Sitting of 23 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Worthing Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Aberystwyth Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed on. Tuesday next.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Morley Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed on Tuesday next.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order) (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Central London Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Edinburgh Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords] (by Order), Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No: 6) Bill [Lords],
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1599, relating to Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 31st July, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]
Rochford Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Commons (Gosford Green Regulation),
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence relative thereto, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Leicester Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords.
That they have agreed to—
Southgate Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee A.
Leave given to the Standing Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 223.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5170 and 5171 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of the Eighth Report of the Commissioners, Standards and Tests for Sewage and Sewage Effluents discharging into Rivers and Streams. Vol. II. Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Sixty-eighth Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland for the year ending 31st December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (EXPENDITURE ON TELEPHONE CAPITAL ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of Statement showing the sums already authorised by Parliament for telephone development, the amounts expended annually, and the remaining balance, together with the amounts repaid out of the Parliamentary Vote [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) (Ireland) Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ROAD BOARD.
Copy presented of Third Annual Report of Proceedings of the Road Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]
CIVIL SERVICES, 1913–14 (REVISED ESTIMATE.)
Estimate presented of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1914, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 226.]
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Draft Regulations under which Grants will be made during the year 1913–14, to Local Authorities in respect of sums borrowed by them for the purposes of the Education Acts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL FUEL.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a Special Committee is now considering the question of the supply of oil fuel for the Navy; if so, whether the Committee is dealing with the question of the kinds of oil best fitted for the purposes required; and when it is expected that the Report of the Committee will be issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I assume that the hon. Member refers to a technical Committee of the Royal Commission. I can only refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Chippenham a week ago.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information as to the result the Committee have arrived at? We know nothing about it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A reply has been given.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say when the Departmental Committee that sat to inquire into the grievances of the yard craft men finished taking evidence; and when a Report may be expected?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee finished taking evidence on the 29th May. It is expected that they will make their Report shortly. I can give no undertaking that the Report will be made public.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the Report is not to be made public will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the yard men will be informed as to the result?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Petitions this year have all been referred to the Departmental Committee, and we will undoubtedly have to reply to them, but we cannot come to a conclusion about a report we have not yet received.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the event of a skilled labourer in His Majesty's dockyards reverting by reason of reduction of men to the position of ordinary labourer and being promoted again at some subsequent period to the position of skilled labourer, the skilled time put in on the first promotion will count towards the probationary period; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of making such arrangements as will meet a case of this kind?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on Monday last, it is not necessary for a skilled labourer to serve twelve months on the probationary rate. In the discretion of the yard officers he can be advanced to the 24s. a week rate at any period if in their view the quality of his work justifies the advancement. Such cases as that alluded to by the hon. Member are thus already provided for; but, as I indicated in the reply mentioned, the suggestion that small and broken periods of work as a skilled labourer should be noted and ultimately added together to make a complete
    2022
    twelve months is, I am afraid, not practicable, nor in any case, in view of what I have said, is it necessary.

    COASTGUARD (C HIRE OFFICERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say if any chief officer of Coastguards, retired in 1912, was given the honorary rank of lieutenant and awarded a pension of less than £60 a year; and whether, seeing that Coastguard officers are now considered to be worthy of the award of lieutenant rank, it is possible to retire them on a pension more in keeping with that rank?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: One such case has occurred. As regards the second part of the question, I can add nothing to my previous replies on this subject.

    INCOME TAX (PROVISION ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principle on which Income Tax is charged upon the allowance of £24 made to officers and men of the Royal Navy when living ashore, while the table money of flag officers and commodores has recently been exempted?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The provision allowance made to officers and men of the Royal Navy when living ashore is given for their personal benefit, and is chargeable to Income Tax under the enactments relating to that duty. The table money of flag officers and commodores has been exempted on the ground that it is granted to meet necessary expenses of official entertainment, and not as a personal emolument.

    Bulgaria (Treaty of London).
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Bulgaria consulted the Powers before attacking Serwia and Greece; and whether the Treaty of London definitely precluded Turkey from any further negotiations with neighbouring States regarding her frontiers, and, if so, for how long?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Treaty of London embodies the settlement reached between Turkey and the then Allied Balkan States

    2023
    and contains no provision limiting its own duration or precluding future negotiations by mutual consent.

    Defence Act of Australia.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the annual Report on the working of the Defence Act of Australia has been issued and, if so, when; and whether he has taken steps to obtain a copy of the Report?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): A copy of the Report of the Minister for Defence of the Commonwealth of Australia on the progress of Universal Military Training to the 30th June, 1912 was placed in the Library of the House at the beginning of last December. Copies of any further similar reports will be forwarded to me in the ordinary course as and when they are laid before the Commonwealth Parliament and will also be placed in the Library.

    Sapele Chiefs, Nigeria (Leased Land).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Sapele chiefs leased a piece of land to His Majesty's Government for ninety-nine years from 1908 at a rent of £100 a year, and that the provincial commissioner is now pressing these chiefs to surrender the freehold for the sum of £1,000; and whether he will advise the Governor of Southern Nigeria to secure the postponement of the matter until after the publication of the Report of the departmental committee now sitting upon land tenure in West Africa?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information on this subject, but will ask for a report.

    Pacific Phosphate Company (Ocean Island Licence).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which the Ocean Island phosphate licence was granted to the Pacific Phosphate Company; and whether he will now publish the whole of the correspondence relative to the granting of this licence?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that the correspondence in question, which took place over thirteen years ago, is of sufficient public interest to justify the expense of publication.

    South Africa (Miners' Strike).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will request the Governor of the Union of South Africa to invite the Transvaal Federation of Trade Unions to submit a statement to him representing the workers' views on the industrial causes which led to the recent strike, and the grounds for their contention that the manner in which British troops were used was unwarrantable; and will he have this statement submitted to him by cable and published before the Debate on the subject?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not prepared to ask the Union Government through the Governor-General to invite such a statement for publication here, more especially in view of the fact that a Commission has just been appointed to inquire judicially into the causes of the recent disorders.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the dispatch he has promised for the coming debate on the use of the troops will not simply be the official views of the Government of South Africa, and is it not right that the views of the organised workers there should be heard?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As to the contents of the despatch, which will not arrive until the morning of the 28th, we must wait and see, but I should imagine it will give a very full statement of all that has occurred.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that the condition is very serious, and that the number of troops has been increased upon the Rand, and that natives are being expatriated?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information that leads me to believe either of these statements.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen the information which has appeared in the Press, and has he not reason to think that Lord Gladstone is deceiving him as to the position on the Rand?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has no right to use an expression of that kind. I pointed out to him more than once that if he has any charge to bring against, the Governor of the Cape, his proper course is to put a Motion on the Paper, so that it can be properly discussed. He has certainly no right to make

    2025
    insinuations of that kind in a supplementary question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.

    Land in Rhodesia (Chartered Company).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state by what law or right has the Chartered Company alienated upwards of a million and a quarter acres of land in Rhodesia to Liebig's Company without the consent of the Crown or the Local Legislative Council; whether he is aware that the hulk of land is within a few miles of the Pretoria Railway, and also near the West Nicholson Railway terminus, and was specially selected for ranching by an official of the Chartered Company's land department, who regarded it as the finest ranching area in Rhodesia; whether he will inquire from the Resident Commissioner what was the previous selling price of land where Liebig's Company have acquired this concession; and what steps, if any, will be taken to secure to the settlers and natives all rights, if any, over main roads or native paths on this concession?
    >Mr. HARCOURT: Under the Land Survey Regulations of 1895, made under the powers conferred by the Matabeleland Order-in-Council and approved by the High Commissioner,the administrator shall be deemed and taken to be an owner, with regard to vacant and unallotted land, and I do not understand that the consent of the Crown or Legislative Council was necessary. Some of the land is near the West Nicholson terminus and some is a considerable distance from any line that has at present been built. I believe that it is incorrect that it was selected by an official of the Chartered Company. I do not see how it would be possible for the Resident Commissioner to form any trustworthy estimate of what the land, which is mostly far away from any other land which has changed hands, would have been worth if it had not been purchased. With regard to roads, the ordinary provision required by Southern Rhodesian legislation is made, namely, that all roads and thoroughfares existing over the land shall remain free and uninterrupted unless closed or altered by competent authority.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manager of this company is an ex-official of the Chartered Company, who is now in the land department of the Chartered Company, and has special means of valuing this land, which is the most valuable at the present moment in Southern Rhodesia?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am afraid I was not able to catch the whole of the hon. Member's supplementary question.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is he aware that this is a swindle between the Chartered Company and—
    Mr. SPEAKER:I would like to see that on the Paper.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Chief Native Commissioner of Matabeleland, in his Report for 1912, says that in many instances the large landowning companies in Rhodesia holding from the British South Africa Company have given notice of their intention to charge their native tenants, in addition to the usual rent per capita, grazing fees for both large and small stock at so much per head; that this innovation has given rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction and has had a disturbing effect on the natives concerned, who naturally inquire how long they are to be subjected to these increasing demands upon them by the owners of the land, and whether there is to be no finality to these charges; that the natives hate the idea of having to give up their old kraals and associations, but the fresh demands made upon them, which are now becoming very general, have made them very uneasy in regard to their land tenure on present property; whether, having regard to these statements, he has asked for any explanation of the declaration of the administration that there are no signs whatever of unrest among the natives who may be affected, and that they are voluntarily taking steps to remove to reserves; what measures are being taken, or will be taken, to safeguard the natives' rights of occupation in Rhodesia and to protect their interests; and whether an independent commissioner will be appointed to investigate and report upon the relations at present existing between the natives and the South African Chartered Company and the companies to whom they have made alienations of land in Rhodesia?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen Mr. Taylor's Report which contains the statements quoted in the question. Mr. Taylor expressed similar opinions last year. As soon as the facts were brought to my notice I wrote to the High Commissioner pointing out that a far reaching change of this character was liable to cause much disturbance of feeling among the natives, and stating that I was anxious to learn what steps the Administration deemed it practicable or desirable to take with a view to keeping the system within reasonable limits, and obviating as far as possible the dangers of unrest. The Administrator, in a dispatch dated 28th March, stated that there were no signs whatever of unrest among the natives who might be affected. In the case of one large company the original proposal had been modified to the extent that no charge for grazing was to be made unless the native had more than twenty head of cattle or 100 head of small stock, in which ease his rent was to be increased by 10s. per annum. This very moderate proposal had been accepted by a number of native tenants, and the Administrator thought that other land owners might take similar action. The native commissioners would assist those natives who decided to remove to the reserves. I have received no further evidence of trouble, for Mr. Taylor's Report which has just reached me is earlier in date, and I rely on the High Commissioner to keep me informed if any indications of trouble should appear. I see, therefore, no reason to appoint an independent commissioner to hold an inquiry.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CO-OPERATIVE TRADING IN MILITARY CENTRES.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to use the £80,000, made by the South African Garrison Institute during the Boer War, for the purpose of establishing Army co-operative trading in military centres in this country; and, if so, whether he has fully considered the probable effect on local tradesmen?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to a question on this subject put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton on Monday last, the 21st instant.

    WAR DEPARTMENT, PLYMOUTH.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the wages of certain employés in the War Department of Plymouth, which on 27th June were being reviewed, have now been increased in order to conform with the increased rate of wages effected on the 1st and 17th May last in the outside building trade in Plymouth; if so, whether, in accordance with the Resolution passed by this House on 10th March, 1909, the increased pay will run as from the 1st and 17th of May; and whether the difference between the wages paid since these dates and what should have been paid will be given to the employés in a lump sum?
    Mr. TENNANT: Effect will be given to the new rate from the same date as in the outside trade, and arrears will be paid.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that by a recent Army Order No. 220, of 1913, some fifteen batteries of Royal Field Artillery, with long and distinguished histories, will be compelled to exchange their numbers, records, and digest of services with fifteen field batteries of recent creation; whether he will state if the plate and funds will also have to be exchanged; and whether he is aware of the loss of esprit de corps that this change will entail to the detriment of His Majesty's service?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer given yesterday to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston. I am afraid I cannot undertake to deal more fully with this matter, which is of some complication, within the limits of the answer to a question, but I understand an opportunity will shortly arise for discussing it in Debate.
    Major STANLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly say why cannot Batteries 136 to 150 be converted into Reserve Artillery, seeing that they have the shortest record of service instead of these batteries which have a long and distinguished record?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only inform the hon. Gentleman that this matter was considered by a Committee of the highest experts in Artillery, and that that was their decision which was given unanimously.
    Major STANLEY: May I ask whether any of these Artillery officers had any service in the Field Artillery, or were they all. Garrison Artillery officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer that.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep dissatisfaction amongst the whole of the officers concerned?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware, but I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman have the question considered afresh by a new Committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot give an under- taking of that kind.
    Major STANLEY: Is the question closed so that nothing more can be done?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, I do not think so.

    ELGIN RIFLE RANGE.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is now the position of the efforts to obtain a rifle range near Elgin; how long these efforts have lasted; what is the reason that suitable land has not been obtained; and why a reply has not been sent to the letter of the Territorial Force Association of Morayshire, dated 26th May?
    Mr. TENNANT: The negotiations alluded to in the answer given to my hon. Friend on 18th June are still proceeding.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say why no answer has been sent to the Territorial Force Association, who wrote so long ago as the 26th May?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only say that the negotiations are not complete, and you cannot send them answers until a decision is arrived at.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of ranges available for the practice of Artillery; whether these ranges are fully occupied throughout the year during the periods when it is practicable to carry out firing practice; if certain Regular batteries have been abolished; if so, was this due in any respect to the desire to increase the facilities for firing practice of the Territorial batteries; and if the War
    2030
    Office is taking any steps to provide additional ranges?
    Mr. TENNANT: Five ranges have been available for both Regular and Territorial Artillery practice during this year and two others for Territorial Artillery practice. Another range will be available next year for both Regulars and Territorials. All available ranges are fully occupied during the practice season. The reorganisation of the Artillery was not due to a desire to increase range facilities.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the necessity for increasing the ammunition in order that the Territorial Artillery may have an opportunity of going into actual gun practice?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that arises out of this question, which is one affecting ranges, but, I will make representations in the proper quarter.

  AIRCRAFT.

    WORMWOOD SCRUBS HANGAR.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the airship hangar at Wormwood Scrubs has been used for airships which are in the possession of the Admiralty; to whom does this hangar now belong; and, if it does not belong to the Government, whether the owners will be approached with a view to one of the rigid airships now on order being stationed there?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The airship shed at Wormwood Scrubs has not been used by any naval airships It belongs to the War Office.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether the airship hangar at Wormwood Scrubs belongs to the War Office; whether it has been, is being, or will be, used for military aviation purposes; and, if not, will he state the reason?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hangar belongs to the War Office. It was originally built for and used by the Clement-Bayard airship. It is available as a temporary shelter for airships flying from Farnborough. It is not at present in use except for the storage of several guns belonging to a Territorial Force unit. It was offered to the Admiralty, and the matter is still under the consideration of that Department.
    Mr. KING: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the War Office says it

    2031
    belongs to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty say it belongs to the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: On the contrary, my first statement was that the hangar belongs to the War Office.
    Mr. KING: I am sorry if I misunderstood. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how much this hangar cost, and whether it is of any use at present?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. FITZROYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say approximately what proportion of the 4,500,000 provisional valuations of land already made relate to agricultural land?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Horncastle on the 9th instant.
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a Return has been made of the capital value of all land within the city and county of Edinburgh; if not, when is a complete Return likely to be made; and whether a complete Return has been made for any city or burgh in Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The original valuation under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is not vet complete for Edinburgh, nor for any city or burgh in Scotland.

    Public Utility Societies (Loans).
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cottages and small houses were erected in Great Britain with the assistance of public moneys in the years 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12 by public utility societies and private persons, respectively; and what sums of money were advanced for that purpose?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not able to state the exact number of dwellings erected in each of the years mentioned, but I will circulate with the Votes a Table showing the total of the loans approved by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, to public utility societies and to private individuals, companies, etc., respectively, together with the number of
    2032
    dwellings to be erected, in each of the last four financial years.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    Motor Licence Duties.
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request the county and borough councils in England to follow the practice of the Board of Customs and Excise in Scotland in the collection of Motor Licence Duties, etc., by calling the attention of licence holders to the necessity of renewing their licences, and giving all necessary information as to places where licences can be obtained, before proceeding to levy the payment of a mitigated penalty under threat of prosecution in Court from those persons who have inadvertently omitted to renew their licences during the month of January?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear I can only repeat what I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 14th instant, that the collection of Motor Licence Duties, etc., is entirely a matter within the discretion of the various counties and county boroughs concerned.
    Colonel YATE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is right that the officials of the county councils should have the power of levying blackmail in this matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What the hon. Member suggests is a very serious charge against the officials of the county councils, and I cannot assume that without sonic evidence of it.
    Colonel YATE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is a very serious matter to call upon men to pay at their own sweet will, without giving notice that there is some dispute?
    LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot assume that they are doing anything irregular unless I have some proof of it.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon Gentleman look at the rules to see whether they are irregular or not, and if they are irregular, will he have them made regular?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very different charge to that which the hon. and gallant Member brought against the officials that they were levying blackmail.

    Common Land (Restitution).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of proposals made in 1885 by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for the restitution to the public of all common

    2033
    land and public rights illegally enclosed or encroached on during the preceding fifty years, or the payment of a compensation if such land or rights remained in private hands; and whether he will appoint a departmental inquiry to consider and report upon this policy?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, as to the second part, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Prime Minister on Thursday last.

    Regent's Park.
    Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the event of the local authorities declining to purchase the leases of the enclosures in Regent's Park, the Government will consider the advisability of throwing open these enclosures in the public interest?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before renewing leases of any enclosure the Commissioners of Woods will consider, as has been done in, the past, what, if any, part can be opened with advantage to the public and without lessening the revenue producing capacity of the remainder of the enclosed premises, but I am unable to agree to open enclosures where a loss of public revenue would be sustained unless compensation for the loss is made.

