

  (a) to provide suitable and sufficient accommodation for defectives when sent to certified institutions by orders under this Act or by school

  2775
  boards or parish councils within the district with consent of parents or guardians, to contribute towards the expenses of maintenance in an institution of defectives so sent to the extent hereinafter provided, and to provide for the conveyance of such persons to and from such institutions;

  (b) to contribute towards the expenses of maintenance of defectives placed under guardianship by orders under this Act or by school boards or parish councils within the district, with consent of parents or guardians, and to provide for the conveyance of such persons to or from guardianship to the extent hereinafter provided; and

  to make to the Board such reports as the Board may require:

  Provided that nothing in this Act-relating to defectives shall affect the powers and duties of district boards under the Lunacy Acts, with respect to any defectives who may be dealt with under those Acts, nor shall district boards have any duties or powers under this Act with respect to defectives who for the time being are, or who might be, provided for under the Lunacy Acts except to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland:
  Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a district board of control, or a parish council, or a school board, to contribute towards the maintenance of defectives in institutions or under guardianship, where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act is less than one-half of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of the cost of maintenance of the said defectives, or of the annual expenditure on providing institutions for defectives, as the case may be, including in such expenditure any expenditure out of income by the district board by way of interest on or repayment of capital raised, or by way of rent or other similar payment for the purposes of the provision of the institution.
  Lords Amendments:—
  In paragraph (a), leave out the words "to the extent hereinafter provided."
  After the word "institutions" ["to and front such institutions"], insert the words "to the extent hereinafter provided."
  Leave out the word "affect," and insert instead thereof the words "derogate for or diminish the powers of school boards under the Education of Defective Children (Scotland) Act, 1906, as read with the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, or."
  After the word "provided" ["provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed"], insert the word "also."

  CLAUSE 28.—(State Institutions.)
  (1) The Secretary for Scotland may grant authority to establish and maintain an institution or institutions for defectives of criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities (in this Act referred to as State institutions), and for that purpose may appropriate the whole or any part of any building vested in the Prison Commissioners for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as the Prison Commissioners) or may, with the approval of the Treasury, authorise the Prison Commissioners to acquire any land or to erect or acquire any building.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "criminal" ["criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities"].

  CLAUSE 29.—(Certification of Institutions.)
  The Board may, upon the application of the managers of premises intended for the reception, control, care, and treatment of defectives, if satisfied of the fitness of the premises and of the persons proposing to maintain them for such purposes, grant a certificate to the managers to receive defectives therein, and a certificate so granted shall continue in force for the period for which it is granted or until revoked or resigned under this Act, and an institution so certified is in this Act referred to as a certified instituton.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of the Clause add the following Sub-sections:—
  (2) Any institution for the care and training of imbecile children which at the commencement of this Act is licensed under Section seven of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1862, shall without certification become a certified institution for defectives under this Act unless and in so far as upon the application of the managers it may be certified under this Act as a certified house; and any person who immediately before the commencement of this-

  2777
  Act is detained in such an institution may after such commencement continue to be detained therein in like manner and subject to the like conditions as prior to such commencement.
  (3) The managers of an institution (not being a certified institution provided for their district by a district board) shall not be bound to receive any defective whom they have not expressed their willingness to receive.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Regulations as to Management of Institutions for Defectives, etc.)
  The Board, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, may make regulations as to—

  (a) the granting, transfer, renewal, revocation, and resignation of certificates for institutions;

  (b) the management of institutions, the number of patients to be received therein, the number of private patients (if any) to be received in institutions provided by a district board, and the conditions under which they may be received;

  (c)the staff of institutions and of the different grades thereof in proportion to the number of patients therein, their remuneration, and the regulation of their hours and duties;

  (d) the classification and treatment of patients in institutions, their instruction, and their employment for suitable occupation, and the reports to he made as to their mental condition;

  (e) the inspection of institutions and the visitation of patients therein by the Board and Deputy Commissioners and other persons;

  (f) the notification to the Board of the admission of a patient to an institution or under guardianship;

  (g) the transfer of patients from one certified institution to another, and from a State institution to a certified institution, and, in special cases, from a certified institution to a State institution;

  (h) the discharge of patients from institutions;

  (i) the absence of patients from institutions under licence or temporarily without licence;

  2778

  (j) the notifications to be made by the managers in the event of the outbreak of an infectious disease in an institution and in the event of the death of a patient in an institution or absent therefrom under licence;

  (k) the conveyance of persons to and from institutions or under guardianship;

  (l) the powers and duties of persons appointed guardians of defectives under this Act; the reports to be made by such guardians as to defectives under their guardianship; the visitation of such defectives; and their discharge from guardianship;

  (m) the granting, renewal, and revocation of licences for private dwellings for the reception of defectives under guardianship, and the number to be received in any such dwelling.

  Lords Amendments:—
  In paragraph (d), at the end of the Clause, add the words "and otherwise in respect to them."
  In paragraph (m), after the word "guardianship" ["defectives within their guardianship"], insert the words "or otherwise."

  CLAUSE 34.—(Determination of Residence.)
  (1) Where the order is made in respect of a person found guilty of an offence, that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing Section be presumed to have resided in the place where the offence was or was alleged to have been committed, unless it is proved that he resided in some other place:
  Provided that where the defective has been charged with more than one offence in separate parishes the presumption shall arise in respect of the offence which is first in point of date:
  Provided further that before such order is made notice shall be given to the parish council of the parish and the district board of the district in which the offence has been committed.
  (2) Where the order is made by the Secretary for Scotland then—

  (a) if the order is in respect of a person in a prison criminal lunatic asylum, or place of detention, that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing Section be presumed to have resided in the place where the

  2779
  offence was or was alleged to have been committed, unless it is proved that he resided in some other place;

  (b) if the order is in respect of a person in an inebriate reformatory or reformatory or industrial school, that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Section be deemed to have resided in the place (if any) determined to have been his place of residence for the purposes of his committal to the inebriate reformatory or reformatory or industrial school."

  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (1). leave out the words "where the defective has been charged with more than one offence in separate parishes," and insert instead thereof the words "the finding has been in respect of more than one offence."
  In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "asylum" ["prison criminal lunatic asylum "], insert the words "or department, inebriate reformatory."
  In paragraph (b), leave out the words "or inebriate reformatory or," and insert instead thereof the word "a."
  Leave out the words "provisions of this."
  Leave out the words "inebriate reformatory or" ["committal to the inebriate reformatory or reformatory or industrial school"].

  CLAUSE 36.—(Superannnotion of Officers.)
  (1) The Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, shall apply to officers of certified institutions for defectives provided by district boards with such adaptations and modifications as the Secretary for Scotland may by order prescribe, and in particular such modifications shall include the alteration of—

  (a) the classes of officers entitled to superannuation allowances;

  (b) the periods of service entitling to superannuation allowances;?

  (c) the scale of superannuation allowances; and

  Lords Amendment: In paragraph (c), after the word "allowances," insert the words "and gratuities."
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause A—
  The nearest adult relative or the guardian of a defective in any institution or under guardianship under this Act shall be entitled to visit the defective at such times, on such conditions and at such intervals not exceeding six months as may be prescribed by the Board, unless in view of his character and antecedents the Board think that his visits would not be in the interests of the defective; provided that nothing herein contained shall` be construed as limiting any power to grant further facilities for visits to defectives.

  CLAUSE 44.—(Ill-treatment.)
  If any manager, officer, nurse, attendant, servant, or other person employed in an institution or certified house, or any person having charge of a defective, whether by reason of any contract, or of any tie of relationship, or marriage, or otherwise, ill-treats or wilfully neglects the defective, he shall be guilty of a crime and offence.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "manager" ["If any manager"], and insert instead thereof the word "superintendent."

  CLAUSE 47.—(Power of Officers for the Purposes,lb/> of Arrest)
  47. The managers of an institution and the owner of a certified house for defectives and every officer of such institution or house authorised in writing by the managers or owner, and the guardian of a defective placed under guardianship for the purpose of conveying a person to or from the institution or house, or of apprehending and bringing him back to the institution or house in case of his escape or refusal to return, shall for that purpose and while engaged in that duty have all the powers, protections, and privileges of a constable.
  Lords Amendments:—
  After the word "guardianship" insert the word "shall."
  After the word "house" ["conveying a person to or from the institution or house "], insert the words "or to or from guardianship."
  After the word "house" ["bringing him back to the institution or house"], insert the words "or to guardianship".
  Leave out the words "shall for that purpose."

  CLAUSE 54.—(Provisions as to Transfer and Discharge of Lunatics.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section seven of the Act of 1866, the provisions of Section sixteen of the Act of 1862 shall apply as fully for the purposes of the removal or transfer, under the authority of the Board, of a lunatic to the lunatic wards of a poorhouse, or to a licensed house or a private dwelling, and of his reception and detention in the event of his requiring to be again received into an asylum as they apply in the case specified in the last cited Section.

  (2) The Board may, in any case where they consider it expedient, dispense for such period as they think proper with the requirement of Section seven of the Act of 1866 respecting the Grant and transmission to the Board of an annual certificate in the form of Schedule A to that Act.

  (3) A private patient shall be discharged on the written request of the person at whose instance he is detained as a lunatic.

  (4) If that person is dead or is incapable by reason of mental incapacity, absence from the United Kingdom, or other cause, of signing a request for discharge, or has ceased to pay for the maintenance of such patient, or if a patient originally classified as a pauper is afterwards classified as a private patient, the patient shall be discharged on the written request of the person who made the last payment of the patient's board, or the husband or wife, or if there is no husband or wife or the husband or wife is incapable as aforesaid, the father, or if there is no father or he is incapable as aforesaid, the mother of the patient, or if there is no mother or she is incapable then any one or more of the nearest of kin.

  (5) In addition to the powers conferred on them by Section ninety-two of the Act of 1857, the Board may in the case of any person detained as a lunatic order his liberation upon being satisfied by the certificate of two medical persons whom they may think fit to consult, bearing that such lunatic may without risk of injury to the public or to the lunatic be set at large.

  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (3), at the beginning, insert the words "without prejudice to the provisions of Section ninety-three of the
  2782
  Act of 1857 or Section twelve of the Act of 1866."
  In Sub-section (4), after the word "shall" ["shall be discharged"], insert the words "without prejudice as aforesaid."

  CLAUSE 66.—(District Board to Pay Half Maintenance Charge for Pauper Lunatics.)
  (1) As from the fifteenth day of May in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen, in lieu of the sums hitherto in use to be fixed and paid or which might be fixed and paid under Section seventy-three of the Act of 1857, as amended by any subsequent Act, as the charge payable by parish councils to the district board for pauper lunatics in district asylums, there shall in each year be paid to the district board one half of the cost of maintenance as hereinafter defined of pauper lunatics; and the balance of the cost of maintenance and other. expenses and salaries referred to in the said Section, together with one-half of the like charge payable by parish councils for pauper lunatics maintained by them otherwise than in a district asylum, as ascertained and intimated to the district board in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board, shall be paid by the district board, and such payments shall be charged to the assessment authorised under the Lunacy Acts and this Act: Provided that, in the case of a lunatic on whose account any such payment is made by a district board 'other than the board of the district comprising the parish of legal settlement of such lunatic, the first-mentioned district board shall be entitled to reimbursement in respect of any such Payment from the district board of the district comprising the parish of legal settlement as from the date from which the parish council at whose instance the liability of the parish of legal settlement has been established is entitled to recover its expenses incurred in relation to such lunatic.

  (2) The definition of the expression "cost of maintenance" contained in the Section of this Act relating to the expenses of maintaining defectives shall apply to the same expression in this Section, with the substitution of "pauper lunatic" for "defective" and of "contributions out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account to the cost of maintenance of pauper lunatics" for "moneys provided by Par-

  2783
  liament," and with any other necessary substitutions.

  (3) A parish council shall account annually to the district board in respect of each pauper lunatic who is placed by them in a district asylum or maintained by them otherwise than in a district asylum, for all contributions received by them in respect of such lunatic, from such lunatic, or otherwise on his account.