    Licence Duties.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the revenue obtained in the years 1911 and 1912 from the increased Licence Duties charged under Section 43 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and if he can state the reduction in the rateable value of licensed premises in England owing to the operation of the Section in question?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The latest figures available relating to the yield of the increased Licence Duties are given in the Return of Liquor Licence Duties (House of Commons Paper, No. 217 of 1912), to which I would refer the hon. Member. As regards the second part of the question, I have no means of obtaining the required information.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MALINGERING.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can specify the
    2034
    Manchester Committee which brought a, charge against the medical profession in Lancashire of encouraging malingering; whether he is aware that the Manchester Medical Insurance Committee repudiates the charge; and if he will state upon what evidence the charge was founded?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend did not refer to the Manchester Local Medical Committee, nor did he say that any Manchester Committee had made a charge against the medical profession in Lancashire of encouraging malingering. He was informed that the doctors on the Manchester Insurance Committee had themselves proposed that a Committee consisting of an equal number of themselves and of representatives of insured persons should discuss any complaints on this subject, and he said that if the hon. Member would consult that Committee he should be very glad to hear the result. With regard to the last part of the question he can only repeat that a disproportionate number of complaints have been received from societies with branches in Lancashire. My right hon. Friend may add, as an example, that in an investigation made by one approved society as to the number of districts in which doctors appear to be giving certificates where the member is not really incapacitated, while Scotland is 5 per cent., and South-East England 5 per cent., East Lancashire rises to 57 per cent., and West Lancashire to 53 per cent. The whole subject will form a matter of inquiry before the Departmental Committee to be appointed.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion that there are other circumstances than want of good faith or conscientious action on the part of the doctors that might lead to these statistics? [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"]
    Mr. BENN: All the circumstances which have led to these figures will be investigated by the Departmental Committee.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Do I understand that the hon. Member withdraws the charge against the medical profession, which a large number of hon. Members understood that he made?
    Mr. BENN: I think the hon. Member had better refer to the actual terms of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, and he will see that it conveys no charge whatever.
    Sir J. RANDLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Medical Association of Manchester on this point, because I know that they feel very sore about it?
    Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member refers to the Medical Committee of Manchester, they have forwarded a resolution to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the protest made by Lancashire doctors against the statement recently made by him that they have not administered the National Insurance Act fairly, and to their demand that medical referees should be appointed by the Government to visit and inquire into disputed cases; and whether he will consider the advisability of adopting this proposal?
    Mr. BENN: hake already answered the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The appointment of medical referees is being most carefully considered.

    DEATH OF INSURED PERSON (BETHNAL GREEN).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the recent inquest on Henry Goodwin, a journeyman butcher of Bethnal Green, who was an insured person, and was certified to the Prudential Insurance Company, his society, to be suffering from rheumatism; whether he is aware that Goodwin died of acute tuberculosis of the lungs, and that it was stated at the inquest that if the deceased had been sent to a sanatorium earlier his life might have been saved; will he state the name of the doctor who attended Goodwin; and is he still upon the insurance panel?
    Mr. BENN: I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that the case referred to is at present under investigation by the Medical Service Sub-Committee. Pending this report it would be improper for me to make any statement.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether a man employed for two days a week in an insured trade and also in receipt of an old age pension would, in the event of his becoming unemployed, forfeit his right to unemployed benefit if he refused an offer of full-time employment which would result in the loss of his pension?
    PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The decision as to whether a workman is entitled to unemployment benefit under Part II. of the National Insurance Act rests ultimately with the Umpire appointed thereunder. I am therefore unable to give any authoritative reply to the point raised in the question, but in a recent decision given by the Umpire on a question which though not identical, has some analogy with that raised by my hon. Friend, benefit was disallowed in respect of a workman who gave up his employment, at which he could earn 18s. 5½d. per week, because he ascertained that he would not be allowed to retain a Statutory old age pension of 5s. per week while he was earning more than 12s. per week.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the disqualification attached under the National Insurance Act to the Metropolitan Asylums Board in regard to entering into arrangements with insurance committees for the treatment of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis could be removed if the Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) Bill is passed as now drafted?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The answer is in the affirmative.

    Customs Department (Messengers).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if a Petition has been received from the non-established messengers employed in the Customs Department with regard to their rates of pay and conditions of service; and, if so, will he say when such Petition was received and when an answer was given thereto?
    Mr. BENN: The last Petition forwarded to the Treasury which can be traced was received on 22nd February, 1911, and answered on 9th March, 1911.
    Mr. F. HALL: Have they taken no notice of the Petition received in November?
    Mr. BENN: They did not take the course which was open to them of forwarding it direct to the Treasury.
    Mr. HALL: If they forward it direct to the Treasury, will it receive attention?
    Mr. W. BENN: Certainly.

    Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (Filing of Returns).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the particulars furnished by him of companies which failed in the years 1908 to 1912, inclusive, to file the returns presented by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, included all companies defaulting in this respect; if he will state the general grounds on which it is decided whether or not proceedings shall be taken in respect of such default; in regard to the companies struck off the register, in how many cases this step was taken at the request of the company; and whether the consent of the shareholders has to be obtained before this can be done?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The particulars of companies which failed to file returns in the years 1908 to 1912 include all defaults with regard to which. the companies concerned were circularised by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. They do not include cases in which defaults occurred and were remedied before any notice had been taken of them by the Registrar. The decision whether proceedings should be taken in respect of a default depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Proceedings are taken in the graver cases. It would involve a very considerable amount of labour to furnish the hon. Member with the number of cases in which companies were struck off the register at their own request, but. I shall be pleased to furnish him with the information with regard to any specified companies. Under Section 242 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, the Registrar can take steps to strike the name of a company off the register where he has reasonable cause to believe that the company is not carrying on business or in operation, and it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the shareholders.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider favourably a new Clause putting the question of the Company Laws in such a position that really the desire of the Board of Trade could be carried out?

    Leith Dock Strike.
    Major HOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in consequence of the continuance of the trade dispute at Leith docks, which has entailed a stoppage oz work throughout practically
    2038
    the whole mining industry of the Lothians, he can see his way to promote conciliation or arbitration in accordance with Section 2 of the Conciliation Act, 1896?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am not at present in a position to, nor could I usefully, add anything to the answer given in the House by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, on Monday last, which was to the effect that no statement could be made at present as to a settlement of the dispute, but that the representatives of the Board of Trade are making a very careful inquiry and we shall be glad to use our good offices at the earliest moment at which they can be of any use.

    Foreign Merchant Service (British Officers).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of British subjects who are officers or masters on foreign merchant vessels and the nationality of the vessels which they are commanding or officering?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have no available figures in regard to the number of British subjects who are masters or officers on foreign merchant ships, but such information as is in the possession of the Board of Trade suggests that a certain number of British subjects are so employed. It would be difficult, I fear, to obtain reliable figures, but I am considering whether any useful inquiries on the subject could be made.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right. hon. Gentleman give such figures as are available, bearing out his statement made on Wednesday last?
    Mr. BUXTON: My statement was to the effect that the number of alien masters was just 1 per cent., and I said that there were probably as many British masters serving under foreign flags. That was the statement I made, and I said I would see if I could get any further information.

    Imports (Germany and United Kingdom).
    Mr. PETOasked the value of imports of raw material and manufactured articles into Germany for the year 1912, and similar figures for the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BUXTON: In order to afford a proper comparison it will be necessary to reclassify the German imports on the lines of the classification adopted for the

    2039
    United Kingdom Trade Returns. This reclassification will be proceeded with, and I hope to be able to furnish the hon. Member with the figures he desires in the course of a few days.
    Sir MARK SYKESasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will appoint a representative of the seamen, sailors, and firemen on the Load Line Committee; and (2) the names, port of registry, and tonnage of all vessels on which the load line was raised and which have foundered or stranded since the alteration in the load line?
    Mr. BUXTON: As I have already explained, the questions involved in the assignment of freeboards to vessels are of a technical character and the Load Line Committee has been so constituted as best to deal with these questions. It would have been inconsistent with the nature of the inquiry to appoint a Committee representative of particular interests. The Committee would welcome any evidence directed to the question of the effect of the alteration in the load line. With regard to vesesls lost since the tables of freeboard were modified in 1906, I do not see that the particular Return suggested would enable any correct conclusion to be drawn with reference to the matter under inquiry, but the Board of Trade are furnishing, and will furnish, the Load Line Committee with all particulars they require with regard to any class of casualty.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask whether the lowering of the load line is not a matter in the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. BUXTON: Certainly not; it has to be done under statutory regulations, and certain persons have to be consulted. In this case I have appointed a Special Committee to see how far the load line should be altered.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me what Statute it is which enables him to lower it?
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not know what the hon. Member means; but, if he will give me notice, I will endeavour to get him the information which he wants.
    Sir W. MENZIES: When was this alteration, which creates considerable interest, made?
    Mr. BUXTON: In 1906.

    Hampshire Education Committee.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst parents and ratepayers with the management of Butlocks Heath schools, Hants; that a special inspection of this school took place in February last; that the report of this inspection was communicated to the Hampshire Education Committee and to the managers; that both these authorities have declined to corn municate its terms to the parish council, the ratepayers, or parents; and that, in consequence, suspicion attaches in the locality to the efficiency and management of this school; and whether it is the policy of the Board of Education to support local authorities in carrying on schools against the interests and wishes of the ratepayers and in ignorance of the reports of inspectors?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am aware of the dissatisfaction, but I do not know precisely what are the grounds for it. The school was inspected by three of the Board's inspectors last February, and their report was communicated to the local education authority, and by them to the managers. I am not aware whether those bodies have declined to communicate it to other persons. The body of managers includes representatives of the parish council. It is, of course, within the discretion of a local education authority to communicate a report to other persons than the managers, but it is not the practice of the Board to press them to do so. In my opinion, the legitimate criticism of the school which is contained in the report affords no ground for regarding the school as generally inefficient. The Board see no reason to criticise the action of the local education authority with regard to this school: they are doing their best in rather difficult circumstances.

    Post Office (Temporary Men).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if the Post Office Parliamentary Committee has had evidence on behalf of the temporary men in respect to the rate which should be paid, and if the Report of such Committee will contain a recommendation in respect to such rate of wages; and if it will be made retrospective as from the date when he had himself decided that the existing rate of wages was too low?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As I stated in my reply to a former question of the hon. Member, on 2nd June, the question of the payments made by the Post Office to temporary men employed on a full duty was brought to the notice of the Select Committee by representatives of the staff. I am not in a position to forecast the recommendations of the Committee. It would be unusual for the application of any recommendations they may make to be made retrospective.

    Peasant Proprietorship.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently that Great Britain is wholly an industrial country and is utterly unsuited to the establishment of a great peasant proprietorship represents the considered views of the Cabinet on this subject; whether the Government has decided to take no action with the object of assisting peasant proprietorship even in those districts in which agriculture is the principal occupation of the workers; whether any exception will be made in the case of Wales; and if it is intended to continue the policy of taxing English workers to pay for land purchase in Ireland while withholding similar opportunities from them?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I see no reason to differ from the views expressed by my right hon. Friend on the subject of peasant proprietorship, which I think are not adequately or accurately represented in the question. As I have already stated, the policy of the Government with regard to Land Reform will be announced in due course.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am to understand that the question, as placed on the Paper, is not a correct construction of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, I do not think that it is.

    Imperial Wireless Chain.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table of the House of Commons the volume of official correspondence relating to the negotiations for the Marconi Contract which was before the Select Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This correspondence wins communicated to the Committee in confidence, and was not intended to be made accessible to the public. I am in communication with the Departments concerned, to ascertain whether its publication would be consistent with the public interest.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask if, in considering that matter, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that the House will now be required on Friday week to discharge the duty which was originally entrusted to the Select Committee, namely, to decide on the desirability of this contract?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord knows that this correspondence was communicated under the seal of confidence. Of course, somewhat different considerations may now arise.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if this document is placed upon the Table, he will consider the possibility or advisability of also placing upon the Table the private evidence given by the War Office and Admiralty experts in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into it.

    Importation of Plumage.
    Mr. CROFTasked whether the Government will introduce a Bill to deal with the importation of plumage next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, this matter is being considered by a Committee of the Cabinet. I am not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we may hope that the Cabinet will definitely come to a decision one way or the other? Are they still considering it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, they are still considering it.

    County Court Bailiffs.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Home Secretary whether his Department fixes the wages paid to county court bailiffs; and, if so, whether he will state the average wage paid to these men?
    Mr. W. BENN: Except in the case of some of the larger courts in which the Treasury have sanctioned a scale of

    2043
    wages, commencing at 25s. and rising to 40s. (in some cases 50s.) per week, the wages of county court bailiffs are fixed by their employers—the high bailiffs—who expend for this purpose sums allowed to them in proportion to the amount of work in their districts. The average of the wages paid is about £80 per annum.

    Coal Mines Act.
    Sir W. MENZIESasked the Home Secretary whether the Coal Mines Act, in so far as it concerns the hours of winding enginemen in coal mines in Lanarkshire, has yet been enforced?
    The HOME SECRETARY (Mr. McKenna): I am informed that, so far as the inspectors have been able to observe, the provision of the Act as to the hours of winding enginemen is being generally complied with in Lanarkshire, and that only two complaints have been received by the inspectors in regard to that county from the Scottish Engine-men's Association.

    Crediton Urban District Council.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, before sanctioning the scheme for sewage disposal of the Crediton Urban District Council, he will consider the cheaper alternative scheme which has been before the council, and also ascertain the suitability of other land in the district and the value of the same as compared with the price asked for the 61 acres which the owner insists on the council taking and which exceeds by 56 acres the total area required for the purpose of the scheme?
    Mr. BURNS: I have given the whole matter very careful consideration, as I had grave doubts whether the loan for which the Crediton Urban District Council have applied could properly be sanctioned. Looking, however, to the position created by the local Act of 1836, I am advised that sanction ought not to be withheld. I am accordingly sanctioning the loan, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Urban District Council will obtain a full discharge from the vendor of all his rights under the local Act, so far as they affect the sewage disposal question; (2) That the Board are given an undertaking by the district council that any portion of the land not required for sewage disposal purposes will be sold as soon as reasonably possible.

    Board of Works (Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Sir George Holmes, the Chairman of the Board of Works (Ireland), is about retiring; if so, can he state the date on which his retirement will take place; can he say whether Sir George Holmes has accepted the new superannuation scheme; and what retiring allowance he is at present entitled to?
    Mr. W. BENN: Sir George Holmes is retiring in October next on reaching the age limit. He was not entitled to adopt the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, being over sixty years of age at the date of the passing of the Act. His application for superannuation has not yet been received by the Treasury.

    MEXICO.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is in a position to give any further information regarding the situation in Mexico, whether there is any truth in the report that one of His Majesty's Consuls has telegraphed for assistance, and what action His Majesty's Government are taking to protect British interests, which have been greatly prejudiced in Mexico by the prolonged disorder there?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have nothing new to report on the situation in Mexico, which, as the House knows, has been disturbed for some time. We have not heard that any of His Majesty's Consuls has requested the services of a battleship, but I understand that these reports emanate from a quarter where reports not infrequently arise in anticipation of the events to which they refer.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman telegraph and make inquiries?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. SONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business is proposed for next week, and also what it is proposed to take to-night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-night, we hope to take the Government of Soudan Loan Bill, Committee; Public Health (Prevention and Treatment. of Disease) Bill, Second Reading; Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords], Second Reading; and Extension of Polling Hours Bill, consideration of Lords Amendment.
  With regard to next week, on Monday, we shall take the Report stage of the Mental Deficiency Bill;
  On Tuesday, the Second Reading of the Revenue Bill;
  On Wednesday and Thursday, Supply;
  On Thursday the Salary of the Secretary for War and the Colonial Office Vote;
  On Friday, we take the Wireless Contract.
  Mr. KING: Was not next Thursday promised for the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I said that on Thursday I would make a statement.

SOUTH AFRTCA (STRIKE OF MINERS).
Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask Mr. Speaker's ruling, with the diffidence of one who does not understand the forms of this House? It arises out of a supplementary question addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he had got the Report from the Trade Union Officials at Johannesburg as to the cause of the strike which was mentioned in the dispatch of Lord Gladstone, and if he would lay it on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman refused. Then I asked him if he had been informed of the serious condition of things that exists on the Rand, as reported in the newspapers, that mines were closing down, and, what was more important still, that the number of troops is being increased. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had no official information. Then I asked
2058
him if he did not think he was being deceived by Lord Gladstone. Thereupon you refused me permission to ask that supplementary question and proceeded to reprimand me, telling me that I ought to move by way of vote of censure. Have I no right to ask for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he is in full possession of the facts, without being told that I must move by way of vote of censure, bearing in mind, too, that the Prime Minister has refused to give time for the discussion of such a vote?
Mr. SPEAKER: It was the use of the word "deceived" to which I objected. The hon. Gentleman had no right to suggest that an important officer of State, such as the Governor-General of the Cape, would willingly and knowingly deceive his superior officer, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When the hon. Member suggested that Lord Gladstone had been guilty of deceit, I at once interposed, and I pointed out to the hon. Member that if he had charges of that sort to make, the proper course was to make them openly and publicly, in tile proper form which the House had laid down, and that it should not be done by way of supplementary questions in the manner he did it.

READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING.
Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to prevent the writing, printing, publishing, or circulating in the United Kingdom of advertisements, circulars, or coupons of any ready money football betting business."
I introduce this Bill at the request of the Football Association, which is the great governing body of this great democratic sport. The Football Association is a well-known body, having attached to it something like. 15,000 amateur clubs, 400 professional clubs, and about 7,000 professional and 250,000 amateur players. The matches played number something like 8,000 per week, and they attract great crowds, consisting of hundreds of thousands of people. The Football Association has long been determined to endeavour to free this game from the excrescences which have grown upon it in connection with betting and gambling, and in so doing it has the hearty support of the sister associations in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. As a rule, in introducing a Bill of this kind at such a late period of the Session

2059
one has little hope of passing it into law and is content to obtain such an advertisement and general discussion not only in the House of Commons, but in the country of the objects of their Bill, as will enable it in the following Session of Parliament to gain sufficient support to pass the Bill into law. I indulge in even greater expectations; I am emboldened, as a result of conversations with many hon. Members, and by the backing of the Bill, to think that it is not too late to place it upon the Statute Book, so that it may come into operation on the 1st January of next year. It is brought in to meet the wishes of all interested in that splendid sport-to put down everything that is disagreeable, and everything that tends to bring the sport into disrepute in the way of ready-money coupon betting.
The Bill does not aim at any interference with individuals who choose by means of a bet or wager to back their opinion as to the merits or winning powers of any football team or the goal-getting capacities of any individual member of that team. If this Bill becomes law, no man will be prevented from or penalised hereafter for making any bet as to the result of a football match, but penalties will follow those who hereafter indulge in promoting this ready-money coupon betting business, which is now carried on on a very great scale throughout the country. There is scarcely a mill or factory or workshop where there are not opportunities afforded, especially to young people, for indulging in what I think is a very pernicious and wasteful habit—ready-money coupon betting. It is the practice for the promoters of this very lucrative form of systematic betting to have agents in all these works, who are paid something like 10 per cent. on the money which is collected in the works for this form of sport. The most unfortunate part is that, as a rule, those who risk their money in this way—and in most cases lose it—are minors, and very often they are induced to enter upon this very foolish method of gambling by those who are popular in the works and who have been induced to act as commission agents for firms who promote this pernicious form of betting. There was a case in point tried at the Assizes at Newcastle last February. The police had made a raid on the premises of a firm who carried on this business, and they seized 51,528 filled-up betting coupons,
2060
a large number of which were for small amounts—2,258 at 6d. each, and 5,487 at 1s. each. It was proved that in four months the bets amounted to £19,476 14s. 7d., upon which there was a profit to the firm of £7,229 4s. 9d., and it was stated in Court that the firm made a profit of nearly £20,000 a year. I may explain for the information of the House what is the kind of inducement held out to these young people. It is done in this way: The dates of League matches are all published months in advance, and with very few exceptions the matches are played on the published dates. Lists of these matches are issued each week, and these lists or coupons are so widely distributed that it may almost be said that there is scarcely a workshop, mill, factory, or shipyard where there is not an opportunity to indulge in this foolish and wasteful habit of football coupon betting. These young people have this kind of offer made to them:—
If you pay down 1s. we will give you 50s. if you name three winners at home and five away out of, say, forty matches to be played that day; or, you pay 1s. and we will give you £50 if you name six winners at home and ten winners away out of, say, forty matches.
The odds are ridiculously inadequate, but to the young and foolish these prices look attractive. Young men and young women think they are going to get rich by indulging in this form of gambling. The Dutch have expelled these gentlemen who promote this system from Holland, and they have now settled mainly in Basle and Lucerne, but they carry on their business by means of active agents in this country. This Bill aims at putting a stop to this temptation, which cannot be good for anybody, which must in the main be harmful to those who indulge in it, and which tends to bring into disrepute a great democratic sport, which on the whole is a healthy and recreative game, and which is very much patronised by the people. The Football Association was formed in 1863, and celebrates its jubilee this year. I ask the House of Commons to help it to celebrate its jubilee by joining the other House of Parliament in making them a present of this Bill, and to help them to purify this sport from the excrescence which has grown upon it, which can be of no real practical benefit to anybody, while it does immense harm to young people in our works who are led into this foolish form of betting. I believe every-

2061
body is in favour of it. All the sporting papers are in its favour. The "Sportsman," the "Sporting Life," and the "Sporting Chronicle," all wish to put a stop to this form of betting, and the Turf Guardian Society, which contains the best of the bookmakers and the betting fraternity, have passed resolutions against their members indulging in this form of betting. I hope I may have the support of the whole House of Commons in bringing in this Bill, and in the endeavour to purge this sport of a most undesirable excrescence which in recent years has grown upon it, much to the detriment of the sport and to many of those who indulge in this form of betting.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Alden, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Shortt, Mr. Snowden, and Sir Joseph Walton. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

SUPPLY.— [SIXTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

  HOME OFFICE.—(Class II.—VOTE 4.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £177,613, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices." [Note.—.£90,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I rise for the purpose of starting the annual Debate upon the Factory Inspectors' Report presented by the Home Office. The report is simply full of a great wealth of subjects, and it is absolutely impossible for anyone to deal with them in any detail. There are several hon. Friends of mine here, and certain hon. Gentlemen in other parts of the Committee, who undoubtedly will raise various detailed points regarding it, and I propose to confine my remarks to more general aspects of the report. First
  2062
  of all, I should like to comment on the way the report is made. These factory inspectors' reports ought in some way or other to reflect not merely the shadow of the red-tape of the Department but some of the life that is going on in the factories outside. If hon. Members will only take the trouble to read the section of the report compiled by the chief inspector and his assistants, and compare it with the section compiled by the lady inspectors, they will see that there is a tremendous difference between the two. In fact, if the chief inspector could only take one of his lady inspectors and get her to write up the report we should get something worth reading and something illuminating. The dull barrenness, the utter lack of meaning, and the perfect wilderness, page after page, of the chief inspector's report, although I am bound to confess it has been habitual, ought certainly to be changed. This is the first time this question has been raised, but it will be raised annually until the gentlemen responsible for this report turn over a new leaf and present us with something really worthy of the office to which they belong. The general characteristic is very striking. It tells us that, owing to an increase in trade and an extension of mechanical appliances, a further pressure is brought to bear upon the work-people and certain unfortunate things are happening. Accidents are increasing, and more and more unskilled persons, or at any rate persons unused to the operations of factories, and more young persons have been employed. That is a state of affairs, which, although it is only temporary, ought to have received some more vital attention at the hands of the factory inspectors than apparently they have given it.
  4. 0.P.M.
  Take the case of accidents. We are once more told that annual inaccuracy, that the increase of accidents, is an increase due to reporting. An hon. Friend of mine was with me on the Accidents Inquiry, at which inspector after inspector assured us very solemnly, and we assumed with inside knowledge, that accidents had now reached their maximum so far as the accuracy of reporting was concerned, and that the Committee could make its mind perfectly easy that, if there were now to be a diminution in the number of accidents, it would be a real diminution, and that as far as a mere statistical increase was concerned, that would come in more because there was greater perfection in reporting. But we find once again the same old story that there are more accidents. Why? "Oh,"

  2063
  says the chief inspector, "because there is more accurate reporting." It is really about time that this staff, selected so carefully, hedged round by such elaborate processes of nomination, and selected so that working men can very rarely get inside the charmed circle, should at last do its work so accurately that it does not require to come and tell us, year after year, that there is more care taken in reporting accidents than there was before, seeing that, so far as legislative authority is concerned, that authority can compel every accident that ought to be reported to be reported. But this case is not a good one, because there is one kind of accident which is not affected by its statistical accuracy, and that is the fatal accident. The number of fatal accidents in 1909 was 946; in 1910, 1,080; in 1911, 1,182; and in 1912, 1,260. I do not think my suggestion can be resisted that this shows that the accident risk which obtains in our factories—because this only applies to factories—is increasing, otherwise fatal accidents would not increase as they have done. On page 24 of this report the chief inspector, quoting a Mr. Lauder, of Newcastle, says:—
  Mr. Lauder refers to the many accidents that have been reported and has formed the opinion that the Regulations are not as well observed as they ought to be. though he has not found any case in which he felt justified in taking proceedings."
  Surely that is the business of the factory inspectors to put an end to these things! This sort of annual excuses are beginning to be a little tiresome to those of us who want results and not excuses as a result of the efforts of a very well-paid staff. Let us take another example. Two Committees have sat, composed of Members of this House, to consider questions relating to this Department—the Committee on Truck, which sat some four or five years ago, and the Committee on Industrial Accidents. Once again in this Report we have the usual cry about "Truck." It is not being put an end to. We have certain statements that it is diminishing in certain respects. On page 155 there is a record of a case which will show at once how very widespread this evil is. Miss Slocock reports:—
  "In stitching factories in Belfast I received complaints of heavy deductions for handkerchiefs not in any way damaged, but by an oversight made up with the wrong-sized hem. In one case 1s. 10½d. had been deducted from a wage of 6s.10½d., although the mistake had arisen through the forewoman's omission to state the size of the hem on the docket. The employer, when the facts were brought to his notice, ordered the money to be refunded, but said that the worker most be dismissed."
  2064
  This does not refer to Belfast only by any means. I had no intention of singling out Belfast. I simply happened to mark it in reading the report. The evils which are complained about year after year with reference to the administration of the Truck Act are partly evils which require legislation, but why cannot we have it? They are also, however, largely evils which could be very largely dealt with by administration. The point, however, is that this subject has been investigated by a Committee of this House. The Report has been issued, the Minority and Majority Reports substantially agree, and the Minority go a little further than the. Majority—but practically nothing has been done. Then we have the Committee on Accidents, which was also appointed by this House. The hon. Member (Mr. Gill) and myself were members of that Committee. Very little has been done. Certain things, like the Joint Conference between employers, employed, and factory inspectors, have been put into operation with very good results according to the Report,. but the larger recommendations of the Committee are still untouched. We made certain recommendations about weight carrying. On page 25 the chief inspector states:—
  "In the tinplate works in South Wales boys of fifteen have been seen carrying 90 lbs. to 100 lbs."
  Then he goes on to make this extraordinary comment:—
  "But it is often the boy's own fault, for he prefers to make one journey with a heavy load rather than two with a lighter one."
  It is the mind that makes that comment upon that that is responsible for much of the inefficiency of administration. There never was a reform but the anti-reformers, the persons who stood out against it, would say the victim preferred that it should be so. The victim of bad housing prefers the pigsty. The dirty pig, we are told, prefers the dirty pigsty, and the little boy working and carrying 90 lbs. to 100 lbs. weight, according to the Chief Inspector of Factories, prefers—it is his own fault that he does so—to make one journey with a heavy load rather than two with a light load. On page 141, again, there is another important reference to this matter. Miss Escreet says:—
  "By the courtesy of the president and secretary of a weavers'. winders' and warpers' association, I was enabled to examine the Association's compensation register for 1911–12, and to extract from it particulars of seven cases of injury from this cause. Two of these women suffered comparatively slight muscular strain, while the other five sustained internal injuries more or less serious. All these women subsequently returned

  2065
  after absence varying from three to ten weeks. The cause alleged was the lifting of loom weights in every case."
  These, again, are only examples. The Committee on Accidents made important recommendations regarding these things, and I have still to learn that
  anything has been done in consequence. But with reference to the accident risks, we also made a recommendation about young persons and the liberty given to them to clean machinery and so on. It is the employment of the young persons that has contributed most to accidents. For instance, one of the lady inspectors says, on page 128, that an increased employment of young girls in the Midlands accounts for a relatively higher proportion there of accidents. Of the notification of accidents in the wearing apparel and laundry industries, according to the senior lady inspector in the Midland districts, 40 per cent. concerned girls under sixteen and 25 per cent. girls between seventeen and eighteen. Again, this employment of young persons, oddly enough, is practically commended by the chief inspector himself. On page 26, it is stated:—
  "The interesting account is given by Mr. Sumner of the only remaining half-time school in Dundee, where the successes obtained are very remarkable. The chidren are said to make as much progress as full-time scholars, and invariably earn the full Government Grant and good reports from the school inspectors."
  The only purpose of gratuitously putting that paragraph there is to commend this system. If hon. Members will turn to page 109, they will find the report to which this refers, and on which it is founded. Mr. Sumner, Dundee, reports to Mr. Young, chief inspector, as follows:—
  "This school is in connection with one of the textile factories in Dundee—"
  Fancy a chief inspector commending a school run under these conditions. It is a thing which I should have thought belonged to Mid-Victorian times to have schools attached to individual factories-
  "and there are from thirty-five to thirty-six children attending it and working in the mill. They are employed on the half-day system, attending school for two-and-a-half hours, and being employed in the works for five hours, and every alternate week each child has a complete rest from both school and mill from 3 o'clock on Friday till 9 a.m. on Monday morning. Mr. Stunner was much impressed with the bright, healthy, mid intelligent appearance of the children. The sctoohnistress informed him that they made as much progress with their education as the ordinary full time scholar, and invariably earned the full Government grant, which depends both on attendance and scholarship, and obtained very good reports from the inspector of schools."
  Then there is this interesting explanation:
  "They are necessarily very regular in their school attendance because. of course, lost attendances have to
  2066
  be made up before they can work in the mill. The fact that they earn four shillings and sixpence per week probably accounts for their being better fed and better-clothed than other children of the same claps."
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: What are the ages?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have-read the Whole extract. The ages are not mentioned, but of course they must be-somewhere between twelve and fourteen. I am bound to say that that report throws very valuable light on an aspect of child labour which is commended by the chief inspector. Surely no officer employed by the Government, no person connected 'with the Home Office should commend such a thing as that without considering it very much more than apparently it has been considered. Then there are passages in the report containing references to various matters which have been dealt with by Committees of this House and I complain most,strongly that so little by way of legislation or administration has been done as the result of the deliberations of these Committees. I come now to another part of the report. which deals with the appointment of inspectors. It is a very old question with me, but I am afraid it must be raised again and again. We have got detailed in a table at the end of the report certain new inspectors who have been appointed to strengthen the staff. There are certain additions and promotions reported at page. 239, and I would like, if it is possible, my right hon. Friend in replying, to tell me what the experience of these new inspectors has been. There is a sort of idea —you will find it all through the Government Departments more and more—that unless you have a certain sort of social smack about you, you cannot do public work; you have not the breadth of mind and the magnificent intellectual detachment which is necessary to associate with certain gentlemen, and to do a certain amount of work. It is all rubbish! It is all sheer nonsense, as this Report shows. We have pressed, and we shall continue to-press, that the assistant, the working-class assistant, shall have a very much wider door open to him to pass up than has been the case hitherto. He could not do worse than is being done, and the chances are that he would do very much better. If the factory department requires extras like an electrical expert, or a medical expert., and so on, let them appoint experts. I think one of the great deficiencies of the Department has been that it has not enough experts, and that is excused by your appointing from the bottom, because

  2067
  it is expected that certain expert duties should be performed by an ordinary
  inspector.
  If the Department had gone on a totally different line from the beginning, the work would have been better done than it has been. The absurdity of setting aside a certain body of men known officially as "Mr.," and putting others over them who are known officially as "Esquire," is just like calling certain cricketers "professionals" and others "gentlemen." That is simply absurd. It has led to bad administration, and the Department has not got the best it could get out of the inferior officers. That sort of thing has been going on, and I think some change ought to be made. With reference to women inspectors, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recent appointments. I wish to associate myself with anything that may be said during the Debate as to the appointment of women inspectors. The time has now come for having some working women made factory inspectors. Anyone who has had anything to do with the 'Women's Co-operative League, the Women's Labour League, and other organisations of women, knows perfectly well how competent, able, and satisfactory large numbers of working women are. They know mills and factories from the inside, and would do just as efficient work as the women now appointed, so far as inspection itself is concerned. I think the time has come to press for a substantial increase of the women factory inspectors, and to insist that a proportion of that increase should be from amongst working women.
  A subject in which I have taken an interest since I came to the House is the relation between the factory staff and the local authorities. That is dealt with in section after section of this Report. I have four or five references, but I will only touch upon one. On page 15 it is stated:
  "Few notices had been received from the Local Authorities of workshops in which no abstract is affixed (section 133) and it would appear that the arrangements for carrying out this duty are not very thorough in the majority of districts."
  There are also references to this matter at pages 30, 48, and 73, and hon. Members who are interested will find that there are various points which arise in connection -with this dual control. Hon. Members will find words in the report amounting to very grave censure regarding the inadequate sanitary provision which has been
  2068
  made at some places. This is another hardy annual. That has been going on for years, and we cannot get some local authorities to send in proper returns regarding outworkers. When these things were published in statistical form, they were the laughing stock of all who examined them, so great was the discrepancy between them and other Reports. There is still the old story repeated just as tragically and with as much humiliation as when it was told in previous years. I suppose it will be the same in 1914, and I do not know how long it is to go on. Another point to which I wish to refer has reference to convictions. If hon. Members will turn to page.17 they will find several references to it, but it will suffice at present to refer to the report from Mr. Davis, of Kent. Referring to the difficulty of administration, he says:—
  "Striking examples of this occurred at a watering-place where a fellow magistrate was twice summoned for substantial offences. The Bench dismissed the first set, and refused to give any reason for so doing. A year later they imposed nominal penalties only, and said the cases ought not to have been brought. Yet several hours beyond the legal period had been worked by many persons."
  There are references on page 31 and elsewhere to similar complaints. The failure to get convictions from magistrates when a case is proved, is one which the inspectors have frequently complained about. I am afraid that is only a rapid skim over the surface of one of the most interesting and important documents which come out year by year from the Government offices. The only reflection I had when reading a report and making up my mind what sections I should select for reference—and it is a very grave reflection—was that in this House we can only have one day to discuss the whole industrial administration of this country. Occasionally we get a day extra for discussing Home Office matters. If there is trouble, we may get an extra day. I believe we had one early this year on account of the suffragist troubles. When one considers the enormous amount of important work the Home Office does, one must really put in a protest—a protest that gets stronger as years go on - —against the attempt which is made to discuss all those questions within the compass of a single Debate on a single day, with habitually a private Bill put down at a quarter-past eight o'clock. We discuss the Navy and the Army day after day, but the matters dealt with in this Report are as much concerned with national safety, although they are of a different kind. If we can only get one day for their discussion, we must make the

  2069
  best of it. There is enough material in the Report to discuss for a longer time than we are likely to obtain.
  Mr. HILLS: I join in the appeal which the hon. Member for Leicester has made that we should be given a longer time for the discussion of the Home Office Vote. I think the Committee ought to recognise that the Report deals with a variety of subjects, all of them meriting the closest attention of this House. The shortest of them would take a whole day to debate properly. There are so many subjects that it is rather hard to choose. Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I do not want to speak at undue length, and so if will confine myself to two subjects. The first of these is the factory inspectorate. I endorse what the last speaker has said as to the first-rate work of the women inspectors. It really puts shame upon the men. No one can read the admirable reports of Miss Anderson and Miss Lovibond in this volume without realising that for certain work one woman is worth ten men, and we can get a much more efficient administration if we employ women than if we employ men in many details of factory inspection. As the House knows, the number of women has been increased in recent years. It is still too small, and I agree with the last speaker that it is full time that working women were made factory inspectors. The present women inspectors are admirable women, but I think they ought to be rein forced. It is quite clear the inspectors have got to be increased, and I hope that when that comes we shall see a certain number of working women placed upon it.
  I venture to think that the whole question of factory inspection wants recoil sideration. First of all, it is rather a haphazard system. Numbers have been added from time to time more or less in response to a clamour in this House, and we have no real system of inspection. A great many works are inspected a very few times in the year. I do not blame the inspectors, because they simply cannot get round, but a great many works are only inspected twice or four times in the year; and then, I think, there is a large amount of friction now, both with local authorities and also with employers, that could be avoided, and I venture to suggest that a small Committee might be appointed to reconsider the whole question of the inspectorate. I am sure it is called for, because times have changed a good deal in the last few years, and the employer
  2070
  who, in the past, was rather hard to get at, and who rather resented the visit of the inspector, has now seen the error of his ways, and a different tone prevails. I think we ought to take advantage of that, and I think that if a small Committee were appointed they might give some very useful advice. Before I leave this subject I wish to join with the last speaker in congratulating the Government on their last appointment of a lady factory inspector, a lady who is well-known to many Members of this House, and the only regret is that if the Government have got her the private Members have lost her. The other point I want. to call attention to is the question of lead poisoning. Lead poisoning stands in a different position from last year, for since the discussion of this Vote last year we have seen new rules promulgated and yet they have not been sufficiently long in operation for us to say how they will work.
  The Committee will remember that these rules are the result of the Report of a Departmental Committee which was appointed in 1908, and which reported in 1910, and that there was a good deal of delay in the promulgation of these new rules. The whole subject was discussed last year, and it is past history. I do not blame the Home Secretary, because he quite frankly admitted last year that there had been delay, but anyhow now the rules are enforced and were brought into operation in January last. I welcome the new rules. I myself do not believe you can do what we want, which is to put down lead poisoning by regulation. I think you have got to go a good deal further, but still I admit that the Government have got to give the new regulations a fair trial, and I welcome the fact that the employers have shown themselves very willing to adopt these regulations and very active in finding the best means of carrying them out. A very interesting exhibition was held last month in Stoke of all these new appliances, and it certainly was a very great sign of the changed attitude of the master potters to this very great evil. Of course, a large amount of the new rules will cause additional expense, but I believe they will be cheerfully adopted, and I quite agree that you must give the regulations a chance. I do not want. to appear to be a croaker, but I do not think myself that you will get to the bottom of it by regulations. The figures for last year are not very satisfactory. The short history of lead poisoning, as far as cases