  Lords Amendment: After Sub-section (3), insert as a new Sub-section:
  (4) All powers vested in a parish council of recovering moneys expended in behalf of a poor person shall extend to the recovery by the parish council of such part of the said moneys as is by this Act made payable by the district board.

  CLAUSE 64.—(District Boards to Levy Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Rate throughout Lunacy Districts.)
  (1) As from the fifteenth day of May in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen the expenses declared by this Act to be chargeable to the assessment authorised under the Lunacy Acts and this Act shall be ascertained and apportioned within the lunacy district upon the landward parts of counties and upon burghs, respectively, as provided in the Act of 1857, as amended by any subsequent Act, and shall be assessed, levied, and collected as provided in the said Acts.

  (2) This Section shall apply to the case where the district board of control is the parish council, with the substitution of the parish for the landward parts of counties and for burghs, and with any other necessary variations; provided that the assessment levied by a parish council acting as a district board shall be separately set forth and demanded in the demand note, and shall be levied upon the like valuation in all respects and subject to the like deductions and exemptions as the assessment hitherto leviable within the parish under the Lunacy Acts by the town or county council, but shall be collected along with the poor rate, and with the same remedies and modes of recovery; and provided also that the consent of the Board shall be required to any assessment levied by the parish council acting as a district board; and provided further that moneys levied and collected by a parish council acting as district board shall be kept separate and distinct from moneys levied and collected by the parish council for other pur-
  2784
  poses; and for purposes of audit the accounts of the parish council shall be deemed to include the accounts of such moneys and of the expenditure thereof.

  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["amended by any subsequent Act"], insert the words "with respect to the assessments for the purposes of the Act of 1857."
  In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "levied by a parish council acting as a district board," and insert instead thereof the words "leviable under the Acts aforesaid within the parish."
  After the word "levied" ["shall be levied upon the like valuation"], insert the words "by the parish council acting as a district board."

  CLAUSE 67.—(Powers for Acquisition of Land and Borrowing by a District Board.)
  (1) A district board of control may, with the consent of the Board, from time to time for the purpose of any of their powers and duties under the Lunacy Acts or this Act (including, as incidental to the provision of an asylum or of an institution for defectives, the open-air exercising of patients and their occupation in agricultural or other work), acquire, purchase, or take or lease and hold any land.

  (2) For the purpose of such acquisition of land, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with the said Acts, except the provisions of those Acts relating to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.

  (3) For the purpose of such acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement, Section one hundred and forty-five of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall, with the substitution of the assessment authorised under the Lunacy Acts and this Act for the assessments therein mentioned and with any other necessary substitutions, apply as if it were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to a district board of control; provided that a district board shall not without the consent of the Board make an application to the Local Government Board for Scotland under that Section.

  (4) A district board of control may, with the sanction of the Board, sell, let or feu any surplus land, and shall apply the proceeds thereof towards the reduction of debt, or in such other manner as the Board may direct.

  2785

  (5) In this Section and in the Lands Clauses Acts as hereby incorporated the expression "land" includes water and any right or servitude over water.

  (6) The provisions for enabling a district board to acquire and hold lands and heritages or to acquire additional ground contained in the Acts of 1857 and 1862 shall cease to have effect.

  (7) The expression "purpose of this Act" in Section sixty-two of the Act of 1857 shall be construed as meaning any purposes of the Lunacy Acts or this Act involving capital expenditure; and a district board may, with the consent of the Board, borrow money for such purposes on the security of the assessment authorised under the Lunacy Acts and this Act; provided that all money so borrowed shall be repaid by equal annual instalments of principal within a period not exceeding sixty years from the date of borrowing the same, such period to be fixed by the Board in each case with due regard to the nature of the expenditure and the probable time during which it will remain effective.

  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (7), after the word "Section" ["in Section sixty-two"], insert the words "sixty-one and Section."
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 69.—(Supervisory rowers of Board.)
  The powers conferred on the Board by Section nine of the Act of 1857 shall apply as fully to lunatic wards of poorhouses and training schools for imbecile children as they apply to district 'asylums, and references in that or any other Section of the Lunacy Acts to a house in which a lunatic is kept or detained under an order of the sheriff shall be construed as including references to a house in which a lunatic is kept or detained under sanction of the Board.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "and training schools for imbecile children."
  Amendment agreed to.

PART VI.—Miscellaneous.

  CLAUSE 75.—(Interpretation.)
  (1) In this Act, unless the context other-"wise requires—
  The expression "parent or guardian" in relation to a defective shall include any person who undertakes or performs towards the defective the duty of a parent or guardian:
  The expression "relative" in relation to a defective means a lineal ancestor or lineal descendant, or lineal descendant of an ancestor not more remote than great-grandfather or great-grandmother.
  The expression "intoxicants" includes any excisable liquor, and any sedative, narcotic, or stimulant, drug, or preparation.
  The expression "place of safety" means any poorhouse or police station, any institution, any place of detention, and any hospital, surgery, or other suitable place, the occupier of which is willing to receive temporarily persons who may be taken to places of safety under this Act:
  The expression "institution "in relation to defectives means a State
  institution or certified institution.
  Lords Amendment: After the word "means" ["means a lineal ancestor"], insert the words "the husband or wife or."
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 76.—(Punishment for Offences.)
  (1) An offence under this Act declared to be a crime and offence shall be punishable by fine or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.

  (2) Any other offence under this Act shall be punishable summarily with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour, or with a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "offence," insert the words "for which no special penalty is provided by this Act."

  CLAUSE 77.—(Provisions as to Regulations.)
  Regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
  Lords Amendment: After the word "and" ["and shall have"], insert the words "if within thirty sitting 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, without prejudice however to anything done thereunder, and the regulations made under this Act."

  SCHEDULE.

  Enactments Repealed.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  20 & 21 Vict. c. 71.

  Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857

  Section nine, from "provided also" to the-end of the Section, and Section one hundred and fourteen.

  25 & 26 Vict, c, 54.

  Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1862

  Section eleven.

  29 & 80 Vict. c. 61.

  Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1866

  Section fourteen.

  34 & 35 Vict. c. 55.

  Criminal and Dangerous Lunatics (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1871

  Section four, from "provided that" to the-end of the Section. Section six, from "provided that" to the end of the Section.

  Lords Amendments:—
  In the third column, leave out the words "Section nine, from 'provided also' to the end of the Section, and."
  Before the words "Section eleven," insert "Section seven."
  Leave out the words "Section four, from 'provided that' to the end of the Section. Section six, from 'provided that' to the end of the Section."

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Mr. BOOTH: I rise to ask my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to make a statement with regard to an important Amendment to the new Sub-section (6). Perhaps he would prefer to make it when we come to that particular Amendment which has reference to the inviting of tenders for the supply of electric power.
Lords Amendments considered.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Supply of Electrical Energy.)
  (1) The railway may be worked by electrical power.

  (2) 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 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,
  2788
  and maintain and use cables, mains, lines, and apparatus for transmitting electrical energy.

  (3) 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.

  (4) 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, main lines, and apparatus—

  (a) from any Post Office generating station or sub-station to the railway; and

  (b) for the purposes of the preceding Sub-section;

  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

  2789
  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.

  (5) 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 Sub-section shall authorise any such company, authority, or person to break up the surface of any public street or place.

  Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-Sections (2), (3), (4), and (5), and insert instead thereof:
  (2) The Postmaster-General may lay down along the railway, and maintain and use cables, mains, lines, and apparatus for transmitting electrical energy 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 of any such building within a distance of fifty yards and for the purpose of general telegraphic (including telephonic) communication.
  (3) 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 Sub-section.
  (4) 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 any distance not exceeding fifty yards for the purpose of connecting any portion or extension of any such building as is referred to in Subsection (2) of this Section with any other portion or extension thereof or with any other such building as aforesaid

  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.

  (5) 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 Sub-section shall authorise any such company, authority, or person to break up the surface of any public street or place.
  (6) The Postmaster-General shall invite tenders for the supply of electrical energy for the railway from the companies and local authorities who are empowered to give such supply, and if he is satisfied that an appreciable saving would result to the Post Office by taking a supply from any such company or local authority, the Postmaster-General shall do so.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the House is aware, this is a Bill to enable the Post

  2791
  Office to work for its own purposes a tube railway through London from Paddington to the East End. It was proposed in the Bill to supply electricity for the purposes of that railway from the Post Office generating station at Blackfriars, with the alternative option to the Postmaster-General to obtain a supply of electricity from the companies or local authorities which are enabled by Parliament to supply electricity in the districts through which the railway will pass. The station at Black-friars was erected when the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire was Postmaster-General to supply electricity for the Post Office telegraphs, telephones, pneumatic tubes, lifts, electric lights, and so forth in London. It produces about four and a half million units of electricity per annum. For the purpose of this railway an additional 480,000 units, or a comparatively small proportion of the amount now produced, would be needed. To produce that extra amount in the present building would involve an initial capital expenditure of about £11,000, and the whole of the existing stations could be used for this extra load. The electric lighting companies, who appeared to form a common syndicate, asked that this power of supplying from the Blackfriars station should be struck out and that the Post Office should be obliged to go either to the electric lighting companies or to the local authorities for their supply of power. The House of Commons Committee refused this application, but the Committee of the House of Lords has acceded to it, in spite of the protest of the representatives of the Post Office who appeared before that Committee, and held that the Postmaster-General should be obliged to take his supply from outside sources, and not from his own station. To that the Government could not, of course, agree, for it might involve placing the Postmaster-General entirely in the hands of private producers who might have formed a combination against him, and charged him an excessive price.
  All the other tube railways have been given power by Parliament to supply themselves, if needed, and when the Bill came on in the House of Lords on the Report stage the Government in that House refused to concur with this alteration made by the House of Lords Committee. Those who have taken a view favourable to the company represent that the companies
  2792
  would be able to produce electricity very much more cheaply for the purposes of the railway than the Post Office station was in a position to do, and I was quite willing to give an undertaking that if it were the case that, taking everything into account, the supply from outside sources was actually cheaper and would be a saving to the Post Office, then we would take it from these outside sources. I have no desire to use my own station if it would be in fact an additional expenditure compared with taking the supply from outside sources. Of course, I should require security that the outside supply would continue and would not be at a temporary cheap rate, with the possibility of the price being increased afterwards, and, in order not to imperil the chances of the Bill, we came to an agreement in the other House to this effect, that the power of the Postmaster-General to take the supply from his own station should be restored to the Bill—that is the important thing—but that also the Postmaster-General should give an undertaking that if it were found that there was a clear saving to the Post Office by taking it from an outside source he would use his option and take it from that outside source. I think that that is a reasonable arrangement to secure us that we shall have power to take it from our own station. We will do so unless taking everything into account it appears that there will be a clear saving by getting it from some other source. I agreed to the insertion of a provision in the Bill on those lines, and on that understanding the Noble Lords agreed to restore the power to the Postmaster-General to use his own station at his own option should he so desire. The Clause which is now before the House with the Amendment proposed by the House of Lords carries out the spirit and the letter of that agreement.
  Mr. BOOTH: Quite candidly I am very sorry indeed to find this compromise agreed to by the Government. If we are told that this is the only chance of getting the Bill that is a very difficult point for me to meet, but I protest against the very retrograde step which is being taken. There is very great danger in this Clause as regards the future. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has power to use his own station unless it is proved that the public suffers financially by doing so, but there is no guarantee at all with regard to future years. It is quite easy for
  a future Postmaster-General of a dif-