  2071
  are concerned is this: That for the last thirty years you have had practically a dead level of cases, about 100 cases a year, and deaths varying from five to fourteen in a year.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Member state the total number of cases and the total number of deaths apart from the potteries?
  Mr. HILLS: Certainly. For the years 1901–9 about ninety cases a year and five or six deaths a year as an average. For 1909, fifty-eight cases and five deaths; for 1910, seventy-seven cases and eleven deaths; for 1911, ninety-two cases and six deaths; for 1912, eighty cases and fourteen deaths; and for the first six months of 1913, thirty-six cases and six deaths.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the hon. Member got the figures for the cases of lead poisoning in other trades besides the potteries?
  Mr. HILLS: I agree that the figures in the potteries are only a small proportion to the total. The total cases of lead poisoning are 587, and forty-four deaths for the year. But my point about the potteries is this. It is not an evil of very great extent in numbers, but it is very serious in results, and I firmly believe that the whole is preventible. I have explained my views to the Committee for the last four or five years and I will not repeat them, but my only point is that until the new rules came, we had got to the maximum result of the old rules. The Report of the chief medical inspector says so in so many words. I hope we shall not have to wait very long before we take action, assuming that these new rules do not do all that is expected of them. I quite agree that they have got to run for a time—I hope a short time—but I hope we shall not be compelled to wait too long. The effect of the regulations in the past has not been very hopeful. I welcome the efforts that employers are making, but I cannot help recalling to the House that the same thing has happened before, and that results have not followed. I do not in the least accuse the employers of deceiving the country, but they did promise exactly ten years ago that if certain regulations were passed, they would extirpate lead poisoning. Well, they were passed, and lead poisoning has gone on just to the same extent as before,
  2072
  and so I wish to say a word of warning. I do not think we ought to wait too long, because though these new rules should be given a fair chance, the whole position is a serious one and we must not delay it. A conference is meeting in September of this year under the auspices of the International Association for Labour Legislation, and that conference is meeting at Bale in September. It is meeting to consider the effect of the regulations in various countries upon the use of lead in the ceramic industries, with a view to the conclusion of an International Convention for the restriction of the use of lead in the ceramic industry.
  It is perfectly clear to everybody who has studied this question that one country cannot move alone, and I am afraid that we are committed to a system of regulation and not to the system of prohibition. I regret that very much. It means that we will not take the lead in labour legislation as we have taken the lead in the past,. and actually here we have an International Conference being met to discuss the question of prohibition when we are still on regulations, but I hope it will be possible to give some figures to show the working of these new rules. Of course I may be asking a quite impossible thing, but it is extremely important, for if we do not do that, the only figures that are before this conference are the old figures, and they are unfair to the employers. I do not suppose the actual figures in detail could be given, but still I think one of the staff of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, might perhaps get a report as to the effect of the new regulations, how far they were being enforced, and how far he thought that the future which show the good results that have been promised, because they do produce a very large change in the industry, and one that ought to be brought to the notice of this conference. I may say that I intend to attend that conference myself, and if I can be fortified by any information, I shall be in a stronger position. But when all is said and done, I do not believe from the past history that we can do this by regulation alone, for you will always have a certain amount of dust, and where you get the dust, you will get lead poisoning. You cannot prevent it. You can make your fans and your draughts as perfect as you like, but still the danger remains, and as long as that danger is there, the disease is there. I believe that we in the end shall be led to prohibition in the same way as we prohibited the use of

  2073
  white phosphorus in matches, and I hope that we shall not wait very long before the Home Office can give some formed opinion on the working of the new rules, and those of us who do not believe that we can effect that object by regulation, will be given an opportunity of trying to obtain international prohibition. It is perfectly clear that we cannot move without it. It is quite clear that any real action of this sort must be the concerted action of all the civilised world. I believe you can get that now, and I hope we shall not lag behind in the International Conference.
  Mr. MORRELL: The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) gave us a very interesting review of the annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. I would like at once to associate myself with what he said as to the remarkable discrepancy in the form of the report which is brought out by the chief inspector and by the many other inspectors, and that which we have from the chief lady inspector. I think it is very desirable that those who look after the first part of the report should endeavour to give us a somewhat more vivid and more humane presentation of the facts of our factory and workshop system than is contained in the first part of this report. As regards the matter of the report, I think everyone must be struck at first by the remarkable and disquieting increase disclosed in the report of the number of accidents occurring in factories and workshops. The Member for Leicester gave the increase of figures during the last three years, and he showed that during those three years there had been an increase going from 130,000 to 156,000 this year. If he had gone back a little further the increase is even more remarkable and disquieting. The total number of accidents in 1900 was 79,000, and five years afterwards it had risen to 100,000. In 1910 it had risen to 129,000, and last year the total amounted to 156,000. In other words, in twelve years the accidents have practically doubled in number. I am quite aware of the various excuses we always get. We are told, in the first place, of the growth of trade and of the employment of new inexperienced men, and we are also told that it is due to the better reporting of accidents. To some extent that may be true, but, as the hon. Member for Leicester pointed out, although it may be true as regards non-fatal accidents, as regards fatal accidents it obviously does not hold good, because
  2074
  those must be reported. Even with regard to fatal accidents, the growth has been very remarkable, although they have not doubled. In 1905 the fatal accidents totalled 691, and in 1909 had risen to 946, and in 1910 to 1,080, and last year to 1,260.
  We had a Committee two or three years ago, which sat for two years upon this question of accidents, and they made various suggestions. Everyone knows perfectly well what are the causes that lead to these accidents. They have been pointed out again and again. Bad lighting, overcrowding of machinery, and the accumulation of dirt and grease mean the cutting down of men engaged in work. All those are causes which lead at once to accidents, fatal and non fatal. Above all, what is wanted is more efficient inspection. It is no good pointing out these things until we get better inspection. Last year in the course of this Debate my right hon. Friend said that he was making a survey of the work during this year, and he was promising us revision of the inspectorate. I hope he will be able to tell us later what the survey of the work amounted to, and what revision of the inspectorate has taken place. I think it was my hon. Friend opposite the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Bentinck) who said last year that if an inspector is to do his duty and to visit each factory once a year, he must visit ten factories a day all the year round. That is really an absurd state of things. It is time, considering the wealth of this country, and the state of trade, that we should have factories better inspected so that this deplorable loss of life and limb may be to some degree reduced. One would have hoped that by this time instead of having always an annual increase we might have seen a decrease. I hope at least that my right hon. Friend will tell us what measures he has taken to secure more efficient inspection with a view to decreasing the number of accidents.
  There are two other points which occur in this report. One is in regard to a matter which affects my own Constituency a great deal, and affects all the Lancashire cotton factories, or weaving cotton factories, and that is the old question of shuttle kissing. Everyone is agreed that that is a habit which leads to disease, and which is very objectionable, and may be extremely dangerous to the unhappy man or woman engaged upon it. Conferences have been held and experiments, I believe, are now being made to test the efficiency of hand-threading shuttles. I hope my

  2075
  right hon. Friend will give us some information as to what prospect there is of getting this habit of shuttle kissing entirely abolished, and getting a satisfactory hand-threading shuttle introduced. Another question is that of the humidity in the mills. There is no grievance which is greater amongst working men and women, especially, of course, in. the summer months, than the grievance of having the factories kept in the state of steam in which they are kept. It was very satisfactory that employers and operatives should have agreed upon what was a fair temperature to keep the factory. An agreement was, I believe, come to under Mr. Shackleton's guidance, and that, I believe, is two being carried out. I see on page 79 of the report that it is not yet so effectively carried out as it should be owing to the difficulty of getting new hydrometers to show what the moisture in the factory is. There is also great complaint of the neglect of the workers to take the readings with the employers representative as the regulations require. I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information so that we may know how far the regulations with regard to humidity in weaving sheds are being carried out. The only other point and it is a most serious one, to which I desire to refer, is the urgent need for appointing more women inspectors. After all, the most. elaborate and most important of all the provisions in the Factory Acts are those which relate to women and children. In the great Act of 1901 some of the most important sections are those which regulate the employment of women and children. Women as we know are very badly organised as compared with men. They are very easily overdriven and they are most helpless, and it does lie upon this House to see that all the regulations with regard to women are better carried out than they now are. In my opinion, and as far as I can form any judgment of the facts, the way to ensure that is by appointing an adequate number of women inspectors, and above all some working women, as the hon. Member for Leicester suggested.
  A few years ago the number of lady inspectors was only twelve for the whole of three countries, and now it has nominally risen, I think, to eighteen, although last year owing to vacancies and illness there were practically only fourteen women in-=2076
  spectors. But even supposing there were eighteen for the whole country, surely that is a ludicrously small amount considering what they have to do. According to the most recent figures the number of women and girls employed in factories amounts to, 1,850,000, and in the textile trade alone there are 690,000 women and girls employed. It is quite true that it is the duty of the male inspectors as well as of the female inspectors to look after those women and children, but the work cannot be effectively done except by women. submit that eighteen inspectors amongst the 1,800,000 women is utterly inadequate, and is indeed absurd. Lancashire would require eighteen women inspectors alone. and when you consider that they have to oversee all the work in Belfast and in Dundee and all over the three Kingdoms, the number is ludicrous. I think no one can read this Report of Miss Anderson from year to year, which is far the most vivid and interesting part of this report, without seeing how urgent it is that their power of good should be increased, as I believe it would be, by increasing their numbers. As a matter of fact, although they do admirable work, it really is but a fragment.of the work that might be done if the staff were organised and increased in the way it ought to be. No one can read this report without realising that they have not time to visit all the factories where women are employed in the way they ought to, in order to attend to the complaints they receive. I desire to give one or two instances of the sort of thing which is to be found even now by women inspectors as to the state of labour in those factories which they bring out in their report, and which men do not bring out because the male inspectors cannot attend to that side of the work as well as the women. In the first place, of course, there is the atmosphere which prevails in all factories, and as to which both men and women agree. I must say I was very much struck by a sentence here which a woman writes, begging one of the women inspectors to come and visit her factory. This unknown woman writes:—Dear madam: We would like to know the reason why you do not visit this factory. We would like to know what you have been doing." That is from Ireland. It only shows the way in which women who are badly organised do depend much more than men do upon the inspection and upon the help and assistance they get from women inspectors. Then there is the question 'of long hours and overwork.

  2077
  There is also-the question of women being employed immediately after child-birth, contrary to the provisions in Section 61. Everyone knows that that is going on again and again, with the result that children are being killed or crippled for life. These things go on, because there are not enough women inspectors. There is also the question of the provision of decent sanitary accommodation for women and girls in factories. This is what Miss Anderson says:—
  "We still have to report year by year localities and instances, of which illustrations follow, in which the purposes and requiretneuts of the law are not yet begun to he realised, and where women and girls are subjected to conditions that are an offence to decency and a menace to health."
  Cases are given that are perfectly outrageous, and some of them almost too bad to read to this Committee. Women are forced to go on working under conditions which, as the report states, are an offence to decency and a menace to health. That again is a part of the subject in regard to which women inspectors are urgently required, because women will not make the same complaint to men that they will to one of their own sex. There is also the fact that women and girls are more easily subjected to despotism and tyranny on behalf of the overseers. There is a case given where a girl of thirteen had been carrying bundles 47 lbs. in weight. Numerous cases are given in which women are subjected, not merely to cruel fines, but even in one case to a brutal assault committed in the presence of a woman inspector. The man did not know she was in the factory at the time. This is the sort of thing which can be discovered by women, but cannot be discovered in the same way or, at any rate, has not been discovered by men inspectors. Nobody can read through the report, as I have done with great care, without seeing that the work done by women to-day is carried on in many cases—I am not speaking now of the best organised trades—in small factories and in outlying places, under conditions which are an utter disgrace, and completely against the spirit and letter of the laws passed by this House. I would, therefore, make a most urgent appeal to my right hon. Friend to see whether he cannot increase, not by one or two, but much more largely, the number of lady inspectors and especially of working- women inspectors. After all, the expense is very slight compared with that which we incur in other directions; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester said it is just as necessary for the defence and
  2078
  welfare of the country as the expenditure which we so freely make for the Army and Navy.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I ought to begin my remarks with a note of congratulation on some progress at any rate having been made. For instance, conferences have been arranged in the cotton and woollen trades between employers and workmen, with the idea of doing away with accidents in the lifting and carrying of heavy weights. Also, after the sharp criticism to which the Department was subjected last year, it is satisfactory that the Home Office have at last got a "move on" in their campaign against lead poisoning. Regulations have been adopted by the employers in the pottery district, and I am glad to hear-that a very distinct advance has been made with experiments in leadless glazes, so, that I hope, before long, we may have a very largely increased use of leadless glaze. I am also glad to know that the' Home Office have appointed Professor Kent, of Bristol University, to investigate the measurement of fatigue in industrial occupation—a most necessary and admirable investigation. I am afraid I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon any great legislative activity during the year. I think his only ewe lamb is the-South Suburban Gas Act. We hear a great many rumours that the working-classes generally are losing faith in the-House of Commons as a means of improving their position. I certainly think it is a very good point for the Syndicalists that. the only result of the combined forces of progress sitting on the other side is that, there has been a law passed to say that power gases shall have a distinct and readily perceptible smell. I think that is all that can be said by way of congratulation. I would most strongly reinforce-what has been said as to the shortage of-inspectors. It is true that there has been a small increase in the staff, but that increase has been swallowed up by the enormous expansion of factories and workshops during the great boom in trade. It is easy to see from the reports of the' district inspectors that they are, to a large extent, hampered in their work, because they all allude, either to the shortage in their staff, or to an increase in the number of unvisited factories.
  I will not labour the point as to the-necessity for more lady inspectors. Last year, I gave the case of Miss Paterson, late lady inspector in the South-Eastern

  2079
  district, who, with two lady assistants and 'one occasional helper, had to inspect 50,000 factories with 376,000 workers in the course of the year. It is rather unsatisfactory to hear that the number of effective visits has been reduced by about 18 per cent. Miss Anderson alludes to the fact that they are not able to get on with the very beginnings, of factory inspection. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) alluded to the utter ignorance in some quarters of the most rudimentary elements of the existing law. Miss Anderson alludes to the endless foundation work which still has to be performed. There is, for instance, the failure to fence driving shafts and sewing machines. There is the case of seventeen girls in one factory who had never been examined by the factory surgeon at all, and when they were examined a large percentage were found to be unfit. Another instance is that of a factory of eighty girls with only one convenience. It is evident when such things happen that the inspection must be terribly inadequate and in efficient. When I raised the point last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that we ought to be quite content, because the ground was also covered by the male inspectors. That is the sort of argument used by the Prime Minister against female suffrage. He says that women ought to be content to let men carry the necessary reforms for them, because they can do it much better than the women can do it themselves. But that cannot be said here. In the first place, the factory inspectors are short in number, and, in the second place, it is ridiculous to suppose that women can confide as to their grievances with the same freedom in a male factory inspector as in a female inspector.
  5.0 P.M.
  A point not yet alluded to is the terribly long hours worked by women in factories and workshops. There is a very significant passage in the report, in which Miss Anderson alludes to the impression obtained by inspectors that women increasingly feel the pressure of the long hours of work. It is common knowledge that there is a very great drain on the approved societies by reason of the large number of claims for sickness benefit sent in by women. There are some people who hold the theory that that is caused by malingering. I take a more charitable view. I cannot help thinking that the very long hours which women work in factories and workshops under modern hustling methods is a great strain upon them, and is producing a definite effect. It is
  2080
  breaking down their nervous vitality and their health generally. I believe that the greater part of these claims are bond, fide. For instance, in power laundries in the South of England, it is possible to work women and young persons thirteen hours on three days in the week. In London, it is possible to work women from nine o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night. In London long distances have to be travelled, and it is quite possible for girls not to get home till between ten and eleven o'clock at night. There is also a special exemption which permits young persons to be worked these terribly long hours in the London area. I certainly think that that ought to be revoked, as at all events one step in advance. Another great grievance felt by women workers is what is called the "five hours' spell." They have to work from two until seven o'clock without any break whatever for tea. That is a fruitful cause both of fatigue and of accident. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have lately given us very eloquent descriptions of the great boom in trade and the consequent onflow of British industry and prosperity. I get rather weary of these paeans and the mechanical worship of wealth and prosperity, when so little attention is paid to the other side of the picture. I should like to bring to the Home Secretary's notice certain methods by, which this great. prosperity and enormous volume of trade are achieved. I read in the Factory Inspector Report. of the women washers employed at. aerated water works carrying crates containing twelve empty syphons, weighing 68 lbs. In brickfields we read of women who "build up" the bricks by hand, carrying two bricks at a time, weighing 8½ lbs. each. Both in filling and in emptying the kilns each woman lifts about 6,500 bricks a day, which is 52,000 lbs., or 464 cwts. In both of these trades instances are given where the children of such women have died at birth or shortly afterwards—and I am not at all surprised at it! In a rag and paper sorting place, in which were over 200 women and girls, I was struck, says the inspector, by the tired-out and jaded appearance of the "press" or carrying girls. A press girl carries on an average about 220 baskets a day. On an average each basket weighs 40 lbs., so that means that young girls are carrying 78 cwts. a day. In the paper room there were thirty stalls, and a press chute was about 20 yards from the furthermost stall. The daily

  2081
  period is from 8 a.m. till 8 p.m., and from 8 a.m. till 6 p.m. If the press girls do not hurry up they are fined threepence. In a prosperous place like Manchester and in a prosperous industry like that of the Manchester "making-up" trade, one reads of the heavy weights which are frequently carried by women and girls. Out of thirty firms dealing with heavy goods, arrangements for weight carrying were "good" in ten, "bad" in fourteen, and "fair" in six. The usual weight carried is 82 lbs., whilst. 90 and 100 lbs. is not uncommon. The reason why I have alluded to this is that we are very much behind France and other Continental countries in regard to our regulations as to carrying weights. Legislation has been carried through in France limiting the weight which women, young girls, and children can carry, and I think it is high time that something was done by ourselves. If the House of Commons cannot find time, I feel that it is a sort of subject on which, at all events, in these various industries the Home Secretary Might make a push to get conferences called to see if he cannot get some of these injurious things abolished by agreement.
  I should like to draw attention to another form of brutality and inhumanity that goes on: that is putting children to work on moving machinery. There are instances in the report of absolutely setting children to work under moving machinery. Allusion has been made to the large number of accidents which occur to girls under sixteen. This large number is caused by, I think, the very reprehensible practice of putting young girls to work at dangerous machinery before they have got any acquaintance with it. For instance, in the laundry trade there are a large number of accidents simply and solely because of the employers putting girls to work who have had no experience. In Ireland there are no such instances of accidents to young girls as there are in England simply and solely because shorter hours are worked, and young girls are not put to work at these very dangerous machines before they have had some experience with them. I do not doubt but that the inspectors might get the same result. in England as in Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester has alluded to the subject of fines and deductions. This is one of the greatest injustices and hardships which women workers suffer under. The hon. Member alluded to the case of Belfast. There are in the Factory Inspector's Report instances of fines for such
  2082
  trifling offences as whistling, talking, and hairdressing; and threepence taken off the wages of young girls between thirteen and seventeen entirely at the discretion of the foremen and managers. That is the hard part of it. These fines are not only unjust, but absolutely arbitrary. The very worst feature of this question of fines and deductions is that it has been made a particular grievance by the action of the Insurance Act. For instance, in Belfast, there will be a reduction of wages from 15th July, 1912. In a Bristol boot factory, notice was given that threepence was to be deducted from the wages of the employés in the "standing room" after 12th July, 1912. This action was the more unworthy in the latter case because many of the girls were under sixteen, and were not chargeable to insurance at all.
  Personally, I should like to see the Home Office bring in a Bill to abolish all these deductions whatsoever, to put them away root and branch. If the Home Office cannot do that, at all events, they can perhaps deal with them in another way; that is by appointing more women inspectors; because in the lady inspector's report, one reads of very good work being done in Ireland simply by persuading employers to stop fines, and not to try to teach the girls their work by fining them. I see an instance is given of a factory where this practice of fining girls till they did better was in existence. The factory inspector persuaded the employer to teach his girls, to give them thorough systematic instruction and supervise efficient work. That system has worked splendidly. There are no more fines and deductions, and the girls are doing ten times better work. Allusion has been also made to the question of accidents. What I really would like to ask the Home Secretary is, What is his view about the enormous increase in accidents which has taken place since last year? Does he put it down solely and entirely to the boom in trade? Does he really think when trade is prosperous that, as a matter of necessity, we are to have a large number of extra people killed and a large number of people maimed? I cannot help thinking that that necessitarian plea would not stand examination. I should like to take one or two points in these accidents in the Report. Take, for instance, docks in course of construction. One hundred and eighty-three people were killed in these last year. Was that absolutely necessary?

  2083
  Has the Home Office done all it could do to prevent that? Last year a Report was issued as to deep excavations, and in that Report certain recommendations are made. How many of these recommendations have been carried out? Again, take buildings in course of construction. They claimed last year a toll of 105 lives. So far back as 1908 a Committee reported and made certain suggestions with regard to buildings in course of construction. That Committee recommended that. scaffolding should be examined once a month by competent persons deputed by the employers. Has the Home Office taken any steps to see that recommendation carried into effect? One of the worst industries in the world for accidents are cranes. More accidents are caused by cranes than by any other kind of machinery—so, at least, the factory inspectors say. Last year there were 170 fatal accidents and 5,037 nonfatal accidents owing to cranes. What is the Home Office doing to prevent accidents caused by cranes? The Committee reported that there should be periodical examination and testing of the lifting gear. Has the Home Office taken any steps to see that that recommendation has been carried out? I do not want to bring a railing accusation against the Home Office, but, at the same time, I do think that they might rummage in their pigeon-holes and get out the old fusty Reports and see if they cannot do something to get these various recommendations carried into effect.=Before I sit down I should like to mention the question of underground workrooms. I am glad to see that the lady inspector makes a very forcible allusion to the unsatisfactory character of the underground workrooms. There is no doubt about it that she alludes to places where the only form of ventilation is through a grating which is more or less stopped up, and if there are fanlights they only draw air in from the level of the street. These underground workrooms are a fruitful cause of anæmia, ill-health, nervous breakdown, and consumption. The disgusting part of it is that these most unhealthy places are prevalent where the rich do mostly congregate—that Ts to say, in Bond Street, Sloane Street, and Shaftesbury Avenue. My hon. Friends and I have been trying to persuade the Home Office to take up a Bill dealing with this subject, but although the Home Secretary is most sympathetic, very little has been done. I
  2084
  really do wish that something could be done to abolish these very genuine grievances. There is another grievance which I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. A constituent of mine drew my attention to it the other day. He is in a railway ticket office. He asked me when we were going to get a half-holiday for his class? He said he and his brethren of the passenger staff of the railways were not entitled, and were not given a single statutory half-holiday during the whole course of the year. He said he had worked twenty-five years for this particular company, and he had not had a half-holiday all his life, except he had specially applied for it. He said the consequences was that this made him feel a social outcast: He could never take part in any of the pleasures and social activities going on around him. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot bring forward a measure to deal with this, or whether he cannot put pressure upon the railway companies, which, after all, are doing very well just now—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the Home Secretary would require legislation to do what the hon. Member has asked him. If so, that puts the matter outside the scope of discussion in Committee of Supply.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: That is all I wanted to say on that subject. I believe I will be in order in dealing with the question of street trading. Young children selling newspapers in the street is the most pernicious form of employment that exists. It is bad for the health of the young people. It teaches them to thieve, to bet, to gamble. It fills our prisons with prisoners, and it adds year after year to the number of loafers and cadgers that exist in the country. We had hoped that there would have been legislation on this point, but it would appear that vested interests have proved too much for us. I really hope, however, that the Home Secretary will see what he can do by way of tuning up the administration of the existing Acts and existing powers. Efficient administration, of course, is a question of the appointment of proper inspectors. Some of the local authorities, of course, are very keen, eager and zealous in this work; some are very indifferent. I am sorry to say, however, that some local authorities consider anybody good enough to be an inspector under the Employment

  2085
  of Children Act. There are instances of inspectors of hackney carriages and of weights and measures who have been appointed to carry out the provisions of the Employment of Children Act. I should like that the Home Office should once a year call for a report from all local authorities as to the administration of the Employment of Children Act. It would be better still if the Home Secretary could get from the Treasury a Grant-in-Aid in order that efficient inspectors might be appointed. These are the points on which I feel very strongly, and to which I hope the Home Secretary will really give his serious and undivided attention.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Perhaps I may be allowed to reply immediately to some of the points which have been raised, and I propose to reply later to other points. I find that we get such a variety of subjects that it is almost impossible to deal with them in one speech, and probably it will be convenient to my hon. Friends if I reply briefly on two or three points rather than allow an accummulation of subjects to be dealt with. I have always admired the debating powers of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) but never more than this afternoon. He made, I think, what is perhaps the most ingenious use of the Factory Inspectors' Report that it is possible to make. He selected from the report—I do not complain at all, I think it right and proper he should do so in order to direct public attention to the evils to which he referred—the most striking instances which have been brought to public attention by the inspectors. The inspectors report those cases in order to inform the public arid the House of what they are doing, how they are endeavouring by administration under the powers which the law has given them, to check the existing evils in our factories and 'workshops. My hon. Friend takes those particular illustrations which the factory inspectors have dealt with, in order to prove, not that the factory inspectors are active, but, on the contrary, that there are gross evils in which the factory inspectors ought to act. I do not complain in the slightest degree of the hon. Member calling public attention in the strongest manner possible to those evils. I am very glad that the House of Commons should he informed about them. I have a number of Bills, and there is hardly one of the
  2086
  subjects which have been mentioned to-day on which we have not got a Bill ready to introduce, and, if possible, to pass. Nobody is more anxious than I am that the attention of hon. Members of this House should be drawn to the pressing need of amendments in our Factory Laws.
  When we come to the result of administration pure and simple, I hope that the Factory Inspectors' Report, a report published by officers of the Home Office and presented by the Home Office to this House, will not be taken as the measure of their effectiveness and of their desire to see that the law is properly administered. My hon. Friend referred to the composition of our factory 3taff. We have, of course, as the House knows, two classes of inspectors. We have the factory inspectors and the class of assistant inspectors. My hon. Friend is under the impression that the factory inspectors have got a social "smack"—a breadth of mind and an intellectual detachment arising from the superior social class from which they are drawn. My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. Of the factory inspectors of the higher class we have to-day very nearly half of the whole have come from the public elementary schools of the country. They are men who have risen by sheer force of merit. I may say that in more recent years more than half were at one time boys in elementary schools. I would like to give the Committee some exact details in recent years as to who those men are who are supposed to have a social "smack." They are, in fact, men who have been selected because of the ability they have shown, not because of the class from which they have sprung, and because of the experience they have had in factories and workshops.
  I will take the five last examinations. Nearly half of the whole of the candidates who received nominations for examination came from public elementary schools or county schools. In 1908, out of seventeen candidates who competed, all had long factory or engineering experience, except three. One of the three had no experience, but had exceptional educational qualifications, having passed from an elementary school to the county school, and from thence by scholarship to the University of Wales, where he obtained several scholarships and exhibitions. The second had long experience in teaching, having passed from a national school by means of scholarship to Leeds University. He also graduated at London

  2087
  University. The third had experience in teaching physics, having passed from an elementary school by means of a scholarship to the University of Wales, in which he was a graduate. He was a graduate also of London University, and obtained a diploma in electrical engineering in University College, Cardiff. Those were the only three who had not had practical personal experience. The remaining fourteen had long factory and engineering experience before they were admitted.
  Mr. GILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an instance of how long the factory experience was, and what kind of factories they were in?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any information he requires. I have not got the full details here, but I think he may rely on my statement. The information supplied to me I think is strictly accurate. In 1909, of the twenty-eight candidates nominated three had no practical experience in factories, the first of those three had an exceptional educational career at Aberdeen University, obtaining the degree of M.A. with honours in mathematics and natural philosophy, and the degree of B.Sc. in chemistry, mathematics, and natural philosophy. The second, after experience in business, was engaged in teaching chemistry and physics. He held the degree of B.Sc. of Glasgow University, and obtained certificates from Glasgow University in technological subjects. The third had a distinguished educational career at Oxford and experience in administration as organising secretary of the Christian Social Union. Those are three out of the twenty-eight, and the other twenty-five had a long experience in factories and workshops. In 1910, of the nineteen candidates nominated, all had long and practical experience except two. In 1912, of the thirty-three candidates nominated all had good practical experience except four, and in the present year, thirty-one candidates have just been nominated to compete for about five vacancies. The examination has not yet been held. Of these all have had good practical experience except two. Of the two, one has been engaged in teaching under various school boards in Scotland, but his educational experience has been exceptional. He held the degree of M.A. from Aberdeen University with first class honours in
  2088
  mathematics and natural philosophy; he has gained prizes in political economy, and has also received a Carnegie Scholarship in Economics. I have no doubt my hon. Friend can identify some of the candidates referred to. The second of the two has been engaged in research at the Royal College of Science. He was educated at a secondary school and passed by means of scholarship to the London University, where he obtained a degree of B.Sc., with first-class honours in physics. He also holds a number of certificates in various technological subjects.
  If my bon. Friends desire any further information as to the candidates, their class, training, colleges, schools and experience in the workshops, who are admitted for examination, I shall be most ready to furnish it. I have not got the information with me, or I would give it to them now. There is also an impression that the assistant inspectors who are drawn from the men who have not got the same educational qualifications but have had longer experience in factories and workshops when appointed, are debarred from promotion to the higher ranks. In this year already three have been promoted from the class of assistant inspectors to the class of factory inspectors, and last year one of them was promoted; that is to say, in two years four out of the total staff of fifty-four have been promoted. If I am right in the view which I am now expressing to the Committee, and when you consider that the factory inspectors are largely drawn from the class of men who in competition in boyhood, in both the elementary and secondary schools, have shown themselves superior to those who come in as assistants, are we not right in taking the fullest advantage of the superior qualifications of the men who enter into the higher ranks? I think I have said enough on the point. I do not know what my hon. Friend may have to say in reply to me, but, in point of fact, there is no such social barrier or social smack as he seems to consider to be-the fact with regard to the factory inspectors. My hon. Friend and several hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the great increase in the number of accidents. I deplore, as they do, the great increase that has taken place. What are the reasons which are primarily given for this, as I consider it to be, disastrous fact? If hon. Members will turn to page 17 of the Report they will see it there stated:—

  2089
  "Not only is the accident risk extended, but it is accentuated by the fact that the employers, in order to get workers for their additional machinery, are bound to fall back upon the less skilled and partially trained operatives, amongst whom greater liability to accidents is naturally to be anticipated."
  That is given as a reason for the increase in the number of accidents. It is owing to the great demand for labour that employers fall back more and more upon less skilled and less highly trained workmen. The Report goes on to say:—
  "At the same time, though the greater part of the increase is accounted fur in this way, the reports contain clear evidence that the higher figures are also partly dye to better reporting. Inspectors continue to find many individual cases where the reporting has been neglected, and it seems certain that further apparent increases will still have to he recorded from this cause in future years."
  Then follow very remarkable figures, to which I shall have to call the attention of the Committee. Of the large number of accidents that have taken place, two-thirds or three-fourths are due to causes with which, under the existing legislation, the inspectors have no power to interfere. They are just what we would call ordinary accidents; not accidents due to any cause for which any person is liable under the existing factory law. I hope we shall he able to extend the liability by an extension of the law, but as the law now exists three-fourths -of these accidents are due to acts over which the inspectors can have no control, and in regard to which their advice has no legal value. That is a very important fact. I will also refer here to the distinctions that have been drawn by most hon. Members who have spoken between the report of the male factory inspectors and the report of the female factory inspectors. I can only congratulate these female inspectors on the style in which they have submitted their observations. They have been received with much approval—at any rate, there is great satisfaction to be found in that aspect of their observations. But let me remind hon. Members, if all the male inspectors were to submit their views at equal length, I will not say with equal brilliance, but with equal charm of style, and at equal length, we should have to issue, not one volume, but several volumes of reports. If hon. Members will look at the summary of the lady inspector, they will find it occupies thirty-five pages—that is covering a very small field of work as compared with what our chief inspector has to cover. His summary covers seven pages, with another summary of twenty pages. The whole of his observations over the whole field of his labour are shorter than those of the chief lady inspector. I
  2090
  am very glad she has put forward her views at such length, but, however advantageous or beneficial that may be, it would throw upon hon. Members an enormous burden of reading if the male inspectors' reports were given at equal length.
  In one respect, I frankly admit, I have to stand before the Committee in a white sheet. I hoped this year to have been able to introduce and carry through Bills affecting the different topics that have been raised, and I have not been able to do so. I assure hon. Members it was not through any want of zeal on my part, but we must all recognise, owing to the state of business in this House, the impossibility of getting them through. The Noble Lord opposite referred to the case of underground workshops. A Bill dealing with that is on the Paper, or was yesterday, and I would be only too glad if I could get any sort of assurance that that Bill would go through in a reasonable time. I would press upon the Prime Minister to allow it to be starred, and I am as anxious as the Noble Lord is that that Bill should go through.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I understand that only the hon. Member for Pontefract objects to it.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I consulted him, and he says he has no objection.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Then there is no objection.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not know about that. Can the Noble Lord speak for the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), the junior Member for the City of London? If he can, I have no doubt the Bill will go through. It is a most valuable piece of legislation, and would add greatly to the other Acts in which the Noble Lord is interested.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, am aware of that.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The Committee does not seem to be aware that this is all out of order.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not presume to go into the merits of the Bill, but on a Vote for my salary I thought I might explain why it was. I have been unable to pass Bills I wish to see passed. I should like now to conclude what I have to say upon the subject of the inspectorate. I agree

  2091
  that we need an extension of our staff of inspectors, but we have not neglected that subject. Last year, 1912, we increased the inspectorate by five. This year we have increased the inspectorate by twelve. That is not a bad increase for two years. We have gone up from an inspectorate of 200 to 217, and I shall do my best to secure a further increase of staff next year. I hope to do that, and I think we shall be able to do it, and I think we shall be able to carry out, in full, the recommendation of the Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester sat. But I think he will agree we have very nearly covered his standard at present, if he takes into account the addition of twelve inspectors this year.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is my right hon. Friend going to accept our method of appointment?
  Mr. McKENNA: As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee were not so much in agreement as to the method of appointment. I think my hon. Friend was in the majority, but only a majority of one. There are good reasons, which I think I have given, why the recommendations of the Committee on that point should not be taken. On the subject of lead poisoning the hon. Member for Durham referred to the regulations which were recently passed. I should be very glad to give him the figures as to the working of the regulations, and I shall do so as soon as we have them, but I think he will agree with me it is a little early yet. He has always held a view that lead poisoning cannot be put a stop to until the use of lead is prohibited. We have yet to see whether his view is right or wrong; but if his view is right, whatever Government is in office will have to face the problem, but he will recognise that until these new regulations have been brought into effect we cannot judge how they will work. My bon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred to the subject of humidity in weaving sheds. The regulations are now put in force, and I understand that, hydrometers are now supplied. If that is not so, I will make farther inquiries. I have made some inquiries, and I understand they are supplied. He also raised the question of shuttle-kissing, and he said that experiments so far were not very successful. Conferences have been held, and the experiments have been continued, and the conferences will be resumed later.
  2092
  Another topic mentioned by other speakers has been that of weight lifting. The inspector reports that very important conferences have been held on this very subject, and until we have got, as the Noble Lord opposite would wish, legislation on this matter, we have at any rate carried out the other object he had in view. Conferences have been held, and an agreement has been come too strictly limiting the lifting of heavy weights by children and young persons. Girls under thirteen years of age are limited to 16 lbs.; between the ages of thirteen and fourteen, to 20 lbs.; between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, to 25 lbs. That is from the report on the woollen and worsted mills. It takes a considerable time to cover all the trades with these conferences. Each of these conferences throws a very great amount of work upon the Department, but in time we shall cover the whole ground. As I have just given the figures for girls, I will give the figures for boys. Boys under thirteen years of age are limited to 24 lbs.; between thirteen and fourteen years of age, to 30 lbs.; between fourteen and fifteen, to 40 lbs.; and between fifteen and sixteen, to 50 lbs. I may say that if I had been able to secure the passage of the Employment of Children Bill, I should have got the figures allowed up to fourteen years of age extended to sixteen. We have been able to effect something failing legislation by means of these conferences. In regard to several of the other points raised by the Noble Lord opposite, I am afraid I should not be in order if I endeavoured to follow him. The subject of long hours can only be dealt with by an alteration in the law. I think, so far, I have touched upon all the different points raised except that of fines. Most of the cases—indeed, I think all the cases —of fines quoted to-day were cases of illegal fines under the existing law. Everybody must be aware of the extraordinary difficulty of putting a stop to an abuse of this kind. The particular case alluded to by the hon. Member for Leicester, of a fine in Belfast, was obviously a case of illegal fine.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: After they discovered that the fine was illegal the girl was dismissed.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to that point. The fine was illegal and unreasonable, and when they found that out the money was instantly repaid, but the girl was dismissed. You cannot stop that under the existing law. Our inspectors