  2793
  ferent type from any Member of the present Government to fix up an agreement under this Clause, when he is in office, that will bind his successors The consideration of whether there is a saving in one particular year never governs those of us who are connected with business. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no private firm who, having a plan of its own and opportunity to administer it, would simply look to a small financial saving in regard to a contract of that size. There are other considerations besides the mere margin of profit, and it would be a lamentable thing if because some rival company in order to prevent the Post Office from having its own stations should cut in with a tender a few pounds below what it could be done for in order to get a footing in the Post Office service. All people would agree that the Post Office should be a State Department managed by the State, and. I do not like to see a break made in that policy merely to oblige private interests. I would utter a most serious warning on this point. I am perfectly certain that if this had come in the early part of the Session instead of on the last day, there would have been pat up a most vigorous fight against this Clause, but one does not want to thwart the Government plans, and 1 only express the hope that this will be interpreted in favour of the public interests and that these private concerns may not be successful in using this opportunity to get in. The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire spoke of some of my hon. Friends, in dealing with a Bill at this late stage of the Session, as blackmailers. I do not think that it was wise, but whatever truth there was in the suggestion applies with double force to this. Simply because it is the last day of the Session and we cannot help it some private electricity companies have been able to get an advantage in the shape of this Clause, which I do not think will be successful with the present Government but may work against the public interests in future Governments.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Breaking up Surface of Streets.)
  (1) The Postmaster-General may, for the purpose of constructing the railway, enter upon, open, break up, and interfere with the surface of the following streets and places, that is to say:—
  (a) in the City of London:—
  Finsbury Circus.
  (b) in the Metropolitan borough of Holborn:—
  the triangular footway or space lying at the northern end of and. abutting on Shaftesbury Avenue near to the junction thereof with New Oxford Street.
  (c) in the Metropolitan borough of St. Marylebone:—
  Barrett Street.
  (d) in the Metropolitan borough of Stepney:—
  Whitechapel Road and Raven Row so far as the same respectively lie between Bedford Street and East Mount Street.
  Provided that the Postmaster-General shall not enter upon, open, break up, or interfere with any part of the surface of Barrett Street without the consent in writing of the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the Metropolitan borough of St. Marylebone.
  (2) Save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall authorise the Postmaster-General, except for the purpose of making trial borings, and except as otherwise expressly permitted by this Act, to enter upon or take or use the surface of any public street or road.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (17), leave out paragraph (c), and insert instead thereof the words, "Provided that the Postmaster-General shall not enter upon, open, break up, or interfere with any part of the surface of Barrett Street without the consent in writing of the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the Metropolitan borough of St. Marylebone.

  CLAUSE 18.—(Compensation for Damage by Working.)
  (1) In addition to the provisions of the enactments incorporated with this Act with respect to compensation for lands taken or injuriously affected, the Postmaster-General shall make compensation to the owner, lessee, and occupier of any land, house, or building which is injuriously affectd by reason of the working of the railway (including the working of lifts and any other works in connection with the railway), notwithstanding that no part of

  2795
  the property of such owner, lessee, or occupier is taken by the Postmaster-General.
  Provided that all claims for compensation under this Section shall be made within two years from the commencement of the working of the railway, or within two years from the time when any substantial change is made in the weight or size of the rolling stock used on or in the method of the working of that part of the railway where the injurious affection is alleged to have arisen, and all such claims shall be settled by arbitration.
  (2) An arbitrator under this Section may with the consent of all parties concerned hear together any class or group of claims under this Section.
  (3) For the purposes of this Section the expression "land house or building" shall be deemed to include mains, pipes, valves, plugs, syphons, and other apparatus of the Metropolitan Water Board and the Gas Light and Coke Company.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of the Clause, insert the words "and any electric lines and apparatus of any company authorised under the Electric Lighting Acts of 1882 to 1909 to supply electrical energy within the Administrative county of London."

  CLAUSE 19.—(For Protection of Gas, Water, Hydraulic, and Electric Apparatus and Sewers.)
  (4) If any interruption in the supply of gas or water shall without the written authority of the owners be in any way occasioned either by reason of the exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon the Postmaster-General or by the act or default of the Postmaster-General or of any of his contractors agents workmen or servants or any person in the employ of them or any or either of them the Postmaster-General shall forfeit and pay to the owners for the use and benefit of the owners a sum not exceeding ten pounds for every hour during which such interruption shall continue,
  (5) The Postmaster-General shall not raise sink or otherwise alter the position of any apparatus of the Metropolitan Water Board or of the Gas Light and Coke Company so as to diminish the covering over such apparatus or to make the same more than five feet.
  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (4), leave out the word "or" ["gas or water."]
  After the word "water" ["water shall"], insert the words "or electrical energy."
  In Sub-section (5), after the word "apparatus" ["any apparatus"], insert the words "or electric lines."
  Lords Amendment: After the word "company" ["Light and Coke Company"], insert the words "or of any company authorised under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, to supply electrical energy within the administrative county of London."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This last Amendment, I think, comes within the rules of privilege, because by inserting the words "or electrical energy" it makes the Postmaster-General responsible for compensation for any default which may occur in the supply of electrical energy. Therefore, technically it is a breach of privilege of the House. But if this had gone forward as a private Bill this Amendment, and several other Amendments of a similar character to which I shall have to call attention, could have been made in the House of Lords, and been accepted by this House as a matter of course. I venture to suggest to the House that in the case of this Amendment, and some of the others to which I shall call attention, the House might waive the privilege and make a special entry in the Journal.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 21, insert

  NEW CLAUSE 21A.—(For Protection of Council, of Metropolitan Borough of Holborn.)
  "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the following provisions shall have effect unless otherwise agreed between the mayor aldermen and councillors of the Metropolitan borough of Holborn (in this Section called r the Council') and the Postmaster-General:—

  (1) The Postmaster-General shall before entering upon opening breaking up or interfering with the surface of the triangular footway or space lying at the northern end of and abutting

  2797
  on Shaftesbury Avenue near to the junction thereof with New Oxford Street give to the council twenty-one days' previous notice in writing of his intention so to do accompanied by plans sections and particulars of any borings or shafts to be carried out thereon:

  (2) The Postmaster-General shall not in the construction of the railway take use enter upon or in any way alter or interfere with either temporarily or permanently any greater part of the surface of the said space and streets adjacent thereto than that shown and coloured pink on the plan (in this Section called the agreed plan) which for the purpose of identification has been signed by William Slingo on behalf of the Postmaster-General and Edward F. Spurrell on behalf of the Council:

  (3) The Postmaster-General shall in sinking any shaft boring or other work on any part of the said surface interfere as little as may be with the trees on the said surface:

  (4) The said surface shall be properly and suitably enclosed by a proper and sufficient hoarding at least nine feet in height and the hoarding erected for the purpose shall be erected and maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the borough surveyor of the council and shall not be used for advertising purposes and such hoarding shall he removed as soon as the works for which it was erected have been completed:

  (5) No part of the said land so enclosed shall be used for the purposes of making or repairing any pipes machines tools or other apparatus goods or articles or otherwise as a workshop and no steam crane or other engine worked by steam power shall be used within or upon the said land nor shall there be any permanent structure apparatus or machinery thereon:

  (6) The Postmaster-General shall at his own expense and to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council fill in and make good the surface of the ground of the said enclosed land (including the planting of any trees and the replacing of any gas column and other apparatus and seats which may have been removed) and shall for a period of two years from the making good the surface of the ground make good any subsidence or other damage to the open space public ways and pavements (including the replacing of any trees which may have died) caused by or in consequence of the execution of the works by this Act authorised in or under the said enclosed land:

  2798

  (7) The Postmaster-General shall before erecting the said hoarding provide and fix and during such time as he shall occupy the said enclosed land maintain by the said hoarding gas lamps capable of affording in the aggregate a light equal to 1800 candle power:

  (8) The Postmaster-General shall keep the Council indemnified against all actions claims and demands whatsoever brought or made against the Council by any person by or in consequence of the construction of any works to which this Section applies:

  (9) Any difference which may arise between the Council and the Postmaster-General under the provisions of this Section shall be referred to and determined by an engineer to be appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and any rules made thereunder shall apply in every such arbitration."

  8.0 P.m.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What I have just stated in regard to former Amendments is equally applicable to some of the Sub-sections contained in this Clause, and I would suggest that the House should take the same course with this.

  CLAUSE 22.—(Fur Protection of Certain Railway Companies.)
  Sub-section (12). — The Postmaster-General shall so construct and maintain his electric circuits and other works of all descriptions and shall so work his railways in all respects as to prevent any injurious interference by induction or otherwise with the electric circuits from time to time used or to be used on the railway of the railway company, or with the currents in such circuits:
  Provided that at the expiration of two years from the opening of the railway the provisions of this Section shall not operate to give any right of action in respect of injurious interference with any electric wires, lines, or apparatus, or the currents therein, unless in the construction, erection, maintaining, and working of such wires, lines, and apparatus, all reasonable and proper precautions have been taken to prevent injurious interference therewith and with the currents therein by or from other electric currents:
  Lords Amendment: In paragraph 12, leave out the words "of action" ["any right of action"], and insert instead thereof the words "to claim."
  Lords Amendment:—

  NEW CLAUSE 23A.—(For Protection of Great Northern Railway Company.)
  "The following provisions for the protection of the Great Northern Railway Company (in this Section called the Company) shall unless otherwise agreed between the Postmaster-General and the Company apply and have effect:—
  (1) The expression 'property of the Company' where used in. this Section shall include any land building work or convenience belonging to or leased to the Company;
  (2) (a) The Postmaster-General shall not under the powers of this Act enter upon take purchase or use any property of the Company except that the Postmaster-General may purchase and take and the Company may and shall sell and grant according to their estate and interest in and subject to all easements rights and covenants affecting the property of the Company such an easement or right as shall be necessary for the purposes of constructing, using, and maintaining Railway No. 7 and the works in connection therewith by tins Act authorised so far as the same may according to this Act be constructed in or under the property of the Company.
  (b) The consideration to be paid for any easement or right to be acquired by the Postmaster-General under this Section shall in case of dispute be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement and for the purpose of any such determination the acquisition of such easement or right shall be deemed to be a taking of lands within the meaning of Section 6 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845:
  (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Section of this Act the marginal note whereof is 'Power of Deviation' in constructing Railway No. 7 by this Act authorised where the same will be situate in under or near to any property of the Company the Postmaster-General shall not deviate vertically upwards from the levels thereof marked on the deposited sections to a greater extent than five feet and shall not deviate from the centre line thereof
  2800
  as shown on the deposited plans laterally in an easterly or north-easterly direction to a greater extent than five feet.
  (4) The works authorised by this Act where the same will be situate in under or within fifty feet (measured in a horizontal. direction from any part thereof) of the property of the Company (in this Section called the authorised works') shall be constructed under the supervision (if given) and to the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer of the Company (in this Section called the engineer ') and in accordance with such plans sections and. specifications as shall have been previously submitted to and reasonably approved by the engineer or settled in case of dispute by an engineer to be appointed as hereinafter provided and shall be of such strength as may be reasonably sufficient to carry the existing works and buildings of the Company and any works or buildings of whatever description which the Company may at any time hereafter desire and be entitled to erect over or in the neighbourhood of the same:
  Provided that if for fourteen days after the submission of such plans sections and specifications to the engineer he fails or neglects to approve or disapprove the same or to state his reasonable requirements with respect thereto he shall be deemed to have disapproved thereof:
  (5) Nothing in this Act or in any grant of easement to be made by the Company in pursuance thereof shall prohibit the Company from erecting works and buildings of whatsoever description and weight they may think fit over or in the neighbourhood of the authorised works:
  Provided that the Company before they commence to erect any such buildings shall give to the Postmaster-General reasonable notice of their intention to erect the same and such notice shall be accompanied by a full description of such buildings and shall afford the Postmaster-General a reasonable time in which to execute and do any works or things which he may think expedient for the protection of the railway and the Company shall afford to the Postmaster-General access to their property and all reasonable facilities for executing any such protective works. Pro-, vided that such works shall be carried out so far as the same may affect the property of the Company under the supervision (if the same be given) and to the reasonable satisfaction of the Company:
  (6) If at any time or times either before or during the construction or after the completion of the authorised works any further or other works or appliances are reasonably required in connection with the authorised works for the purpose of preventing subsidence of or injury to the property of the Company or for the purpose of supporting any building or works which the Company may at any time have erected or made or may contemplate erecting or making the Postmaster -General shall (except nevertheless to arbitration as hereinafter provided) on being so required in writing under the hand of the engineer make execute and provide all such works and appliances at his own costs charges and expenses hut under the supervision (if given) and to the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer and according to the plans sections and specifications to be previously submitted to and reasonably approved by him and in the event of the Postmaster-General failing so to do after reasonable notice from the engineer in that behalf the Company may themselves (elsewhere than on the property of the Postmaster-General) execute and provide all such works and appliances and may recover the reasonable cost thereof from the Postmaster-General:
  (7) The Postmaster-General shall at his own expense at all times maintain the authorised works and also any further works which may be constructed under the provisions of the preceding Sub-section in substantial repair and good order and condition according to the plans sections and specifications so approved or settled as aforesaid and so as to leave undisturbed at all times the property of the company and if aid whenever the Postmaster-General fails so to do the Company may make and do (elsewhere than on the property of the Postmaster-General) all such works as the engineer may reasonably consider requisite for the protection of the property of the Company and the reasonable amount of their proper expenditure in that behalf shall be repaid to them by the Postmaster-General. Provided always that in the event of any dispute between the Postmaster-General and the Company as to the amount of or necessity for such expenditure such dispute shall be settled by arbitration by an engineer to be appointed as hereinafter provided:
  (8) The Postmaster-General shall not in the execution maintenance or repair of
  2802
  any of his works enter upon the surface of any property of the company nor draw out any spoil or other material on such surface nor in any manner obstruct hinder or interfere with the free uninterrupted and safe user of any property of the Company and shall during the execution or repair of any of his works execute all such temporary works and take all such precautions as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of avoiding risk to the property of the Company:
  (9) Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained the Postmaster-General shall be responsible for and make good to the Company all costs losses damages charges and expenses which may be occasioned to the Company or to the property of the Company or otherwise by the construction or failure of the railway or of any act or omission of the Postmaster-General or of any person in his employ or of his contractors or others and the Postmaster-General shall effectually indemnify and hold harmless the Company from all claims and demands upon or against them by reason of such construction or failure or of any such act or omission:
  (10) The Postmaster-General's liability for any damage caused to the property of the Company shall not be prejudiced or affected by any approval by the company or the engineer of any plans sections or specifications or any supervision by the engineer of the works of the Postmaster-General or any reasonable requirement of the company or the engineer under the provision of this Section:
  (11) If at any time after the construction of the railway the company shall desire to extend their Farringdon Street Goods Depot or execute any other works in the vicinity of the railway the Postmaster-General shall not by reason of the powers conferred by this Act oppose the granting of any necessary Parliamentary powers for such extension or works except for the purpose of obtaining Clauses for the protection of the works of the Postmaster-General.
  (12) Any difference which may arise between the Postmaster-General or his engineer on the one hand and the company or the engineer on the other hand as to the reasonableness of any requirement of the company or the engineer or otherwise under the provisions of this Section shall unless otherwise agreed be referred to and determined by an engineer to be agreed upon between the parties or failing such agreement to be appointed on the

  2803
  application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such reference."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause again contains proposals which stand in exactly the same position as the other Amendments to which I have called attention, and I suggest that it should be dealt with in a similar way.

  CLAUSE 24.—(For Protection of Great Western Railway Company.)
  Sub-section (4).—With respect to any land belonging or leased to or used by the Company on in or under which any of the authorised works will be situate when constructed in accordance with this Section the Postmaster-General shall not purchase or take the same but the Postmaster-General may take and the Company shall and they are hereby authorised to sell and grant accordingly so far as their interest in the said lands extends an easement or right of using the said subsoil and the surface of the lands coloured blue on the signed plan for the purposes of the construction maintenance and use of the authorised works. The amount to be paid for the acquisition of such easement shall be ascertained in case of difference in the manner provided for by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 with respect to the purchase of lands otherwise than by agreement and the easement or right so to be taken shall be deemed to be land so far as respects the proceedings for the acquisition thereof and also for the purposes of any arbitration;
  Sub-section (14). — The Postmaster-General shall if and when reasonably necessary underpin the station railway buildings roofs and works of the Company where the same are over or affected by the authorised works and execute such other works for the protection of such stations railways buildings roofs and works as may be reasonably required by the engineer and the Post-master-General shall when reasonably required by the engineer continue such underpinning or other works when commenced without cessation:
  Sub-section (15).—If before or during the construction of the authorised works the engineer shall he of opinion that such work
  2804
  is or will be a source of danger to any railway station siding roof building or other work belonging or leased to the company and shall give the Postmaster-General notice in writing to that effect the Postmaster-General
  Lords Amendments:—
  In Sub-section (4), after the word "easements" ["the acquisition of such easements "], insert the words "or right."
  In Sub-section (14), leave out the words "stations railways," and insert instead thereof the words "station railway."
  In Sub-section (15), leave out the words "such work," and insert instead thereof the words "any such work."
  Lords Amendment:—

  NEW CLAUSE 26A.—(For Further Protection of Tichborne Estate.)
  "For the further protection of the Tichborne Estate the following provisions shall unless otherwise agreed between the owner and the Postmaster-General have effect (that is to say):
  (1) In this Section the expression 'the Tichborne Estate' means the premises now forming the estate in the Metropolitan boroughs of Holborn and St. Pancras of which Sir Joseph H. B. Doughty Tichborne Baronet is tenant for life and the expression the owner means the said Sir Joseph H. B. Doughty Tichborne Baronet or other the owner or owners for the time being of the said premises respectively:
  (2) The Postmaster-General shall not acquire any easement in nor construct any part of the railway through or under any property forming part of the Tichborne -Estate and lying between Gray's Inn Road and Millman Street above an imaginary horizontal plane drawn through a point thirty-five feet below the surface of Doughty Street where the centre line of the railway as shown on the deposited plans crosses the centre of that street:
  (3) When estimating under the provisions of the Acts incorporated with this Act the purchase money or compensation payable under this Act to the owner in respect of any easement or right acquired by. the Postmaster-General in any sub-soil or under-surface forming part of the Tichborne Estate no regard shall be had to any injurious affection which may be caused to the Tichborne Estate or any part thereof by reason of the execution of the

  2805
  works authorised by or the exercise of the powers of this Act but if any such injurious affection shall be caused by reason of the execution of such works or the exercise of such powers the owners shall thereupon be entitled to compensation in respect thereof under the provisions of the Acts incorporated herewith to the same extent (if any) as the owner would but for this enactment have been entitled to compensation under the said provisions Provided always that any claim so made for such injurious affection shall except as hereafter provided be made within the period of two years from the commencement of the working of the railway and that any such claim and any claim made by the owner under the provisions of the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Compensation for damage by working" shall except as hereinafter provided be referred to and determined by the same arbitrator and that such arbitrator shall be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institute on the application of either party and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such arbitration:
  Provided also that if any substantial change is made in the weight or size of the rolling stock used on or in the method of working of any such part of the railway as aforesaid any claim for injurious affection to the Tichborne Estate caused by the working of the railway after such change has been made may be brought within two years from the time when such change is made and shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed as aforesaid."
  Lords Amendment:—

  NEW CLAUSE 26B.—(For Further Protection of Howard de Walden Estate.)
  "For the further protection of the Howard de Walden Estate the following provisions shall unless otherwise agreed between the owner and the Postmaster-General have effect (that is to say):—
  (1) In this Section the expression `the Howard de Walden Estate' means the premises in the Metropolitan Borough of Marylebone of which the Right Honourable Thomas Evelyn Baron Howard de Walden and Seaford is the freeholder or tenant for life and the expression the owner' means the said Right Honourable Thomas Evelyn Howard de Walden and
  2806
  Seaford or other the owner or owners for the time being of the said premises respectively
  (2) The provisions of the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Power to take subsoil of public streets etc." shall not apply to any subsoil forming part of the Howard de Walden Estate and situate beneath any cellar vault subway or other similar structure under any public street road footway or place but subject to the provisions of this Act the Postmaster-General may purchase or take and the owner shall sell an easement or right of using any such subsoil which the Postmaster-General may require for the purposes of this Act and the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to lands shall subject to the provisions of this Act extend and apply to any such easement or right of user except that no such easement or right of user shall be deemed part of a house or other building or manufactory within the meaning of Section ninety-two of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 and that any question of disputed purchase money or compensation under this Sub-section shall be settled by arbitration in manner prescribed by the Lands Clauses Acts:
  (3) In constructing any part of Railway No. 1 by this Act authorised in or under any property forming part of the Howard de Walden. Estate the Postmaster-General shall not acquire any easements nor construct any permanent works in any property forming part of the said estate and lying between Wells Street on the east and Marylebone Lane on the west at a higher level than that at which the tunnels of the said railway may be constructed under the powers of this Act:
  (4) When estimating under the provisions of the Acts incorporated with this Act the purchase money or compensation payable under this Act to the owner in respect of any easement or right acquired by the Postmaster-General in any subsoil or undersurface forming part of the Howard de Walden Estate no regard shall be had to any injurious affection which may be caused to the Howard de Walden Estate or any part thereof by reason of the execution of the works authorised by or the exercise of the powers of this Act but if any such injurious affection shall be caused by reason of the execution of such works or the exercise of such powers the owner shall thereupon be entitled to compensation in respect thereof under the provisions

  2807
  of the Acts incorporated herewith to the same extent (if any) as the owner would but for this enactment have been entitled to compensation under the said provisions. Provided always that any claim so made for such injurious affection shall except as hereinafter provided be made within the period of two years from the commencement of the working of the railway and that any such claim and any claim made by the owner under the provisions of the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Compensation for damage by working" shall except as hereinafter provided be referred to and determined by the same arbitrator and that such arbitrator shall be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institute on the application of either party and the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1889 shall apply to any such arbitration:
  Provided also that if any substantial change is made in the weight or size of the rolling stock used on or in the method of working the said part of Railway No. 1 any claim for injurious affection to the Howard de Walden Estate caused by the working of the railway after such change has been made may be brought within two years from the time when such change is made and shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed as aforesaid."

  CLAUSE 28.—(As to Purchase Money Payable to Paddington Estate Trustees.)
  The following provisions shall apply with respect to any purchase money payable under the provisions of this Act to the Paddington Estate Trustees in respect of their interest in any part of or interest in the Paddington Estate acquired or to be acquired by the Postmaster-General under this Act (that is to say):—
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "or to be acquired."
  Lords Amendment:—

  NEW CLAUSE 30A.—(For Protection of Eastern Telegraph Company, Limited.)
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect any obligation of the Postmaster-General or right of the Eastern Telegraph Company Limited under any agreement between the Postmaster-
  2808
  General and the Eastern Telegraph Company Limited."
  Lords Amendment:—

  NEW CLAUSE 30B.—(For Protection of Electra House Limited.)
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained or shown on the deposited plans the following provisions for the benefit and protection of Electra House Limited (in this Section referred to as "the Company") and for the protection of the buildings and premises known as Electra House and Tower Chambers Finsbury Pavement in the City of London of which and the subsoil beneath the same (in this Section called "the protected premises")the Company is or is reputed to be lessee shall unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Postmaster-General and the Company be observed and have effect that is to say:

  (1) The Postmaster-General shall not (except for the purpose of underpinning). without the previous consent in writing of the Company under their Common Seal take use enter upon or in any way alter or interfere with either temporarily or permanently any part of the structure of-the protected premises:

  (2) No shaft shall be sunk or trial boring made within 100 feet of any part of the protected premises:

  (3) The railway where it passes through the subsoil of the protected premises and within 100 feet of any part thereof (in this Section referred to as "the portion of the railway") shall only be constructed in accordance with plans sections and specifications previously submitted to and. reasonably approved by the company or in ease of difference settled by an arbitrator to be appointed as hereinafter provided. Such plans sections and specifications shall be submitted to the Company not less than twenty-one days before the commencement of the construction of the portion of the railway and if for fourteen days after their submission the Company refuse or neglect to approve the same or to state their reasonable requirements in-relation thereto they shall be deemed to have approved thereof. No approval of any such plans drawings or specifications shall prejudice or affect the liability of the Postmaster-General to make good any injury or damage which may at any time be caused to the protected premises and if and as often as any such injury or damage to the protected premises shah

  2809
  arise from the construction of the railway the same may be made good by the Company and the Postmaster-General shall repay to the Company the amount reasonably expended by them in so doing:

  (4) If at any time either before or during the construction or after the completion of the portion of the railway it shall appear to the Company that, any works appliances or measures of protection are required to ensure the stability of the protected premises whether the same be by way of addition to the protected premises or in connection with the works of the portion. of the railway or in relation to the method of constructing the same the Postmaster - General shall subject nevertheless to arbitration as hereinafter provided carry out such works or take such measures of precaution as the Company shall in writing reasonably require. Any such works or measures of precaution as aforesaid as may have to be carried out on and in connection with the protected premises may be carried out by the Company and the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Company in connection therewith (including compensation payable to any workmen or their legal representatives or dependents who may be injured or killed whilst employed by the Company in or about such works or measures of precaution) shall be repaid by the Postmaster-General on demand:

  (5) The Company shall be entitled by 11.11 engineer (in this Section called `the engineer ') to be agreed upon between the Company and the Postmaster-General or failing agreement to be appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers to inspect the portion of the railway at all reasonable times during the construction thereof and the Postmaster-General shall on demand pay to the Company the reasonable costs charges and expenses of the engineer in respect of any services rendered by him in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-section:

  (6) Any difference which shall arise between the Postmaster-General and the Company with reference to any matter arising under this Section shall be referred to and determined by an engineer to be agreed, upon or failing agreement appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and such reference shall be in all respects under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1889."