  2093
  call attention to it whenever they discover it, but the workpeople are so timid they will not give notice in these caws. This girl who did give notice of it was dismissed. There is nothing, as the law now stands, for that except the force of public opinion. The employer who would dismiss a girl like that ought to be visited with the severest censure. We have no power to cure it under the law.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Except a strike.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course, these girls in these cases cannot strike. They have no remedy. The best way is to draw attention to these cases again and again in this House, and my hon. Friends, whenever they have a case of this kind, will be doing a public service if they call, not only the attention of the Home Office and the Home Office inspectors, but of the public to employers who, having to admit illegal acts committed by one of their own firm, take vengeance upon the unfortunate operative who makes the complaint by dismissing her. So far as the Home Office is concerned, we are as much opposed to this kind of thing as hon. Members themselves, and I will certainly do all in my power to direct public attention to any cases of that kind in order to secure an effective remedy. I think I have answered all the questions which have been mentioned in the Debate, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply to any other points which may be raised later on.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I should like to endorse several of the remarks which have been made with regard to the Vote under discussion. I agree that it is rather a reflection upon this House that only one day can be given for this Vote, more especially in view of the fact that part of that day is to be taken up with private Bills. I am not sure that the Home Secretary has done full justice to the complaints made with regard to the inspectors. There certainly is a shortage of inspectors, and the increase of the staff is not at all adequate. I agree also that the lady inspectors who have made their report show signs of more thoroughness in their work than the reports we get from the male inspectors. I congratulate the ladies on their success in that direction. With regard to the kind of inspector we require, I think we require men who have spent some time in a factory or workshop. We want thoroughly practical men who under-
  2094
  stand the particular class of machinery they are dealing with, who can give the senior inspector every information. This kind of man, simply because he cannot pass an examination of a certain type, is deprived of the opportunity of rendering valuable service to the industries of this country. That is the kind of man I should like to see introduced on the inspectors' staff.
  With regard to accidents, I quite agree with the Home Secretary that something has been done to lessen their number, but I am not quite so sure that everything has been done that might have been done, more particularly in cotton factories. It is pleasant to notice that the number of accidents in cotton factories arc less this year than they were last year, but they are still nearly 200 more than they were in the year 1910. I want to give some reasons why I think some of these accidents have happened and how they can be prevented. In the summary issued by the chief inspector we find that there are 391 accidents lumped together under the heading of "miscellaneous." Some of the accidents under this heading are of a very serious kind indeed, and no tabulation is made of them at all. I want to appeal to the Home Secretary to have these miscellaneous accidents tabulated. They include such cases as hernia, sprained muscles of the back and limbs, and sprained sinews, and many of these accidents have occurred through the carrying of heavy weights in places where there is insufficient room. These operatives have to carry heavy weights down staircases, inclines, steps, and badly-lighted places, and if an inquiry were made I am sure the result would astonish the right hon. Gentleman. This question has occupied the attention of a conference and some recommendations have been made, but it will take some time to get new rules into operation, and they can only be put into operation in the modern type of shed, and the same bad conditions will continue in the old sheds until something is done.
  With reference to the museum of safety appliances mentioned last year, I should like the Government to give us any information they can as to what is being done with regard to that matter. The question of the Workmen's Compensation Act was also mentioned last year, and we have repeatedly asked for a Committee of Inquiry to be appointed to investigate the working of the Act. As is well known,

  2095
  the Act is not being used as was intended, and the number of complaints is so enormous that there is plenty of room for an amendment of the Act. I do not want the Under-Secretary to put forward the excuse that the Insurance Act is just beginning to operate. I think this Committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter, because the Compensation Act has been in operation sufficiently long to justify the appointment of such a Committee; and if it is appointed now in eighteen months they would be able to get all the details they require. They could also consider the question of medical referees and what is being done under the Insurance Act. To-day we learn that medical referees have to be appointed by the State under the National Insurance Act, and I claim that it is quite as important that State medical referees should be appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I ask the Home Secretary to give that matter his very careful consideration.
  I understand that the Committee appointed to inquire into the lighting of weaving sheds and factories and workshops is now making an investigation, and all I want to say on that point is that I would like this Committee to concentrate its efforts upon the staircases and cellars in factories, steps, and inclines, more especially where heavy weights have to be carried up and down. In a lot of weaving sheds the cellar floor is on a higher level than the weaving shed itself, and certain workmen have to carry heavy weights down these staircases, steps, and inclines into the weaving sheds, and this is very frequently a source of accident. I know the employers have agreed to keep them free from grease and dirt as much as possible, and they apply sand, but unless the inspectors are very alert I am afraid that this will be another source of danger. This is one of those cases in which the inspectors can do valuable work if they had more time to visit the mills. We have only one inspector for about 1,400 factories and workshops in Lancashire, and it is practically impossible for him to visit them all. The Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and the hon. Member for Durham said that in some cases factories were visited only once a year. I know of factories which have never yet been visited by an inspector, and it is quite impossible that they can be visited unless there is an increase
  2096
  in the number of inspectors or some more systematic method of inspection adopted.
  6.0 P.M.
  I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and the attention of the inspectors to another class of workmen who have never yet been mentioned in this House. I refer to those employed in the tape-sizing room in cotton weaving mills. These workmen occupy a very responsible position because all the yarn passes through their machines and through their hands before it goes down into the weaving shed. These sizing rooms are very often placed in basements and very dark places, and I think a report would show very serious cases of illness, and some of these places may possibly have been the cause of injury to the eyesight which has taken place. In the majority of cases no complaint has been made with regard to the rooms, but there are a few places of the description I have mentioned in the weaving department which certainly ought to be abolished altogether. With regard to the cotton trade, there is a grave misunderstanding about the lifting of heavy weights. The report gives the impression that this heavy weight lifting is confined to women and young persons. I made a very emphatic statement last year that this weight lifting also applied to the males, and they have to do it in rooms so small that they cannot get at a proper angle. Whatever may be done with regard to legislation on this and other matters, this evil will remain so long as the room question is not dealt with. That is why I am exceedingly pleased the conference of weavers decided that all new sheds should be built with sufficient room. I think that would be a very good thing. Mr. Law, the inspector at Blackburn, reports fifteen cases of young girls injured by lifting loom weights alone. That is the real trouble. The weights hold the yarn tight behind the loom, and there is not sufficient room for the girls or anybody else to get behind the loom to lift the weights properly. Consequently, they have to lift them as best they can at an unnatural angle, and that will continue until the employers are compelled to do what is required. I was very pleased to see that Mr. Walmesley, at Bolton, made a suggestion which I think is a very valuable one. He was speaking with regard to ventilation, but it equally applies to spacing. He suggested that before any building operations were commenced the plans should be submitted to the Depart-

  2097
  merit to see whether they fulfilled all the requirements with regard to the safety and health of the operator. It is quite feasible now to have runaways for carrying heavy weights through the shed. The proof of this is to be found in the fact that the premiums for compensation are less where runaways exist than where they do not, and I think they ought to be compulsory. There is nothing more dangerous in the weaving shed than having to carry weaving looms on the shoulder where there is not sufficient room.
  The hon. Member for Burnley raised the question of the reading of the hydrometers. I am sorry to say that this is causing a great deal of anxiety in Lancashire at the present time, and that there is great dissatisfaction in regard to it. I do not know why the weavers will not co-operate with the employers in recording the hygrometers. The last Bill has had no material effect, but it has not been long in operation, and, for that matter, perhaps it has not been put into operation at all, but they are firmly convinced that something will have to be done. At present there is a ballot being taken of the w hole of the cotton weavers in Lancashire as to whether they are in favour of a Petition being signed by every individual who likes to sign it. I hope, when it is presented to the House, that I shall be able to say that not a single signature has been put to it through any misunderstanding at all. The House will then see how burning this question is amongst the weavers of Lancashire. Lancashire itself is well known for its humidity of atmosphere. It is well known to be one of the best natural weaving centres in the world, and they are convinced that humidity to excess is not needed if the yarns are good enough for the people to work.
  There is also the question of shuttle-kissing. The hon. Member for Bolton raised this matter. What is being done with regard to it? One inspector says that the practice of shuttle-kissing has become so firmly established amongst the weavers that until it is possible to prohibit the threading of the shuttle by the mouth it, is doubtless if much progress will be made. If we have got our inspectors obsessed with an optimistic view with regard to the policy of shuttle-kissing, we shall never get rid of it. There are firms in Lancashire who have been running with self-threading shuttles for two years, and these firms have stood their share of responsibility with regard to the length of
  2098
  the life of the shuttle and so on. I know it is a very difficult matter indeed, and I should be the last person to ask for the entire abolition of the mouth-threading shuttle if no decent substitute could be put into its place. I can quite understand that with certain classes of goods it could not be done at the present time, but the great bulk of the cotton industry in Lancashire could be worked with self-threading shuttles in preference to the present mouth-shuttle, which requires the dye to be drawn into the mouth. The Committee who are meeting have disagreed, and they will continue to disagree so long as the employers refuse to snake any efforts to meet them. The Home Office was very generous in the first. instance in giving the employers an opportunity of gradually introducing the new shuttle into their works, hut, if the employers are not seizing and making the best use of this opportunity, then something more drastic will have to be done in view of the evil which everyone wants to abolish.
  I quite agree with the Noble Lord opposite and with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester with regard to what they said about the truck system. There has got to be something done in this matter. You 'have got young persons practically defenceless. They have never had a wage whereby they could afford to organise, and we always find that the heaviest deductions are made in the case of those least able to defend themselves. A case has been mentioned where an employer was found by his fellow magistrates to have fined a poor girl out of all reason, and then, because he was found out and told he had been wrong and unreasonable in the matter and must refund the money, he discharged the girl That would have been something the Lancashire operatives would never have stood. If only these poor girls could be organised to defend themselves, it would put a speedy end to a lot of the truck system. There is no sense in fining people. It is all very well to say that they do it for discipline; it never did make for discipline and never will. I am one of those who believe that, if there were not a single penny deducted and there were proper supervision and better yarns, they would get better work and have a more contented class of workpeople than at the present time. It has been tried by private enterprise, and it has been successful. There is an instance mentioned in the report where it has been reduced from 86

  2099
  per cent. down to 6 per cent., and it could be done in every case, if the overseers and employers would give the operatives a fair chance, give them fair material to work upon, give them reasonable time in which to do their work, treat them more kindly, and give them their money when they have earned it. If that were done, I feel perfectly sure that there would be no more deductions in wages. I am one of those who certainly advocate that. There might be isolated cases, but I am taking the general run of things, and I have always adhered to that opinion. There are more ways of creating discipline than one, and if the employer or the manager fails to do his duty, it is a great pity that it should be taken out of the poorly paid workers who have to work hard enough.
  Mr. GILL: I think no one can read the annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories without being struck with the importance of our industrial position. The rapid increase in the trade of the country, as exemplified by the growing production and export of manufactured articles, and the various kinds of factories and workshops in which workpeople are employed, make it imperative that everything should be done which human ingenuity can devise to render those occupations as safe and as healthy as they possibly can be, and also to protect the workers from unfair conditions with regard to their wages. That is what we consider is the work that factory inspectors have to do. I think it is advisable once a year, at any rate, to review the industrial position, especially in relation to its effect upon the various classes of workpeople. I have from time to time raised questions in relation to the cotton industry, and I shall continue to do so until we get these grievances remedied of which I have had reason to complain. Reference has been made by every speaker to-day to the number of accidents which have taken place during the past year and the rapid increase in the number. Going back to the year 1907, I find that the total number of fatal accidents was 1,197. I thought that after that we had begun to find the reason because in 1909 there was a decrease of no less than 946, or something like 20 per cent., but in 1912 we had to relate no less than 1,260 fatal accidents, an increase of 26½ per cent. over 1909. I think these figures cannot be too carefully studied or too much taken note of, because when human life is at stake, when
  2100
  there are many bread winners taken away, it means a great deal of poverty and suffering for the people, and everything human effort can do ought to be done for the purpose of reducing the number of fatalities. Again, the same state of things exists in regard to non-fatal accidents. There were 124,325 in 1897, and in 1909 the total was reduced to 117,500, a reduction of 5½ per cent. In 1912, however, we had to record no fewer than 156,232, or an increase of 30 per cent, since 1909. The report tells us that this is due to the boom in trade, and the increase of reporting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) with whom, for two years, I sat on the Accidents Committee, stated, quite correctly, that we were then told that the reporting had become quite efficient, and so far as the future was concerned, we might depend upon it that any increase recorded would be a genuine increase in the number of accidents. It is said that the boom in trade has caused the increase, but if that boom has caused the additional number of accidents, how is it it has not caused an increase in other industries. The cotton industry, for instance, shows a reduction in the number of accidents, as compared with last year. In 1911, there were 4,245; in 1912, there were 4,128, and yet new mills have been started, every spindle and loom that could be employed has been employed to its full capacity, the number of work-people has increased, and all pressure imaginable has been brought to bear on the operatives to produce as much as possible. That was done, because there was a boom in trade; yet the number of accidents has been reduced. I think I can tell the reason why. It is largely an administrative reason. The administration has been different with regard to the cotton industry, to what it has been in other industries.
  Reference is made in the report to conferences. Conferences are recorded with cotton operatives. The first held lasted for some time, and we came to a very important agreement with regard to fencing machinery. As a result that industry is now safer than formerly, although I do not claim it is as safe as it ought to be. A reduction in the number of accidents has taken place in connection with machinery, of which there are a great number of classes. I may mention in regard to the cotton industry in connection with the use of speed frames in the carding department, where women are

  2101
  absolutely employed, in 1911, the number of accidents was 561; in 1912, the number had fallen to 491. In connection with the use of self-acting mules, which is the chief machine in the cotton spinning industry, the number fell from 1,118 in 1911 to 1,056 last year. Looms have increased tremendously in number, but the number of accidents fell from 1,136 to 1,010. I think if the Home Office had taken the steps which they have taken in regard to the cotton industry, of having conferences earlier in connection with the different industries there would have been fewer accidents. They have been too long in calling the conferences together. I should like to know how many conferences have been held, and how many are in process of being held. With regard to the question of accidents with self-acting mules, I have had to call attention in past years to the number of the very severe accidents in which operatives have lost arms and hands, in connection with the use of scrolls. I have been very much distressed by the number of young members in my society maimed in that way. I made up my mind that if anything could be done to prevent this class of accident it should be done. There has been neither an increase nor a decrease this year, but I am hoping that, before very long, this class of accident will disappear altogether, because there is now a guard being made and brought on to the market which renders it impossible for such accidents to happen. I know that the inspector for the Rochdale district has referred to it in his report, and if its use is made compulsory, I feel certain that no accidents of that description will occur in the future.
  In regard to the carding department, I want to give credit where credit is due, and there is some credit due to the Home Office in this matter. An agitation was raised recently for putting automatic locking motions over the cylinders. Many serious accidents have occurred to men of nineteen years of age and over. They have lost arms or fingers or hands, but since these covers have been used, the effect of their use being that the men cannot get their hands in accidentally, the accidents have decreased in number. In 1907, they totalled sixty-eight. In 1912, there were twenty-three. In a very large number of the mills they have been fitted. I should like to know the exact number that have not been fitted—and it is easier to ascertain that than to tell the exact number that have been fitted—with
  2102
  these covers, because nearly all now have them. Last year only seventeen accidents occurred. This year there have been twenty-three, and the inspector has said that of these, only six were due to the absence of locking motions. We may take it, therefore, that if the locking motion had been fitted, these six accidents, at any rate, would not have occurred. They should not have occurred. This is something the Home Office has done. It pressed severely for these precautionary measures, and the result has been that, there has been a great benefit to those engaged in these operations. Still, I think that more activity might be shown in this particular direction. Many accidents will be avoided; many young persons' limbs will be saved, if the Home Office inspectors insist on more efficient guards being used. No amount of money will compensate a person for the loss of a limb. His capacity to earn money is destroyed thereby, and we ought to do all we possibly can, in order to prevent these-accidents taking place.
  I am glad also that something has been done by administration to give effect to the Committee's recommendation in regard to bleach works. There were, at one time, open kiers. It was recommended that these kiers should be fenced, because young boys had to stand on the edge for the purpose of dealing with the cloth that had to be passed into the boiling water. The Committee also recommended the use of calender nip guards in front of the rollers, and this has been carried out to a certain extent. In regard to winces, we want more of these fitted up in spaces, and where the administration, so far, has not been successful in getting it done. My hon. Friend, the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. A. Smith) has referred to the question of a museum for safety appliances. We are a long way behind other countries in this respect. We are told that some difficulty has arisen in relation to the building for the museum, and that the work has not yet been started. But I find it stated in the report, that as regards the proposed museum of safety appliances, progress has been interrupted, and the Home Office building has not yet commenced. Meanwhile, reports have been received of the establishment of such museums at several new centres abroad, such as Nuremberg, Buda-Pesth, and Barcelona, in addition to the fifteen mentioned in an earlier report. I do not like the idea of the Continent

  2103
  being ahead in this respect in the establishment of museums of safety appliances. I had an opportunity of visiting one some time since, and I found there was a very complete system which many manufacturers visited for the purpose of finding out the best means of fencing machinery, so as to make it safe for their workpeople. I hope that more pressure will be used for the purpose of getting museums established here. I suggested last year that we ought not to be satisfied with one in London, which is so far away from the great centres of industry. I think it is absolutely necessary to have one here and one in some populous centre in the North.
  Reference has been made to the question of temperature. In our conferences we have agreed that in the mills in Lancashire the minimum should be 70 degrees and the maximum 95 degrees; but that is not carried into effect in all cases. We have had difficulty on many occasions in winter in regard to Monday morning, where, in consequence of the neglect to keep a proper head of steam during the week-end, the temperature has been down to 58 or 50 degrees. I hope something will be done to ensure that the proper temperature is maintained in such cases in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe referred to the question of lighting, especially in connection with dark staircases. I notice there has been a Committee appointed to deal with the lighting question, but I do not know what is the reference to that Committee, and whether it will be sufficiently extensive to enable them to visit the works and see what is necessary. I hope that will be the case, and I trust, that the Under-Secretary will give us information in regard to that in the course of his reply. One of the things that is necessary to be dealt with more than it has been in the past is the question of atmosphere in the different classes of factories and workshops. When people have to breathe impure air their health is seriously affected, and, in my opinion, a great reform is needed in this direction. I find in the Report that reference is made to the rules for workshops in which wearing apparel is made and letterpress printing carried on. Samples of the air were taken by inspectors, who found no less than twenty-three parts of CO2, per 10,600 volumes of air. I think the maximum allowed in cotton mills is fifteen. In the Liverpool printing works, the worst case, the proportion of CO2, was as high as 39, and
  2104
  in a Manchester case there were 43.5 per 10,000. It is difficult to keep the work-people healthy under circumstances like that, breathing, as they do, impure atmospheres. In the cotton mills of Lancashire the quantity has been brought down to 6.2 per 10,000 volumes, and it ought to be brought down in places where women are employed in making wearing apparel, and where men are engaged in letterpress printing.
  I also want to give credit again to the Home Office for having done something very important indeed with regard to one particular section of the cotton industry. I refer again to the card-rooms. I raised a question three or four years ago in regard to the providing of dust extractors for the purpose of taking the dust away from many engaged in the operation of stripping and drying in the carding-room. Something has been done—indeed, a great, deal has been done. But I think it was Dr. Collis who examined 136 men some time ago in regard to their condition, and he found that 55 per cent. were suffering from pulmonary diseases, such as asthma and phthisis, and many were scarcely able to work. It has been a common thing to say, in regard to this section of the industry, that the men are too old for it. Some have had to leave the occupation because they found it physically impossible to follow it. But I am glad to know that the Home Office and factory inspectors arc impressing on the different employers the desirability of putting in dust extractors, and the result, when that has been done, has been very beneficial indeed. The health of the workers is better than it was before. I should like to know how many mills are not fitted with these dust extractors, because the right hon. Gentleman promised to have them all fitted with them some time ago.
  I have another hardy annual to raise—I have raised it for many years, and it is absolutely necessary that it should be raised—I refer to the old question of time-cribbing. The mills of the engines start at six and stop at eight, and the practice consists in starting a few minutes—from three to ten minutes—before six, and, perhaps, running for a few minutes after eight o'clock, when the men go to breakfast. The same thing is repeated at dinner time and again in the evening. The result is that the operatives, who are paid day wages and are supposed to work 55½ hours a week, by the operation of cribbing these few minutes three or four times a day,