  Mr. SPEAKER: Certain provisions of this new Clause fall into exactly the same position as the others, and I suggest that they should be dealt with in the same way.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  Description of Premises and Persons entitled to the Benefit of the Section of the foregoing Act of which the marginal note is For Protection of Certain Properties."

PRESTON, SOUTHPORT, AND GATLEY CHAPELS CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." I do so in order to ask why the other Charity Bills are not to be moved, because we understood from the Prime Minister—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is an explanation which can hardly be given on this Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. KING: I think we ought to have a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud Division who is in charge of this Bill. I should like him to explain whether he expects to get all these Charity Bills on the Paper through this Session or not.
Mr. C. P. ALLEN: I am afraid under the circumstances it is impossible to deal with the other Bills this Session, and the arrangement is that they will be dealt with at an early stage of next Session.

BOSDEN WESLEYAN TRUST PROPERTY CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. KING: I want to ask a question on this Bill. I have studied these Bills very carefully, and a great many hon. Members who have not done so seem to object to anybody else raising any points in these measures before they are passed into law. This is an unusual Bill, because it affects a Wesleyan chapel, and almost all the Wesleyan chapels have very carefully drawn and clearly expressed trust deeds which are not of a very ancient date, and for this reason I should like to know why it is necessary to pass a Bill affecting a Wesleyan charity. As this is very important for Wesleyans, I should like a few words from the Charity Commissioner explaining this measure.
Mr. C. P. ALLEN: There is certain property held by the Wesleyans under various trusts, and shortly the object of this Bill is to bring them under one Act.

BOURNEMOUTH HOSPITALS CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
Mr. KING: It is a very unusual thing to bring in a Bill dealing with a charity which is only about twenty-five years old. In this case the Bill is for the object, of uniting two hospitals under one trust. I should have thought myself that the large district which these hospitals cover might very well have done With two hospitals. I want to ask -whether public attention has been called to this amalgamation, and whether the Charity Commissioners themselves took any steps, beyond a merely formal advertisement in the corner of a newspaper where nobody reads, to satisfy the law? I hope it is generally known in the locality that a change of this important character is being carried out.
Mr. C. P. ALLEN: I can only say m reply to the hon. Member that the promoters of this Bill are the governing bodies of the two hospitals concerned, mid they came to the conclusion that the amalgamation was in the interests, not
2812
only of the two hospitals but of the whole district concerned. The scheme was then framed and all possible means of making it known were taken through the usual means, and there was no opposition of any kind whatever.

ALFRISTON CHAPEL CHARITY BILL
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. KING: Here, again, is an extremely important point. I am not quite sure that it is not by far the most important point that has occurred in any one of these Bills. This is a very interesting case of a chapel at Alfriston. Some hon. Members may know the very interesting little old village of Alfriston not far from Eastbourne. If they have not visited it, I should like to recommend them to go there. It is one of the most picturesque and interesting little rural towns in the South of England. It contains some very interesting and antiquarian relics of various kinds, and it is not very far from there that some ancient skulls were found. There is a chapel which has for many years been in the sole occupation- of the congregational body. The Report upon this charity states:—
"For many years past this place of worship has been solely occupied by the Congregational body, and it has been carried on by means of the rents of the property comprised in the above-mentioned deed."
On this charity wanting this property vested in the Sussex Congregational Union, difficulties were raised, and now, by this Bill, the property is to be taken away from the Congregationalists—that is what it amounts to—and given to another body. I do not mind that if all parties are agreed, but I am quite sure that anybody who goes into it will agree that the Bill ought not to be passed sub silentio.
Mr. C. P. ALLEN: The hon. Member, I think, is quite wrong. The property was originally given to the Countess of Huntingdon Connexion as trustees. It has always been run by the Congregational-

2813
ists. An application was made to appoint the Sussex Congregational Union as trustees, and the Sussex Congregational Union will be responsible for the property and the chapel.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAREE, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. KING: I wish to utter my protest at the way in which the business during the last hour has been hustled through. We all know very well the reason. It is because we had a message from the other end of the passage that the Lords would not wait any longer for the Bills.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Twenty-four minutes past Eight o'clock, till to-morrow (Friday), at 11 a.m.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL. CERTIFICATES (IRELAND).
  MEDICAL. CERTIFICATES (IRELAND).
  CLAIM RESPECTING CONTRIBUTIONS.
  CLAIM RESPECTING CONTRIBUTIONS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (SCOTLAND).
  APPROVED SOCIETIES (SCOTLAND).
  OUTWORKERS (NOTTINGHAM).
  OUTWORKERS (NOTTINGHAM).
  WELSH STATISTICS.
  WELSH STATISTICS.
  Food Taxes.
  Food Taxes.
  Education (Necessitous Areas).
  Education (Necessitous Areas).
  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  Customs and Excise Department.
  Customs and Excise Department.
  Income Tax Forms (Guildford).
  Income Tax Forms (Guildford).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  Undeveloped Land Tax (Garden Allotments).
  Undeveloped Land Tax (Garden Allotments).
  Clare Rate Collector.
  Clare Rate Collector.
  Outrages Alleged (Ireland).
  Outrages Alleged (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Boycotting (Galway).
  Boycotting (Galway).
  Dr. Starkie's Evidence.
  Dr. Starkie's Evidence.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Landing Place (Bunlough).
  Landing Place (Bunlough).
ROYAL NAVY.
  GUN-RUNNING, PERSIAN GULF.
  GUN-RUNNING, PERSIAN GULF.
  ROYAL NAVAL ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ROYAL NAVAL ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  MEN RE-ENGAGING.
  MEN RE-ENGAGING.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROSS-SHIRE MOUNTAIN BATTERY.
  ROSS-SHIRE MOUNTAIN BATTERY.
  CHANGE OF BATTERY NUMBERS.
  CHANGE OF BATTERY NUMBERS.
  MILITARY TRESPASS (GLENBELGH, COUNTY KERRY).
  MILITARY TRESPASS (GLENBELGH, COUNTY KERRY).
  SPECIAL RESERVE OFFICERS.
  SPECIAL RESERVE OFFICERS.
  ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (W. G. VERNON).
  ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (W. G. VERNON).
  SOUTH AFRICAN GARRISON INSTITUTE.
  SOUTH AFRICAN GARRISON INSTITUTE.
AIRCRAFT.
  "DUNNE" AEROPLANES.
  "DUNNE" AEROPLANES.
  School Furniture.
  School Furniture.
  Llandrindod Wells School.
  Llandrindod Wells School.
  Metropolitan Police (Station Sergeants).
  Metropolitan Police (Station Sergeants).
  Fatal Street Accidents.
  Fatal Street Accidents.
  New Shafts.
  New Shafts.
  Inspectors of Mines' Report.
  Inspectors of Mines' Report.
  Senior Lady Inspector of Factories.
  Senior Lady Inspector of Factories.
  Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's Works, Karachi.
  Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's Works, Karachi.
  Opium Stock.
  Opium Stock.
  Retrial of Singhs (Oudh).
  Retrial of Singhs (Oudh).
  Abor Exhibition.
  Abor Exhibition.
  Jamaica.
  Jamaica.
  Trawled Herrings.
  Trawled Herrings.
  Kew Gardens (Police).
  Kew Gardens (Police).
  Forestry Training.
  Forestry Training.
  Agricultural Education.
  Agricultural Education.
  Live Stock (Improvement).
  Live Stock (Improvement).
  Building Plots (Forest of Dean).
  Building Plots (Forest of Dean).
  Wood Distillation.
  Wood Distillation.
  Dunoon Police Court (Charge of Theft).
  Dunoon Police Court (Charge of Theft).
  Gaelic (Scottish Counties).
  Gaelic (Scottish Counties).
  House of Commons (Accommodation for Official Reporter).
  House of Commons (Accommodation for Official Reporter).
  Vaccination Certificates.
  Vaccination Certificates.
  Brentford Union Inspection.
  Brentford Union Inspection.
  Poor Law Orders.
  Poor Law Orders.
  Oil Contract (Brigham).
  Oil Contract (Brigham).
  Load-line (Committee).
  Load-line (Committee).
  Charges for Milk Carriage.
  Charges for Milk Carriage.
  Ballymore Post Office (Letter Deliveries).
  Ballymore Post Office (Letter Deliveries).
  Dooega, Achill (Sub-Post Office).
  Dooega, Achill (Sub-Post Office).
  Postmasters' Offices, London.
  Postmasters' Offices, London.
  Retrenched Transvaal Officials (Post Office).
  Retrenched Transvaal Officials (Post Office).
  Central Telegraph Office (Medical Visitation).
  Central Telegraph Office (Medical Visitation).
  Oxford City Parishes.
  Oxford City Parishes.
  In-Shore Fishermen.
  In-Shore Fishermen.

BISHOPRICS OF SHEFFIELD, CHELMS FORD AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
GREAT HAYWOOD AND TOMPKIN CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITY BILL.
HATFIELD (YORK, WEST RIDING) CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
HULME TRUST ESTATES CHARITY BILL.
KINGSWOOD CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
PADIHAM HOREB UNION CHURCH CHARITY BILL.
ROE STREET (MACCLESFIELD) CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
WIBSEY (BRADFORD) INDEPENDENT CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.
POST OFFICE BILL.
LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY BILL.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) 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.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House, communicated to them on Tuesday last, on the subject of the East Ham Corporation Bill.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations, dated 12th August, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Rate of Interest on Sums in Investment Account) Regulations, 1913;
2. Provisional Special Order, dated 13th August, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 4)
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 189.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 21) BILL.
Commons Message of Tuesday last considered (according to Order): Then it was moved to resolve—
That the promoters of the Bill which has been introduced into the House of Commons during the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament., provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session;
—(The Earl of Craven); agreed to: and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that the Lords had concurred with them in suspending the said Bill.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8 KINGSTOWN) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Message of yesterday considered (according to Order): Then it was moved to resolve—
That the promoters of the. Bill which has been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which has passed this 1-louse and been sent to the House of Commons, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session:
—(The Lord Strachie) agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that the Lords had concurred with them in suspending the said Bill.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): These Amendments are not really new to your Lordships. They consist of certain Amendments which, when the Bill was sent down to the House of Commons, were put in brackets, and, I think, printed in italics, because they were of a privileged character. They are, therefore, well known to your Lordships, and are only in a technical and very formal sense Amendments on the part of another place.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be agreed to.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION IN INDIA.
LORD AMPTHILL*LORD AMPTHILL rose to call attention to the public protest which had been made in regard to the appointment of Mr. Hornell as Director of Public Instruction in Bengal, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the facts of the case are these. In view of the impending retirement of Mr. Kuchler, the present Director of Public Instruction in Bengal, the Bengal Government have proposed the appointment of Mr. Hornell, a junior member of the Board of Education in London, in supersession of all members of the Indian Education Service. The Government of India and the Secretary of State for India have approved of this appointment. Mr. Hornell is already in charge of the office of Director of Public Instruction and is waiting to be confirmed when Mr. Kuchler's final retirement takes place in October. This appointment has

1931
aroused the strongest and the most widespread indignation in India. It has been denounced in scathing terms, not only by the English Press, but also by the vernacular Press, and has been made the subject of numerous memorials and representations to the Secretary of State himself. I am not going to repeat these public comments or to add the comments which I am tempted to make myself. I admit that it is a feeling of strong indignation which has prompted me to bring this subject before your Lordships. But I believe that it is not too late to remedy the injustice and to repair the mischief which has been done. I hope, therefore, to persuade the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India to adopt a course which is still open to him and which appears to most people who are aware of the circumstances to be the one and obvious method of putting matters right.
Let me say at once that nobody makes any imputation whatever against the Secretary of State for India. The noble Marquess is criticised, it is true, for want of firmness in not insisting on the rule of his predecessor, a rule which has been reaffirmed on several important occasions. I may add also that no charge is made against the Governor of Bengal, Lord Carmichael, of whom it has been a great pleasure to hear golden opinions. Lord Carmichael was new to his post when this appointment was made and was obliged to accept that which was already partly settled. But I believe it is a fact—I speak subject to correction—that when Lord Carmichael found that he had been misled in this matter he did his best to stop the appointment. If that is the case it adds another very striking point against the appointment of Mr. Hornell. But, my Lords, somebody must have been responsible. People in India naturally believe that Mr. Hornell, who I may say was formerly in the Bengal Service—he served for a short time as a junior officer and retired some five years ago—has some powerful patron who has influenced his appointment, and it is only natural that people should think this in view of the whole circumstances of the case. Rumours—very definite rumours—are current in India. I am not going to repeat them, because there is no object in doing so. They may or they may not be founded on fact. Still there it is. Somebody has been responsible for this. Somebody must
1932
have asked, or advised, or told the Government of Bengal to apply for the services of Mr. Hornell, and it is pretty obvious that there is nobody in India who could be personally interested in making an appointment of this kind; so it follows that there is a good deal of speculation which touches men in power in this country. If anybody is thus being wrongly accused, the best way to clear his character is to put the matter right.
What would you say, my Lords, if an Army officer who had resigned his commission while he was a subaltern in order to take up more congenial employment was allowed to rejoin the Army five years later, and was put in command of his former battalion right over the heads of all the senior officers? What would you say if such a thing were done in spite of pledges, express pledges repeated several times on the part of the War Office, that promotion should always be within the regiment if it were possible, and, failing that, from another regiment? Do you think that an appointment of that kind would conduce to zealous, efficient, or even loyal service? Do you think that if it were known that that kind of thing were possible good men would be encouraged to seek for commissions in the Army? And, my Lords, what if the man who was so promoted could be shown beyond question to have less experience than and inferior qualifications to the senior officer whom he had superseded? What if the officer superseded had already proved his capacity by temporarily commanding the battalion, and had actually received conspicuous praise and credit for the manner in which he had discharged his duties? This is exactly what has happened in this case. The senior officer in the Bengal Service, Mr. James, was not only conspicuously fitted for the post, but had been actually designated for it in more ways than one. Mr. Hornell entered the Indian Educational Service in 1902, and served for six years as a junior. He retired in 1908 in order to take up a post at the Board of Education in Whitehall, and now he is appointed in supersession of Mr. James, a much older, more experienced, and highly qualified officer, who has served continuously in the Bengal Educational Service; and not only in supersession of Mr. James, but also over the heads of all the other officers of the Bengal Service and of all the other officers of the whole Indian Educational Service.
The Government have given definite pledges that this kind of thing should not be done, and I should like to remind your Lordships of the nature of those pledges and when they were made. There was a scandal of a very similar nature in 1886. It also took place in Bengal, and aroused a storm of protest very similar to that which is raging at the present time. The result was that the Government of India, prompted by the. Secretary of State, passed a Resolution in the same year—1886—to the effect that these posts were to be reserved for the Educational Service. In 1896 Lord George Hamilton, who was then Secretary of State for India, slightly modified the Standing Order with a view to giving a wider discretion to the Local Governments. All went well for another period of ten years; but in 1906 there was again a scandal of precisely the same nature, and again it took place in Bengal. The Secretary of State for India of the time, Lord Morley, entirely endorsed the protest of the Education Department in India, and fie, again, moved the Government of India to pass a Resolution. The substance and effect of that Resolution passed in 1906 is to be found in the India Office List under the particulars of the Educational Service. I quote from that book, which is published with the authority of the Secretary of State—
"The posts of Director of Public Instruction are reserved for the Indian Educational Service so long as members of that service can be found well qualified to fill them"
Lord Morley's Despatch which brought this about has been regarded since 1906 as a sort of Magna Charta of the Educational Service of India. My authority for making that statement is Sir Alfred Crofts, who wrote a very strong letter to The Times on the subject. It was hoped in India that this kind of thing would not occur again, and the Education Service were looking forward with better hope and confidence to the future.
But now comes this appointment of Mr. Hornell, which seems to everybody in India to be a most flagrant disregard of those explicit and repeated promises. The question has been the subject of protest and inquiry in the House of Commons, and I should not have troubled your Lordships had it not been for the very unsatisfactory manner in which it was treated in the debate on the Indian Budget a few days
1934
ago in another place. The very temperate representations which were made not only by Sir Henry Craik but also by the Leader of the Opposition were dismissed in a very airy, and I may say inaccurate, manner by the Under-Secretary. The position, if you go by what the Under-Secretary said, seems to be this. The India Office put the responsibility on the Government of India; the Government of India put the responsibility on the Government of Bengal; and the Government of Bengal say nothing. At least we have not got at their views. My object in moving for Papers is to find out exactly what part was played by the Government of Bengal or by officers of that Government. Who was it who suggested this appointment to them? Who advised them to go out of their way to obtain the services of a young man from the Department in Whitehall when beyond question, indeed by their own admission, there were a considerable number of men in the Educational Service in India well fitted to fill the appointment? By their own admission, Mr. James was fit for the appointment because he was designated as second string if they could not obtain the appointment of Mr. Hornell. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State did remind the Government of India of the Standing Order of his predecessor. At least we have that from the Under-Secretary. But, unfortunately, it would appear that he did not insist upon it in the manner in which people had a right to expect that he would insist. The Government of India published a sort of apologia which has convinced nobody, and which, on the contrary, is so inconsequent and so utterly futile that it has provoked the utmost derision in India. The Governor of Bengal, I as I have already stated, is said to have done his best to stop the appointment when he found how he had been misled, and if that is true it is in itself a sufficient proof that the appointment is unsatisfactory.
I might call your Lordships' attention to the comparative qualifications of Mr. Hornell and Mr. James, but there is no point in doing that, as it would be difficult for your Lordships to follow a long statement of the kind. But briefly the facts are that Mr. Hornell is quite a young man. He is only thirty-four years of age. Mr. James is fifty years of age. Mr. Hornell served for some six years in India as a junior officer, and during that time had

1935
no experience whatever of Indian schools. He had only to deal with European schools, which are managed on a totally different system, and he acted as sort of personal assistant to the Director of Public Instruction, a post which is always given to junior officers. Mr. James is a man of very remarkable academic qualifications. He took a "Double First" at the University of Oxford. He has held high appointments, and he has also published works on education which have a very considerable reputation. But Mr. Hornell is put over Mr. James and in control of all the officers in the Educational Service in India up to the age of fifty-five, which is the age of retirement. You cannot get away from the fact that this is a cruel injustice to Mr. James, for, as I have already said, there is no question whatever about his qualifications. They have been amply and handsomely acknowledged on many occasions, notably by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal when Bengal was under Sir Edward Baker. He both privately and officially complimented Mr. James on the discharge of the duties of the office of Director of Public Instruction in which he was acting. So that Mr. James has actually had experience of this particular post, and has acquitted himself so creditably that he won special acknowledgment and praise from the Lieutenant-Governor.
But even worse than the injustice to the individual, which is always a serious thing, is the injustice to the Service. The Government of India, in their apologia, have east a grave and unfounded imputation on the whole of the Indian Education Service. They say, in effect, that there is no man in the country who is fit to take this post. That, of course, is nonsense. But to say so is to cast a slur on all the many capable and zealous and devoted officers of the Education Service in India, not only in Bengal but also in all the other Provinces, for the Education Service is one, and if there was nobody fit for the position in Bengal it would have been in accordance with rule that an officer should be appointed from another Province. Imagine the effect on a great Public Service of such an imputation as that which has been cast upon it by the Government of India Resolution! I cannot do better than quote some words from one of the former Resolutions to which I have referred, which laid down the rule that the highest posts were to be
1936
reserved for the Service. One of the reasons given was this—
"The selection of other than educational officers for the highest administrative office in this Department [the Education Department] must naturally cause discontent among officers who bel the Education Department, and discontent. st as a rule be followed by a diminution ozeal and consequently of efficiency."
There is the opinion of the Secretary of State and of the Government of India, and that is the effect which this appointment is actually having now in India.
Imagine the effect on the recruitment of the Service. It is difficult enough to get good men to go out to India, because service in India involves very serious sacrifices quite apart from the disadvantage of exile from home. Your Lordships know well what men who serve in India, and particularly what their wives who accompany them have to put up with on account of their exile. And, again, you have to consider the effect on public opinion. If it can be said that pledges given by the Government of India endorsed by the Secretary of State are of no effect, surely the result must be disastrous. People will believe that the promises of a Secretary of State are written on sand. Then good-by to any moral influence that we may hope to exercise in India. I will not seek to probe further who has actually been responsible for this lamentable mistake if only the matter is put right. That is still possible. The appointment of Mr. Hornell does not become effective and definite—he is in charge of the post at the present moment, but his appointment has not yet been confirmed—until October, when Mr. Kuchler finally retires. If Mr. Hornell is such a valuable expert in the matter of education that it is absolutely necessary to have him, why not make him available for the whole of India? It is not necessary to put him into this particular post and so interfere with the promotion of deserving officers and arouse all this discontent and bitterness and resentment. That is not a bit necessary. If the Government of Bengal really cannot do without Mr. Hornell, you can let them have his services in another way. Let him be attached to the Government of India and put on special service. That is a form of appointment which is very well known in India. Mr. Hornell can then go to Bengal, give his advice on these questions of developing a new system, which they have made their excuse for his appointment, and leave the

1937
administration of the Department to one of the officers of the Education Service; and then when he has done that work no doubt it might be an advantage that his services should be at the disposal of other Provinces in India who wish for higher expert knowledge than they can obtain from the members of the Education Service.
My principal object in calling attention to this question and taking up so much of your Lordships' time is to beg the Secretary of State to earnestly consider this suggestion. There is not much point in a mere protest or in scoring in debate in a matter of this kind. The principal object must be to remedy the wrong and to repair the harm. I believe that can be done, and I hope that the noble Marquess will see fit to adopt that course which seems obvious to all those in India and in this country who have concerned themselves seriously with the question of this appointment.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the appointment of Mr. Hornell as Director of Public Instruction in Bengal.—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I have no complaint whatever to make of the noble Lord opposite for having introduced this subject to the notice of the House. Indeed, I am glad that he has done so, because it gives me an opportunity of stating my views upon it. Although it may be generally and not unwisely held that the main duty of the India Office, as distinct from the Government of India administering India, is to deal rather with broad principles and matters of wide application than with individual cases, yet on the other hand a personal question of this kind, which, as the noble Lord points out, has aroused much comment, and not a little adverse comment, is one with which we are bound to deal here, since the particular appointment is one for which I am personally responsible. The noble Lord said that references had been made to this matter in the debate on the Indian Budget in another place, and he complained of the attitude taken up by my hon. friend Mr. Montagu. From my recollection of that debate the matter was introduced by Mr. Bonar Law, the Leader of the Opposition, who stated that he had
1938
no knowledge of the subject himself, or, indeed, of Indian matters generally, but that he had been informed of the complaints that had been made and he thought it right to bring the subject forward. The matter was then pursued by another hon. Member, Sir Henry Craik, who spoke with considerable warmth on the same lines as the noble Lord opposite, but with less restraint. Then the noble Lord complained that my hon. friend answered briefly, which, in a debate of that kind, was inevitable, and that he was inaccurate.
LORD AMPTHILL: I said airily, not briefly.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord must form his own opinion of my hon. friend's manner. I am speaking of his matter. When the noble Lord says that, he replied inaccurately I at any rate, from reading his speech, have not been able to trace any inaccuracy in what he said. This is, in substance, an instance of the very old controversy, which has gone on as long as graded appointments have existed at all, between promotion by seniority and promotion by selection. All of us who have had to do with patronage in any form have been continually confronted with that difficulty. It is by no means confined to the Service in India. The noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite knows all about it in connection with the Service of which he was the distinguished head. When outsiders are introduced into the Diplomatic, Service the members of that Service are prone to consider that their chances of promotion are interfered with. But a rigid adherence to the rule of seniority there would have deprived the country of the services of such men as Lord Dufferin, Lord Cromer, and Lord Kitchener. The noble Lord opposite mentioned the Army. I think I shall be able, when I mention Mr. Hornell's services, to point out that his comparison to a man being called in from outside to command a regiment was not altogether an accurate one. Anybody who has any knowledge of the Army knows that precisely the same kind of complaint is perpetually raised where selection takes the place of promotion by strict seniority.
I can say—and I am quite certain that noble Lords opposite, including Lord Ampthill, will sympathise with the obser-