  2105
  have to work several hours a week for which they are not paid. It is a distinct breach of the Factory Acts which is peculiar to the cotton industry. Something has been done to prevent it, but I do not know that I ought to say it has been reduced very much. Certainly the number of cases taken into Court have been considerably reduced. Last year there were 807 prosecutions, the year before there were over 1,000, while this year there were only 386, some 350 of these being in Manchester, Oldham, and Rochdale. I do not want it to be thought that these are the only cases that occur. They are the only cases that have been caught, and the practice is going on from day to day, and is not confined to these three towns. I hope that more pressure will be put on the inspectors to see that the practice is stopped. It is a distinctly dishonest practice. It is unfair to the good employers, because there is a very large number of employers who start and stop properly, and it is unfair to them to be put in competition with people who act on these lines. I think the penalties are too small. I asked the Home Secretary a question with regard to them, and whether he would not send out a circular to the magistrates asking them to inflict larger penalties. I received the answer that the penalties were not below the average of the country. The average of the country has nothing to do with this question, because time-cribbing is not carried on all over the country. The average penalty in Oldham is £1 9s. 11d., and the costs 10s. 7d., and in Blackburn 1s. 3d., and the costs 8s. 9d. It pays employers to practice this kind of thing with small penalties like that. I hope something will be done in this connection.
  It is satisfactory to find that so far as the Particulars Clause is concerned it has been so extended as to embrace 2,250,000 workers. It is a system which was advocated by the textile workers of Lancashire before the Clause was passed. There was a great agitation among the weavers in Lancashire, who did not get particulars supplied to them by which they could calculate, their wages. After they got the Clause passed and put into operation they found that their wages were larger than previously. The textile workers are pleased at the result, seeing that the Clause is now extended to nearly 10,000 factories and workshops, which is very satisfactory. The complaint seems to be extending to another section of the cotton
  2106
  trade. Formerly the weavers complained, but now the weavers are better looked after. The spinners are beginning to complain that they are not properly treated in this matter, and I ask the Home Office to direct attention to it in districts where the men are paid at a given price for a given weight of yarn. Every Member has seen a bobbin of sewing cotton. At the end is a label with a. number, say, 12. This means that the thread on the bobbin is of such a thickness, that twelve hanks weigh a pound. Suppose the number is 1. This means that 840 yards, which is the number contained in one hank, weighs a pound. Suppose the number was 40, then it means that it takes 40 multiplied by 840 yards of that thickness of yarn to weigh a pound. The grievance is, and this refers especially to Yorkshire at the present time, that employers will pay for 40 and use 42, which, being a, greater length of yarn, takes longer to spin. If the price is paid for 40 instead of 42, the men get less than they should. This is a question for the Particulars Clause inspector. His business is to see that the correct price is paid for the yarn. I ask the Home Office to instruct their Particulars Clause inspector to look after this matter. It has only lately come up to its present extent, and something should be done to deal with it.
  The Home Secretary in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) gave us particulars in regard to the three inspectors who were appointed last year who had not had practical experience in factories or workshops. He said that the great bulk who receive nomination were men who had practical experience in factories or workshops. I wish he had been able to give us the particulars of the experience these men have had, the length of that experience, the kind of factories and workshops in which they were engaged, and whether they were engaged as practical workmen or only for a year or two at the beginning of their career, after leaving the elementary school, and had then gone into some other business. I think something of that kind will be found to be the case when the particulars are given. The right hon. Gentleman made capital of the point that some had left the elementary schools and had gone to secondary schools. That may be quite true. We are not speaking of men who have been in the elementary school, but of men being qualified to perform the duty to which they arc appointed,

  2107
  and we say that they should have had practical experience in factories or workshops. The very fact that the examination is of its present character keeps out the class of men who ought to be appointed. What is the character of the examination? It includes two or three languages, English history, English literature, and some of the examinations include poetry. The great bulk of the questions have nothing at all to do with the work they have to perform. The examination seems to be of such a character as if it is intended to find men of high education and not to seek for practical knowledge, which ought to be sought. If an employer is appointing a man to do a certain class of work he generally looks for a man who has experience of the work he wants him to perform. If he is appointing a foreman in a factory he wants a man who has gone through the factory and is able to perform the duties. What is the present position in regard to the inspectors? They first of all get the situation on a scholastic examination of a very high grade. For two years afterwards they are put on probation, and then have to go through another examination to show if they can do the work.
  I want to plead for the assistant inspectors. Whatever may be said about there being no class distinction, I think there is some class distinction. There were a large number of factory inspectors' assistants appointed in 1893, when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, and some of them are factory inspectors' assistants to-day. They were practical men before they were appointed, but are still assistants. They have done good service during the whole of the twenty years, but they cannot get promotion. If they had not been competent to perform their duties they would have been dispensed with long ago. Some of the best assistants have left because they have felt dissatisfied that they could not get promotion, and one or two have been transferred to the insurance work because they could not get promotion under the Home Office. I want to plead for these men. They have been in your service for twenty years and have given you of their best. They start at £110 a year, and the highest salary to which they can go is £200. They do not receive the same expenses as the inspectors and have to travel third-class instead of first-class. They have to stay at different hotels because they have not the same allowance. This is all class and caste. Something
  2108
  ought to be done to give encouragement to the working classes by promoting this particular class,of men.
  The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was Chairman of the Accidents Committee, in whose work he took a great interest. There were some representations made as to what should be done in the organisation of the staff. Although there was a difference between the Majority and the Minority Report, the Minority Report asked for some extension in this direction in regard to promotion. I ask the Under-Secretary to convey to his chief the request that he will give these men the same opportunity as given to others. There is no question of the age limit, which can only apply to men who are taken on for the first time, while these men have all been employed for some time. The inspectors are put upon a two years' probation and then examined to see if they know their work. I ask that, the assistant inspectors should have the same opportunity. Put them on probation for two years and then examine them, and you will find they will be able to perform their work satisfactorily. There have only been four assistants promoted out of the fifty-four during the last two years, and that has been the result of agitation. I press strongly that this question should be considered favourably, and that these men should be given a chance of some promotion.
  Major HOPE: I wish to draw attention to the administration of an Act which has not been referred to in this Debate. I refer to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and more particularly to the operation of the Explosives Order. The Home Secretary constantly tells us that he cannot use his discretion or his powers of common sense because he is bound hard and fast by the Act of Parliament. In this case of the storing of explosives in mines I submit it is absolutely in the discretion of the Home Secretary, under Section 61 of the Act, as to what Orders he will issue or whether he issues any Orders at all. He issued the Explosives Order of 21st May, 1912. Under Section 1 of that Order, if any explosive remains in the possession of a workman at the end of his shift, he must take it out of the mine and return it to the magazine at the surface. That means he must bring it right up to the shaft, unless he happens to meet a workman who is going to relieve him, to whom he may hand it. In most cases the workman does not meet him at, the coal face but at the end of a long road

  2109
  towards the bottom of the shaft. It is a very disputable point whether in any mine there is greater danger incurred by carrying these explosives right up to the surface than there would be in leaving a small quantity of explosive in a locked case or canister at the coal face. I noticed that several witnesses before the Royal Commission on Mines were of this opinion, including one of His Majesty's inspectors, and advocated that there was less danger in leaving a small quantity of explosive at the coal face than in carrying it right up to the surface.
  But for the moment I wish to protest more against the rigid enforcement of this Explosives Order in all cases, and I wish to draw attention to the Home Secretary's refusal to consider special local conditions which make it even more necessary in the general interests of safety to grant an exemption to the two coal-pits in Midlothian, in which there are what are called edged seams. The travelling ways from the main roads to reach these edged seams are very steep, up to a slope of 70 degrees, and in getting to the coal face the miners have to climb as much as 700 feet up the slope. It is not, of course, very easy to climb up these narrow roads encumbered with tools and explosives, but returning is mach more dangerous and difficult. The miners returning home are in a hurry, and anyone who has done any mountain climbing will realise how much greater the danger is in returning down the slopes than in climbing up. Consider what a slip might mean, and the dropping of a canister down several hundred feet to the bottom of the main road! I have been up one of these travelling ways from the main road and down again, and I found I wanted the full use of both my hands to get to the bottom. Working miners have made complaints to me on the subject of this new Explosives Order in the edged seams. I should like to read an extract from what two under-managers have Written on the subject. One says:—
  "In steep workings the men have to carry their explosives uphill through travelling ways. This Order will greatly increase the danger, as the men will probably have to carry up and down these explosives every day."
  Another says:—
  "I am of opinion that there is far more danger in carrying the explosives which are left over after the completion of the shift down steep travelling roads than there would be if the miners were allowed to leave the unused explosives in a securely locked case near the working face. When you hear these men coming down from their work with explosive canisters rattling against the props certainly makes one think that the expert who drafted this role did not give the case of the edged seams any particular consideration."
  2110
  I submit that this is a case where the Home Secretary has the power and should, IA the interests of safety, grant a special exemption. Clause 61 of the Coal Mines Act reads that the Home Secretary may make regulations for the storage of explosives. If the House had intended that we should make particular reservations, surely they would have said he "shall" make regulations, and might even have gone as far as to draw up the regulations. When the House passed the Coal Mines Act they intended the Home Secretary to use his discretion very largely on this subject. If the Home Secretary does not see his way to grant an exemption to all coal mines from this first Section of the Explosives Order, as I think he might with perfect safety do, I ask him to consider whether he will not, in the particular instance of these edged seams and steep workings, give a special exemption for them, and allow explosives to be kept in a canister close to the coal face.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to take this opportunity to bring forward a matter of very great public concern which affects some thousands of my Constituents, who form part of the great army of those who hew out coal. I refer to the casualty list in coal mines. I find that in 1911 there were killed on or about coal mines some 1,265 men, which works out at about four for every working day, and there were 166,153 men disabled for more than seven days, which works out at 530 per working day. Amongst this terrible total there were seventy-eight lads under sixteen years of age killed, and 11,505 disabled. It is an iniquity that thousands of lads, who should be enjoying the pleasure and carelessness of boyhood, but go down to the pit instead, should be maimed and disabled as these Returns show that they are. The question immediately arises as to whether this terrible casualty list is something which is inherent in the nature of the occupation, whether it is anything which is remediable or not. The figures throw a great light upon this subject, because in 1911 there were 58,340 accidents which might be described as inherent, to the nature of the work, and difficult, perhaps, to forestall, and taking miscellaneous underground accidents no fewer than 44,000 were haulage accidents. Accidents of that nature obviously might be averted. I find this strange and very terrible figure, that taking mechanical haulage there were 4,430, horse haulage 11,727, hand haulage 9,089, runaway trams

  2111
  775, and other haulage accidents 18,074, which makes a total of 44,095. Then I find under the general list of sundries no fewer than 49,873.
  These figures show that an enormous number of accidents take place which are due to carelessness on the part of the management of the life and limb of those employed. Speeding up processes are going on in perhaps all branches of industry. As wages rise, if they do rise, and hours are shortened, more particularly as the nominal capital of the companies is inflated by watering processes, it becomes all the more desirable in the view of managements that the men should be driven harder. I feel confident that it is due to the character of the work, and this enormous casualty list stands as a disgrace as regards our mining operations. If it is suggested that this is to be remedied by appointing more inspectors I find these peculiar figures. We have for the inspection of mines and quarries, under the head of salaries and allowances, the sum of £33,673, and under the heading of travelling and incidental expenses the sum of £18,650; that is, we spend on travelling expenses nearly half as much as is spent on salaries and allowances. These figures seem to suggest that a great part of the time of these inspectors must be spent in travelling from place to place, and I suggest to the Under-Secretary that perhaps, without any further expenditure, it might be economical and beneficial if you had more inspectors and less time spent in travelling from place to place. It might operate to have the inspection of a more careful and constant nature. But, personally, I fear we shall have to go somewhat deeper than that. Undoubtedly we see this fact in our industrial operations, that the whole relationship between the employer and employed is being broken up. There is not that feeling to-day of responsibility in the case of men who are working for great companies. There is the old saying that a syndicate has no body to be kicked nor soul to be damned, and I think there is a great deal in that. A manager will work men for a company in a way he would not do if he were the owner and were directly responsible for the conditions of their livelihood.
  7. 0.P.M.
  I took careful note of what the Home Secretary said when dealing with the victimisation of cotton operatives through reported breaches of the regulations. He spoke in a very strong manner upon the
  2112
  subject, and said he hoped that vengeance would be taken upon men who acted in such a manner as this, who victimised and penalised those who protested against the unjust and illegal condition of their employment. It is very difficult for men themselves to secure redress and far more so for women, and I hope the Home Secretary will bear in mind the enthusiasm with which he spoke when perhaps a strike takes place on account of such victimisation and will not unnecessarily call out the Army or mobilise the Navy to coerce the strikers. I think inspection largely is in vain as a remedy for such a condition of affairs as this. I gather some hope from the suggestion which the Home Secretary himself made. He said the law does not give any remedy far the great bulk of these accidents. I hope he will take steps to extend the law. I believe we shall never get rid of this question, and we shall never greatly limit the numbers until we are able to fix responsibility upon a managing director and put him in the dock on account of some loss of life which takes place. I do hope the Home Secretary will go forward with any reform of the law which he considers to be necessary in that direction. At any rate, these conditions which demand his attention are an absolute disgrace to our industrial employment.
  Mr. HODGE: I only desire to press home the necessity of appointing practical men as factory inspectors. It has been my misfortune from time to time to seek to get a nominee for an industry which is commonly known as the heavy iron and steel trade. I do not know of a single factory inspector who has any special knowledge of our great iron and steel manufacturing industry. As showing the necessity of appointing practical men, I may say that I remembered during the time the Debate has been going on several circumstances relating to accidents in that particular industry. In South Wales an explosion took place. The facts were reported to the Home Office, and they sent a factory inspector on to the ground for the purpose of finding out the cause of the explosion. The particular inspector went straight to the works offices and made no attempt to get into communication with any of the workmen or to find out what their opinions were as to the cause of the accident. The report to the Home Office was consequently of a most unsatisfactory character. Every-thing, in his opinion, was just as good as

  2113
  it ought to be, and the accident was one of those dispensations of Providence which could not be accounted for. This was during the time Lord Gladstone occupied the position of Home Secretary. Knowing the circumstances, I took the trouble of making known the facts as they appeared to me, and the result was that an inspector was sent who had a knowledge of that particular industry. With the facts which I presented, that inspector was enabled to realise that the accident was a preventable one, and action was taken to have a remedy provided. A few years previous to that a similar occurrence took place in a works in the North, but, unfortunately, I had no opportunity at the time of having the facts presented to me. There, again, the result of lack of practical knowledge on the part of the inspector was that he did not find out what was the cause, and it was not the place of the firm, nor was it their desire, that he should know it. At a later date I was enabled to place before the Home Office the facts relating to the matter, but it was too late then to have an inquiry made. To my mind, these two instances of themselves demonstrate the necessity of practical men being appointed—men who know something of that particular trade—so that when occurrences of that kind happen the inspector may be in a position to find out the real cause and to suggest a remedy.
  I desire to put before the Home Secretary another point. Last year I had the privilege, with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord II. Cavendish-Bentinck), of attending on the Continent a meeting of an association for the purpose of promoting labour legislation for women and young persons, as well as for shortening the hours of labour, particularly as that question affects those who work all the week round. The various Continental countries were represented. Our own Home Office was also represented. I am sorry to say that the Home Office are taking very little interest in that matter. When one realises that as regards the glass trades the manufacture of pig-iron and the paper-making industry the employés work long hours, and that Continental nations are very anxious for international agreement, surely it is not too much to ask our Government to take a more prominent part in that movement than they seem inclined to do. If you take the iron trade as an example, the German Government
  2114
  are very anxious to come to an agreement upon that point, and, so far as this country is concerned, I may say that the workmen are in advance of the Government, and in advance of any other country in the world. We have the eight hours' day largely in operation in this country, and that being so, if our Government were to give a lead, I think it would be to the advantage not only to the Continental workmen, but to the advantage also of employers in this country, who pay considerably higher wages than are paid on the Continent. I hope the Home Office will take this matter into consideration and give a lead in that particular direction.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is
  impossible not to sympathise with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hodge) in his desire that in the appointment of inspectors we should appoint the most practical men we can get hold of. I have long been of opinion that that might be urged upon the Home Office with good effect. I would also like to join with him in saying to the Home Office that when measures are being concerted by other civilised nations to arrive at something like an amelioration of the conditions of the workers in various trades, and when it is suggested that inter-national rules and practice should be laid down, it certainly does seem a pity that our Departments are so insular in their views and so ironbound by tradition that they cannot take, I would say, the leading part in a matter of that kind, which would only be consistent with the wealth and power of this country. I should not have risen to take part in this Debate if it had not been for the astonishing speech we listened to a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite). He made a most offensive speech, and then he left the Chamber. I do not think he has got the right to throw over the floor of the House, or from one class of people in the country to another, any suggestion whatever that we, or any class in this country, are wanting in common humanity and wanting in sympathy with the workers of the country. I do not think that sort of statement and that kind of argument is really the way to approach the subject with any effect. He is perfectly unfounded in the suggestion. It is exceedingly un-fair and calculated on the whole to do a great deal more harm than good. I listened to the remarks, and I came to the conclusion that it was a perfectly poisonous speech which the hon. Member made.