1939
vation—that of all the tasks that fall to the lot of a Minister or an administrator, that of the distribution of patronage is the least agreeable. We all know what happens when we make an appointment. We have to set on one side the somewhat tempered gratification of the recipient, who would probably in many cases have preferred something else; on the other side we have to set the unqualified disappointment of those who were also candidates for the appointment., who feel, or at any rate honestly believe they feel, that their whole career and possibly their whole life is blasted by their failure to obtain the particular' appointment. Therefore it is by far the easier path for the dispenser of patronage to go rigidly and unthinkingly on the rule of mere promotion by seniority. Nobody can actually complain, and comments of this kind are finally avoided. It is therefore only in the direct interests of the Public Service and in exceptional cases that those who have to make appointments will depart from that rule. And I venture to think that in criticising a matter of this kind words should be carefully weighed. Only in one or two instances did I think that the noble Lord opposite departed from that rule, for, as I said; he was far more moderate in his dispensation of blame to us than have been others who have spoken or written on this question.
So far as the Educational Service in India is concerned, this question of the method of appointment goes back a long way. I find that so far back as 1859 Lord Stanley, who was afterwards Lord Derby, then Secretary of State, drew attention to the principle of outside appointments to the Directorships of Public Instruction. A number of Indian Civil Service men had been appointed. In one case a military officer had been appointed, resigning his commission for the purpose, and in another case a practising barrister; and Lord Stanley then pointed out that preference ought to be given to the regular Educational Service. Then I notice that in 1885 Sir Alfred Lyell, who of all men of our time was the least likely to be neglectful of considerations attaching to culture and to education, appointed an Indian Civil Service man to the Directorship of Public Instruction in the North-west Provinces, as they then were; and Indian Civil Service men were then holding the Directorship in Madras, in Bombay, and in the Punjab.
1940
After that came the direction to which the noble Lord has alluded, which was made by Lord Randolph Churchill. He laid down the rule, which appears to me to be a thoroughly sound one, that where possible appointments should be made from the local Service, but where, for any reason, a local man was not forthcoming, an attempt should first be made to find a suitable man from some of the other Provinces in India, and that only in the third resort should a man be taken altogether from outside. Then, as the noble Lord has also pointed out, in 1896 Lord George Hamilton, the then Secretary of State, took a somewhat different view. He thought that the discretion of the Local Governments ought to be enlarged, and he laid down a rule accordingly practically giving them the choice of selection wherever they thought they could find the best men.
Then came the ease to which the noble Lord alluded, I think in somewhat exaggerated terms, as a scandal, which took place in the appointment of Mr Earle, now Sir Archdale Earle, the respected Commissioner for Assam, who, being a member of the Indian Civil Service, was appointed to the Directorship of Public Instruction in Bengal, for which, as far as I know, by common consent he was regarded as well qualified. But in spite of that fact strong protests, exactly the same kind of protests as we are receiving now, were received from the Educational Service in Bengal, and the result was the Despatch of my noble friend Lord Morley, in which he laid down the rule which still governs our proceedings at the India Office. That rule was that in ordinary circumstances the local Service should provide the man for the appointment of Director of Public Instruction. But it was publicly stated by everybody concerned that this must not be held to establish an absolute claim or to bar the selection of a man from outside if the special circumstances demanded. I may say here that I think that the terms in which the rule was worded were not fortunate. It was stated that a Director should only be sought from outside if nobody was qualified for the appointment in the local Service. I venture to think that the rule ought to have been, so to speak reversed, and that it should have been stated that the ordinary practice and custom would be to promote a man from the local Service, but at the

1941
same time a discretion was reserved in exceptional cases to appoint a man from outside. That has the advantage of not appearing to convey the imputation, which the noble Lord said he considered was laid upon the local Service, of possessing no qualified man. It is reasonable to say that there should be complete freedom of selection if you can find an exceptional man from outside, but that, of course, by no means implies that the taking of that step means that other people are unfitted for promotion, still less that they are people upon whom any kind of slight ought to be placed. I remember that my noble friend Lord Morley, in speaking of the kind of special cases which might be treated as exceptions, instanced that very case of Sir Archdale Earle, which the noble Lord opposite has spoken of as a scandal, as an exception of the kind which might be treated as justifying an appointment from outside.
Now, my Lords, I come to this particular case of Mr. Hornell. The noble Lord does not, I am sure, desire to depreciate unduly the personal claims of Mr. Hornell, but in order to make his case he was obliged to describe his career in a somewhat depreciatory tone. One would have supposed, from the account of the appointment given in another place and also to some extent, from the noble Lord's description, that Mr. Hornell was the kind of man who filled the responsible place, say, of a junior examiner in the Board of Education, who had been out in India for three or four years in a quite subordinate appointment, and then was fished out, after his return, from the Board of Education and placed over the heads of a large number of deserving persons. What are the actual facts? Mr. Hornell went out to India in 1901, being selected and nominated by Lord George Hamilton, the then Secretary of State, and his service was in Bengal. When he was in Bengal he filled the office which I think the noble Lord described as being a kind of clerk to the then Director of Public Instruction, but he was, as a matter of fact, Assistant-Director of Public Instruction from 1906 to 1908; and I note that in 1910 Sir Herbert, Risley, whose knowledge of India was greater than that, I should say, of any noble Lord in this House, and who had an opportunity of watching Mr. Hornell's work, said of him that he had filled an exceptionally heavy and responsible appointment there.
1942
Then the Board of Education, having heard favourable accounts of Mr. Hornell, induced him to come to Whitehall for the purposes of what is known there as the Department of Special Inquiries and Reports—a highly responsible appointment; and while he was there he was Secretary to the very important Imperial Conference on Education which took place in 1911, which, of course, gave him an insight into the practices of Colonial and Dominion education in addition to that which he had obtained of English education at Whitehall. Mr. Hornell also performed invaluable services to my Office, for he brought into order and altogether formulated the recruiting of our educational officers for India. The noble Lord will see that in doing that he kept himself in regular touch with the more recent developments of Indian education. The noble Lord compared his case to that of an officer who had left the Army and had afterwards been brought back to command a regiment. I should rather compare him to the not unfamiliar case of an officer who, in the middle of his regimental period, is called away to a Staff appointment of the greatest, importance, and returns thence to do a period of regimental duty; and I am inclined to think that a number of instances an be found where a man has commanded a regiment all the better from having ha kind of official experience parallel to which I venture to think Mr. Hornell obtained at the Board of Education.
LORD AMPTHILL: But you cannot find a case where a man had resigned his commission and was then brought back. Mr. Hornell had resigned the Indian Educational Service.
THE MARQUESS or CREWE: Technically, no doubt, he had. But I am always having impressed upon me the advantages of interchange. I am perpetually hearing, with illustrations brought from other Public Services, of the advantage it is for officers of the Indian Service to come back sometimes to the India Office and become for the time being English Civil Servants; while in many other cases, as the noble Marquess opposite knows very well, how popular, and, as I have every reason to suppose, successful, the system of interchange has become between the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office. Honestly

1943
I regard this as an extremely good instance of the possibility of interchange. I would ask another question. Supposing that some officer of our Service in India, some member of the Indian Educational Service, were offered a high post here, would the noble Lord say that that ought to be regarded as a monstrous grievance by people who are in the Educational Service in England? I will deal with the personal question directly, but so far as the two Services are concerned I confess I cannot see that any real or substantial grievance exists with reference to this particular appointment. It appears to me that the special experience of Mr. Hornell precisely fulfils the condition of those "special circumstances" which by all Secretaries of State, even by those who have been most meticulously careful of maintaining the proper claims of the Indian Educational Service, are admitted to justify an exception being made. Then, as we know, both the Government of Bengal and the Government of India strongly pressed for the appointment of Mr. Hornell. And when the noble Lord tells me that the Government of Bengal repented of their action and desired to reverse it, I can only say that I have no knowledge of any such circumstance.
LORD AMPTHILL: I did not say the Government of Bengal. I said the Governor, Lord Carmichael. I have seen it in the Indian newspapers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: A great many things appear in the Indian as in other newspapers which ought not to be taken as absolute gospel.
LORD AMPTHILL: Is it so, or is it not?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In any case I am not prepared to separate my noble friend Lord Carmichael from the Government of Bengal, of which he is the head, and his views, I take it, are those of the Government of Bengal. I can only say that I have no knowledge whatever of that to which my noble friend alludes. The view which both Governments took was that a great movement, as we all know, is proceeding for the furtherance of education in India, and that the movement for the expansion both of primary and secondary education there could best be carried out
1944
by a man of the peculiar and quite special experience, partly Indian and partly, if I may say so, cosmopolitan, which Mr. Hornell possessed. I cannot say that the selection of Mr. Hornell implied the slightest reflection upon the gentleman whom the noble Lord has named who was the Senior Education Officer in Bengal. Mr. James is, as he stated, a man of great academic distinction and of great educational powers, but it does not surely necessarily follow that he was thereby the best qualified man—although I am quite sure that he would do very well in any work that he was asked to undertake—for this particular work of reorganisation in Bengal, in which the educational problem, as the noble Lord I am sure knows very well, is the most pressing and the most difficult of any Province of India. It does not necessarily follow that a man, however distinguished in education, is peculiarly fitted for that special work. It does not follow that in this country you would have selected a Thring or a Jowett to carry out a particular enterprise of that kind. Consequently it appears to me to convey no sort of imputation on either Mr. James's character or his powers if for this particular work, for the term of five years for which Mr. Hornell is appointed, Mr. Hornell should be placed there instead of Mr. James himself.
I am most anxious to reassure the Educational Service in India on the general question of their promotion, and I entirely agree that that is most important in a Service of that kind, which possibly, as I am afraid may be said of all our Indian Services nowadays, appears to offer less attractions to men who hope to make careers in England or in other parts of the Empire than it did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. I am very anxious that they should be reassured that a man of capacity and merit who goes out there will get his full chance and will not be passed over except in quite special and peculiar circumstances, with regard to which I venture to think every Administration must keep a discretion in its own hands. I do not think anybody will be found to say that any Department or any Minister should absolutely bind themselves or himself in all circumstances to promote the second in command to be the first in command unless he can be distinctly proved to be either completely incompetent or completely objectionable on personal grounds.

1945
That discretion, I venture to assert, ought to be and must be maintained. But I am prepared to say that it should be used only in the rarest instances; that it should not be possible for men who enter a graded Service of this kind to feel that their careers are at the mercy of caprice or the preferences of individuals. This particular case, I can assure the noble Lord, has been the subject of the closest thought and care, and I venture to think that when a little time has passed it will be recognised by the. Service generally, not only that we have clone our best to find a particular man suited to the particular work, but that we have succeeded.
Now with regard to the suggestion which fell from the noble Lord at the close of his speech that the Bengal appointment should not be confirmed, but that instead Mr. Hornell should be indefinitely attached to the Government of India as an adviser. I confess that the difficulties of taking such a course appear to me to be practically insuperable. I do not see what the relations of such an officer would be to the Directors of Public Instruction in the particular Provinces. In the case of Bengal, for instance, supposing Mr. James or some other gentleman were appointed to the Directorship, what would be his position in relation to a man having a kind of roving commission from the Government of India? The position I cannot but suppose would almost inevitable lead to friction of a serious kind. Except for mere purposes of report, if you place two men in such a relation one must be in a position to give orders and the other must receive and obey them. I confess, therefore, that I do not see my way to accept the proposal which the noble Lord, with the utmost good faith and I am sure with the fullest desire to settle this question in a harmonious manner, has put forward. I am open to receive any further arguments or observations that may be made on this subject, but I confess that the proposal does not appear to me to be anything more in essence than an attempt to induce the Government of India and the Secretary of State to reverse in practice the appointment which they have made, and to invent, in order to place a fairer colour upon the transaction, au appointment for which no very reasonable claim can be put forward and for whose holder no very definite functions could be found.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should be inclined to say that as a general rule questions such as that which we are discussing this evening would be best left to the judgment of the Government of India and that no useful purpose is achieved by discussing them in Parliament. But certainly in this instance so much public attention has been aroused, and the case on the face of it seems so strong, that I think my noble friend is entirely justified in bringing it before your Lordships' House, and I think the noble Marquess himself admitted that; at the commencement of his speech. On the face of it this appointment is a distinct violation of the accepted rules of the Service. The rules of the Service are to the effect that in making these appointments it is the duty of the responsible Government to look, in the first place, inside the Service, and only to go outside the Service if no suitable man can be found within its ranks. That is perfectly clear. The noble Marquess said that in his opinion the regulation was rather infelicitously worded. He would have liked to turn it the other way. Not that you should give the appointment to the Department if the Department can provide a competent man, but that you should give it to the Department unless you can find a better man outside. That is a very different thing. I will not say which rule is the better, but the noble Marquesses version is not the rule which is now in force and it is not the rule on which the Service at present relies, and which, as my noble friend said, the Service regards very much in the light of its charter. It is obvious that, when the rule is disregarded and a man is brought in from outside over the head of perfectly competent members of the Service inside the Department, that the greatest discouragement and disappointment must be occasioned. And it is not only discouragement and disappointment. It is really putting a slight upon the Service, because it is, in effect, announcing that the Service has been searched and searched in vain for a competent person to whom the post might be given. With regard to the merits of the two gentlemen whose names have been mentioned, I can only say that to an ordinary reader the claims of Mr. James seem very strong and it certainly seems rather a violent thing to pass him over in favour of a junior, the more so when it is in evidence that Mr. James has been selected by the Bengal Govern-

1947
ment itself to act pro tem as head of the Department and that his name is put forward as the second string in connection with this particular vacancy. I will not say one word in disparagement of Mr. Hornell, but there the fact remains. Mr. Hornell actually resigned the Indian Service in 1908. He was no longer a member of it, and he is brought back for the purpose of superseding his competitor.
Both the noble Marquess and my noble friend used analogies. Analogies are always a little dangerous. I do not think my noble friend's analogy was a good one when he suggested that this was like the case of a regimental officer who had left the Service and then been brought back to command the regiment. I do not think that holds water. Nor, again, do I think that the noble Marquess's analogy holds water. I do not think this is at all a case analogous to that of a regimental officer who has gone on to the Staff without leaving the regiment or the Army and who is brought hack to his regiment after performing valuable service on the Staff. The noble Marquess rather appealed to me. He said he was sure that I recognised the importance of occasionally relying upon selection rather than seniority. I respond to the appeal readily. And then the noble Marquess said, "Look at what has happened in the Diplomatic Service; you have had Lord Cromer, Lord Dufferin and Lord Kitchener brought in from outside with excellent results." I am not quite sure whether I recognise in Mr. Hornell, even upon the noble Marquess's estimate, quite that superiority which was discernible in the three eminent public men whose names tile noble Marquess mentioned just now. But as far as I can remember, what has generally been considered necessary is that when you bring in a man from outside in supersession of members of the Service you should clearly establish that the man whom von bring in from outside is conspicuously superior to those whom he supersedes, and that the particular individual whom he supersedes is less competent for the appointment than his rival.
I am afraid there is no doubt that this episode has created a great deal of irritation, and I should have been glad if the noble Marquess could have told my noble friend that some means would be discovered for putting the matter right. I was very sorry to hear from the noble
1948
Marquess that the particular suggestion which my noble friend made—namely, that Mr. Hornell should be attached to the Government of India on special duty—does not seem to him to be a practical one. But, of course, we are helpless in the matter. I did, however, hear with satisfaction, and I think others will hear with satisfaction, the noble Marquess's distinct assurance that this appointment was not to be regarded as establishing a precedent for other supersessions of a like kind, and that it was justified in his view only by circumstances of a wholly exceptional character.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I moved for Papers, but the noble Marquess has not told me whether he can present any. There is that question still outstanding. Then I should like to say that the noble Marquess's explanation failed in one very important point. He did not make any attempt to show that application had been made to other Provinces. That, surely, is an absolutely indispensable condition of the fulfilment of the rule. He rather claimed that the rule had been observed, but it cannot have been observed unless the Government had tried every other Province and drawn blank. I understood the noble Marquess to say that he had not heard that Lord Carmichael had attempted to stop the appointment when he found that it was a mistake. I have that information from various quarters, not merely from the newspapers.
The noble Marquess compared such appointments in the Diplomatic Service as those of Lord Cromer, Lord Dufferin, and Lord Kitchener with this appointment. He ignored the fact that there has been no pledge and that there was no protest in the case of these diplomatic appointments. As far as I know there is no definite pledge that no outsider should be appointed to the Diplomatic Service, and when eminent men have been appointed there has never been any protest comparable to the protest made on this and on the previous occasions in Bengal. The noble Marquess rather found fault with me for describing the appointment of Mr. Earle as a scandal. I dare say we are not agreed as to the meaning of the term or the manner in which I intended to use it. I did not mean it in any disagreeable sense. I meant a scandal in the sense that it aroused indignation and resentment. And what

1949
was the immediate consequence of the protest which was made in the case of the appointment of Mr. Earle? The rule was reaffirmed, and Mr. Earle was transferred as soon as possible to another appointment, and the man in the Service whom he had superseded, Mr. Kuchler, was appointed Director of Public Instruction. Therefore the noble Marquess has a good precedent for adopting the suggestion which I have made to him.
The noble Marquess says that the difficulties of doing so are insuperable, and he cannot understand what the relations would be between this officer placed on special service and the officers of the Local Government. We have had ample examples. Lord Curzon appointed a number of expert European advisers, and India is now quite accustomed to dealing with these experts appointed for special purposes. Why, then, should the noble Marquess hesitate to undo an action which is regarded so generally as a mistake? And why should he say that if Mr. Hornell is appointed as special adviser to the Government of India no very definite functions could be found for him? I thought that the whole point of the noble Marquess's case was that there is sonic special work that requires doing in Bengal for which no officer of the Indian Civil Service is qualified. It is simply a case of difference of method. You could appoint Mr. Hornell to the Government of India, and the. Government of India could lend him to Bengal for this special purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I have no desire to touch upon all the points which the noble Lord mentioned. But when he says that appointments from outside are made in other Services without protest, I should like to ask the noble Marquess opposite whether it is quite true that members of the Diplomatic Service have not made formal protests when gentlemen have been appointed from outside. Anyhow it is not as a rule supposed that they have been particularly pleased. I happened to mention three very distinguished names, but there are names of other people whom I could mention, like, for instance, Sir Henry Drummond-Wolfe, whose reputation was purely Parliamentary; and more could be found. And I think that the noble Lord opposite, who knows the Colonial Office,
1950
is not unaware that at times, either when he was there or when I was there, when gentlemen have been introduced to important posts from outside, although of course round robins are not received, yet protests certainly reach the ears of either the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State.
I think I ought to deal once more with the positive suggestion which the noble Lord made. The difficulty appears to me to be this. The noble Lord puts it in this way, that there is special work to be done in Bengal, and it might be done by an officer of the Government of India while leaving the ordinary administration of the Department to a gentleman of the Bengal Service. That would mean that for this particular purpose the Inspector-General, or whatever he might be who was appointed, would have to be the superior officer of the Director-General, and I cannot conceive that such an arrangement would he regarded, particularly in the existing circumstances, as productive of agreeable personal relations, or of harmony between the two Departments working concurrently. As regards the production of Papers, I am not certain that there are any that could be produced. My hope is that this controversy may die down, and I cannot think that any valuable purpose will be served by producing anything for Parliament. There is a great deal, of course, of a purely confidential character as between Departments which could not be produced. I will, however, look again; but I am very much afraid there are no Papers which would serve in any way the noble Lord's purpose or the public interests.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee considered (according to Order).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE); My Lords, this Report is in print on the Table. I do not think there is anything in it to which I should draw your Lordships' particular attention. I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BISHOPRICS OF SHEFFIELD, CHELMS FORD AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL. (No. 190.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that in previous sessions this House has approved of a Bill bearing the title "The Bishoprics Bill," which was rather wider in its scope than this Bill. This Bill, however, is on the same lines and provides for the institution of three particular bishoprics. Therefore I venture to hope that your Lordships will not only give the Bill a Second Reading, but will allow it to pass through all its stages to-day. I think we may congratulate ourselves that the Bill has successfully passed through the other House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships in all parts of the House will share the noble Earl's feeling of satisfaction that this Bill has at length passed through the House of Commons and has now come up for your Lordships' assent. I ought to say, on behalf of noble Lords sitting on this side of the House and also on behalf of many Churchmen who are deeply interested in the question outside, how deeply grateful we are to the Prime Minister for the personal interest he has taken in this matter and the efforts he has made in a busy session to get the Bill through. I believe this Bill to be of the greatest importance to the dioceses concerned. The truth really is that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done to relieve the overworked Bishops. It is almost impossible in some cases to believe that a Bishop who thoroughly does his duty can do so without the greatest peril to his health. The effort is almost unexampled. I regret to think that many noble and devoted Bishops have sacrificed their health, and indeed their lives, in an effort to keep abreast of the tremendous work imposed upon them. I hope the general Bill, the Bill to which the noble Earl referred, will before long be passed into law, by which it will be possible without coining to an overworked Parliament to gain relief, to obtain such changes in the division of dioceses as are really absolutely
1952
called for if the work is to be efficiently carried through.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
GREAT HAYWOOD AND TOMPKIN CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITY BILL. (No. 191.)
HATFIELD (YORK, WEST RIDING) CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 192.)
HULME TRUST ESTATES CHARITY BILL. (No. 193.)
KINGSWOOD CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 194.)
PADIHAM HOREB UNION CHURCH CHARITY BILL. (No. 195.)
ROE STREET (MACCLESFIELD) CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 196.)
WIBSEY (BRADFORD) INDEPENDENT CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 197.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have full information with regard to these Bills, which are all of the same kind and have been promoted by the Charity Commissioners. I shall not, however, venture to intrude the full particulars upon your Lordships unless any member would like information with regard to either of these Bills, in which case I shall be happy to supply it. I understand that there are a few more of the same kind of Bills, also promoted by the Charity Commissioners, which are on their way now to your Lordships' House.
Read 1a and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 2a: Committee negatived: Bills read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The LORD SAYE AND SELE—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. (No. 198.)
PRESTON, SOUTHPORT AND GATLEY CHAPELS SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 199.)
BOSDEN WESLEYAN TRUST PROPERTY CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 200.)
BOURNEMOUTH HOSPITAL SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 201.)
ALFRISTON CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 202.)
Read 1a, and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 2a: Committee negatived: Bills read 3a, and passed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Eleven o'clock.