  2115
  Having made it, he immediately bolted. It seems to me that the suggestion which he deliberately made in this House, that colliery companies were watering capital, and that in consequence of that accidents took place in mines, is about as outrageous a proposition as I have ever heard advanced by the hon. Member, and he has advanced a large number of outrageous propositions in his time. I think that was one of the most unfounded. Then he went on to say that, in his opinion, the managers of those undertakings to-day were absolutely wanting in sympathy and the common feelings of humanity. I entirely repudiate any such thing. I know many of these undertakings, and I am not interested in them. I know many of the men who have to do with the management of them, and I am bound to say that those who are responsible for the proper working of mines are as anxious to do no harm to the workmen as any person could be, or as the hon. Member for Hanley could be, if he had the good fortune to have an investment of that description. I could not help feeling it was a great pity that when matters of such high importance are brought to the attention of the Home Office for consideration, and when important recommendations are made from different sides of the House, the harmony and the general directness and utility of the observations should be spoiled by such a speech as we had the pain of listening to from the hon. Member for Hanley.
  Mr. ALEXANDER HARVEY: I entered the House when the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. A. Smith) was addressing it, and I heard his interesting advocacy of the interests of what I may call with all respect, his special clients. I also heard with great appreciation the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill), and I rise as an employer in the cotton trade to supplement some of the remarks they have made. I think these two hon. Members will not deny me the right to say that T am an employer who desires to work hand in hand with them for the benefit of the workpeople, and for the improvement of their conditions. I do not pretend to be alone in that respect, because I know from my long association with labour in Lancashire that on the whole the employers there are a sympathetic body of men. How could it be otherwise? We have in this great cotton trade of ours a peculiar characteristic. It is perhaps the most
  2116
  democratic trade in the whole world. Many employers who are now in that capacity for themselves have been workmen at the spindle and the loom. Many thousands are the sons of fathers who have worked in the work rooms. Even if the employers of Lancashire were not inclined to be sympathetic, there is a great incentive at present for them to be so. Work-people are very scarce and hard to get hold of, and naturally and properly, they flock to those factories where employment is carried on under the best conditions. Two points have been raised to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member for Clitheroe spoke about the space around machinery for reasons of safety and security for the workmen, and both he and the hon. Member for Bolton also said a great deal about ventilation and the artificial humidifying of the atmosphere. I desire to urge on the Home Secretary to keep on a gentle pressure to improve the conditions of employment in these two respects. I do not ask for anything sudden and spasmodic, but I do ask him constantly and persistently to exercise a gentle pressure for improvements in these respects.
  With regard to the spacing of machinery in loom sheds, I think that no loom sheds should, in future, be allowed to be constructed, unless the bays, as we call them, are eleven feet within the pillars. I think that if that is done, the workpeople will have ample room to work among the looms. Of course, there is a number of old weaving sheds which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to alter; but times do occur when the machinery has to be renewed, and if the Home Secretary could, by some means or other, insist that when renewals take place, there shall be a greater space for machinery, I think that he would do a good and legitimate thing. I think that the Home Secretary has a great deal of power to exercise pressure in these matters. For instance, he could tell people who were desirous of keeping their machinery in a confined space, that if they did not make their spacing more liberal they must provide for carrying the cloth from the looms by means independent of the weaver, in a more or less wholesale way, in trucks or otherwise; also that they must provide for the lifting of beam by block and pulley, so that the workers may not run the risk of overstrain when working in a narrow and confined place. And now a few words about humidity. The hon. Member for Clitheroe desires that artificial humidifying should be abolished. I would ask, with all respect, if he thinks

  2117
  that he has the workpeople behind him in this demand The absolute abolition of humidity, I maintain, is not desirable. The condition that we wish to attain to for satisfactory weaving is the condition that prevails naturally when there is a moist south-west wind blowing. Surely, if the wind is fresh and sweet, that condition of things is not an unhealthy condition The Lancashire atmosphere, as we all know, and as the hon. Member himself has said, is peculiarly favourable to the spinning and weaving of cotton. It is favourable because it is humid. The atmosphere in Lancashire is humid on more days of the year than in any other place, so far as I know, in the whole civilised world, and that is why we have this trade.
  There are, on the other hand, of course, many days, even in Lancashire, when it is dry and when the east wind blows, and there are days when we have frost. We cannot manipulate a cotton warp, which has to last for three or four weeks in weaving, and have the conditions the same all the time as we ought to have, unless we bring science to bear on natural agencies. All we want to do is to keep the atmosphere on these raw, cold, dry days more like the Lancashire atmosphere as we all know it. There has been an enormous improvement with regard to the conditions of the weaving sheds during the last few years. I can look back now for thirty years. I remember when every crack and cranny was filled up to prevent a breath of air reaching the workpeople, and it was done by the workpeople themselves, and I remember over and over again, in the experience of my father and myself, attempts to introduce fresh air which were bitterly resisted and resented by the very people for whose benefit they were made. I remember when the atmosphere was moistened positively by the breath of the workpeople and the moisture exhaled from their bodies, and, if that was not enough, the floor was splashed with water, and you heard hissing jets of steam loud enough to overcome the clatter of the looms. We do not work under these conditions to-day. Operatives are naturally sensitive, and I remember, when the Home Office first ordered us to put up hygrometers, the case of a weaver who said, when it had been there for some weeks, that he had always got a sore throat ever since that instrument was put up. We have overcome that prejudice now, and I believe that most employers and workers do try to continue a reasonable state of things sufficiently good
  2118
  for the health and sufficiently good for the processes in which we are all engaged. The change which I see in the health of the workpeople since we have promoted regular ventilation is enormous. My factory is in a small town surrounded by moorland farms in a more or less healthy district, and I remember seeing in the old days, with very great pain, young people coming to the works with ruddy fresh cheeks and a healthy appearance, and those cheeks growing pale and anæmic, and those eyes growing dim, and all for the want of healthy conditions. Now we pump air into the place to improve the conditions and I see that these cheeks do not grow pale. On the other hand, I see the pale cheeks regaining the glow of health, by means of fresh air of a suitable quality which can be easily obtained.
  Lancashire air is excellent. Give them lots of it when the weather is suitable, but let us have at our disposal the benefits of scientific invention and let us be able on those day when the air and the natural conditions are not suitable to treat that air in the most scientific manner that can be devised. I do think with the hon. Members that things are not entirely satisfactory, and principally for this reason, that so far as I can ascertain there is no uniformity between one district and another. In the district which I know best things are well watched. If there is the slightest excess of humidity you hear about it at once. The inspectors are active, and properly active, looking after the works under their jurisdiction, but I went myself only the other day to another district for the purpose of seeing some new machinery. I went to a place that was a perfect disgrace. The sweat was dropping from the people. The steam was fully turned on. The whole thing was in a condition which ought not for a moment to be allowed, and I say to the Home Secretary that I do not think it fair to the parties who try to do their duty, and to the inspectors who try to see that that duty is done, that other people in other districts should be allowed to be so lax that the conditions are as had as those which I have witnessed. I think that most of us are sympathetic with our people. We know that out of a good healthy worker we get good work and plenty of it, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to exercise, as I am sure he will, a judicious, quiet, constant pressure to bring all districts into line so as to improve in the only way in which he can do it the conditions of the working people.
  Mr. DUNCANMILLAR: I desire briefly to refer to another question which is of considerable interest to many constituencies in the country, that is the enforcement of the provisions of the Coal Mines Act of 1911. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible in future to let us have a Report of the Chief Inspector of Mines before us, before a discussion can be taken upon such matters. The last Report was issued in March, 1912, and a year and a half has elapsed since then, and I am sure that it is the desire of many hon. Members to ascertain from the figures which may be available in the Homo Office, how the Act has been working since it came into operation. I have the disadvantage of not having that information, but the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to answer certain questions which I asked with regard to matters affecting chiefly the Lanarkshire coal fields. I would ask now, in the first place, whether he can satisfy us a little further to-day that the provisions of the Coal Mines Act of 1911, so far as they relate to rescue and aid appliances, which were under that Statute to be provided in all districts of the United Kingdom, have been complied with. There are many districts which have desired to meet the provisions of this Order, and, on the other hand, there has been a disinclination, elsewhere on the part of certain coal owners, to provide the necessary rescue apparatus in order to safeguard the situation in an adequate way. There is a danger or risk of serious disaster, particularly in large coal fields like the Lanarkshire coal field, and I think it very desirable that further steps should be now taken to make it perfectly clear that the Home Office intend to carry out the provisions of the Statute. The coal owners have observed the regulations only in so far as they enforce upon them the provision of smoke helmets in certain districts. What is wanted is complete sets of breathing apparatus, and other appliances which would be sufficient to combat any serious conflagration or any conditions which involve danger to a rescue party. I hope that we may get a further assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to lay down that general rule for the whole country, and to see that these rescue appliances are supplied as they are required, in quantities which his experts have advised him are necessary, and in terms
  2120
  of the regulations which have been approved of under that Order; and that the few--I hope I may say there are only a few—coal owners who have hitherto refused to give effect to the Order will be brought into line with those who have seen it to be necessary in the interests of miners to be properly safeguarded in the dangerous work in which they are engaged. Another matter is a subject which is at present engaging the attention of the Committee which is inquiring into the question of spontaneous combustion in mines. I refer to the question of hydraulic stow-age. The right hon. Gentleman has informed me on different occasions that this matter is receiving very careful attention by the Committee which is at present sitting. I would ask him to keep in view that the question is one of great importance from two points of view: in the first place, as it affects the lives and safety of the men who are engaged in the mines, and that is the most important aspect; and, in the second place, as it affects the surface of the ground and the buildings upon the surface. It is one of those methods which has been proved to demonstration in parts of this country and on the Continent to have been very effectual in both respects. I should like to refer to the fact that the matter has been already dealt with on two separate occasions in the report of the chief inspectors. In the year 1910 reference was made in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Mines to the hydraulic packing of mines, a process that is effected as the coal is removed, by means of debris brought into the mine through steel tubes by hydraulic pressure. In this Report reference is made to the fact that the Committee appointed by the Royal Commission on Mines described the hydraulic packing of mines as practised in France as a possible method of adaptation to the working of thick coal in South Staffordshire and elsewhere. The Committee also reported that:—
  "If the method could be applied to the thick coal it would result in the more complete extraction of that seam, and combined with hydraulic stowage the total prevention of gob fires."
  I attach great importance to its operation in regard to the prevention of fires by spontaneous combustion in the mines themselves. I would also refer to the report of a deputation which proceeded from Hamilton in Lanarkshire to Pas de Calais, Essen, and other parts of the Continent. The deputation came to the conclusion, after having discussed the matter with experts in different parts of the

  2121
  country that the system must be regarded as having passed a long way beyond the experimental stage—
  "and is operated finder conditions as unfavourable as any obtaining in Hamilton so far as the stability of the surface is affected.… The necessity for supporting the surface is the first consideration, but it is not the only consideration, for experience has proved that this method of supporting the roof and the workings, liable to fracture, has been accompanied by a material saving of human lives."
  It is from that point of view I should like to press it on the right hon. Gentleman. The deputation went on further to deal with the facts as they related to the town of Essen which is a very large industrial centre with a population of a quarter of a million, and with solve eight seams of coal being worked beneath and varying in thickness from less than ten inches to five and a half feet. It was demonstrated there how in that particular district it was found possible to prevent subsidence of any kind whatever by means of this system which has been successfully adopted. I may also refer to the Report of last year in which the matter was carried a little further, and where reference was made to the only experiment which has been tried in the United Kingdom to carry this process of hydraulic stowage into operation. I refer to the experiment which was tried at. Dalzell and Brournside Colliery belonging to the Wishaw Coal Company—
  "in, connection with the extraction of a large area of coal. 150 feet below the surface, in the form of pillars (stoops), which would otherwise have to be abandoned owing to the subsidence and flooding which would follow their removal hi the ordinary way."
  The Chief Inspector in his Report, says:—
  "Though this mine is not subject to spontaneous combustion the fact that it was found possible to apply this method of filling wastes in a British colliery points to the probability that it could he successfully applied with a view of preventing gob fires."
  The Chief Inspector for Scotland said further that:—
  "From a mining point of view the system appears most successful, as no work in it is very difficult or highly technical."
  It seems to me that the time has come when the Home Office might take a step further and endeavour to carry the Committee on Spontaneous Combustion to some conclusion which would lead to the adoption of this system in other parts of the country. We have had an experiment conducted in Scotland with great success, although no doubt there the first consideration has been to prevent the flooding of certain passages in the mines. I do not see why, if it can be done to meet commercial necessities, it should not be done to meet the dangers to which miners are exposed in order to secure greater safety for them
  2122
  in their work. I base my case, in the first place, on the safety of the men themselves. In the second place, there is another very important problem to be faced in connection with this matter, and that is as to how to prevent the very serious damage to buildings which is caused in many parts of the United Kingdom through mineral workings. There are many centres undermined and honeycombed by mineral workings. Uuder the Scottish land system, which, I am bound to say in this matter particularly, has been shown to be extremely hard and unfair, it is impossible for a man to secure compensation for damage done to his buildings, because when he enters into his feu contract or building lease the landlord insists that he shall contract out of the common law obligation requiring support for the surface of the ground. It is impossible thus to obtain ground from the landlord except on the condition that he is not responsible. He gives the power to erect buildings, and then may let his minerals with the right to bring down the surface, and the feuar or householder has no recourse whatever, I do not think that is a fair system, though, of course, it would be out of order to deal with the matter as it affects the system of land tenure. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can carry his interest in the matter a little further still to deal with this question of buildings. There are many large cities affected, and many districts where the seams are still being worked out, and in such a way that the subsidence of the surface is the necessary complement of the workings below. I think it -would be very desirable that we should take a lesson from our Continental neighbours, who have succeeded in dealing with this matter very successfully in very large centres, and in securing that important commercial buildings, factories, and other public buildings shall be absolutely safe and secure against the possibility of damage.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not see how the desires of the hon. Member can be carried out without legislation, so that his remarks arc not in order.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: It is dealt with in the Reports of the Chief Inspector, and I am using this argument as an argument to support my first argument, namely, that the safety of the miners would be secured by the introduction of a

  2123
  system of hydraulic stowage of mines. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether ho can inform us as to the work which is being carried on by the present staff of inspectors of mines. There has been a very general demand made for the enlargement of that staff. To that desire or demand, the right hon. Gentleman has acceded to a certain extent, but I am not quite satisfied that even yet we have got sufficient inspectors to attend to the whole work which is imposed upon them. Take for example the inspection of pit ponies. Throughout the whole country there are only six of those inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman has given us an undertaking that if they are not sufficient in number for the work, he will consider as to adding to them. I should like to know what the experience of the past year has been, and whether he is not now satisfied that in order to have that work properly done (because at present the mines can only be visited once during the year) further appointments should be made. In answer to a question which I put to him the other day as to the examinations held by the new Board, he informed me that the results of the last examination held in May had not yet been received from the examiners. It does seem to me it is a very long time for those unfortunate candidates to wait to be informed of the result. I hope he may give us some explanation as to that.
  I notice that there are comparatively few of the candidates who go up for these certificates of competency who are fortunate enough to secure them. I trust that the examination is not being conducted on too strict lines. We do want to insist that there are sufficient qualifications and sufficient knowledge on the part of all those who go up, but I hope the examination will not be made too strict, and that those with a practical knowledge of their work and good capacity will not be refused the certificates which they desire. I am satisfied that the Board are most anxious to act impartially in this matter. I welcome very cordially the names of those who are appointed to this Board, including certain hon. Members of this House, whose knowledge of this subject is very special, and of responsible persons in the country. I hope that the candidates will not be discouraged at the comparatively small number who are successful in obtaining certificates, and that in future an effort will be made to make this examination a fair test and a full test, but not too
  2124
  severe a test of those who go up to qualify. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman may give us some assurance that the Act of 1911 has been working well during the past year, and that we may contemplate that it will lead to a very great diminution in the dangers and in the casualties associated with our coal mines.
  Colonel BURN:I wish to plead with the Home Secretary the case of juvenile first offenders, because I think we all know the French proverb, which is very applicable to them, "Il n'y a que le premier pas qui caûte." Once the first plunge is taken the descent is a comparatively easy one. I plead for greater latitude of time to be given to them or their friends for the payment of fines. They are often sentenced for some comparatively trivial offence the first time they ever come before the magistrate, and if only time were given to them, it is very often the case that philanthropic people would come to the rescue, and people who make a practice in trying, so far as it is possible, to rescue these young people from careers of crime. I hold no brief for the habitual criminal. No' one likes better than I do to see the law take its course. I claim for these young people that some assistance might very easily be given. After all, if these boys once see the inside of a gaol it becomes very difficult for them afterwards to get employment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That subject does not arise on this Vote. It must be raised on Class III., Vote 7 or 8.
  Captain MURRAY: I wish to raise a question in connection with the regulation issued by the President of the Local Government Board prohibiting the use of "cut-outs" on motor cars and motor cycles. That was a very excellent regulation, but it remained for the Home Secretary to ensure that it was properly carried out.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question arises on Class III., Vote 7.
  Captain MURRAY: As the subject was one for the police, I was under the impression it should be raised on this Vote.
  Mr. KING: I hope that I shall be able to raise a matter which will be in order. I desire to refer to matters connected with prisons, but they do not arise in the Prisons Vote; they are directly pertinent to the personal administration of the Home Secretary himself. I am very glad that, on the whole, there has been such

  2125
  amiable approval from all parts of the House of my right hon. Friend's administration. In the various departments of his office I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself an extremely able and amiable administrator. I have always found him so, and I wish to recognise it. There are two matters which I think are deserving of special attention. Upon one, I give my right hon. Friend the highest praise; on the other, I give him my severest condemnation. I feel so strongly about the latter matter that if it were not for the former I should move a reduction of his salary; but as the matters are equally balanced, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and support him. The first matter is his administration of what is known as the "Cat-and-Mouse" Act. For this I give him the highest praise. I believe that the whole country is grateful to the Home Secretary for the firm, impartial, and admirable way in which he has kept the suffragists in as long as he dared and then let them out. In spite of all that was said when the Bill was passing by a few Members, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham), the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and others, who attacked the Home Secretary in advance because they were confident he would not administer the Act properly, now that he has enforced the Act extremely well there is not one of those Members present to raise objections. That in itself must be highly satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the Act is so well administered that all parties must be satisfied. Pressmen get a daily supply of admirable "copy" through the operation of the Act. Therefore it does goods to the Press industry. The suffragettes themselves, whether they are in prison or out, receive constant attention and get well advertised, which is just what they want. We have much less window-breaking than before, and, generally, quiet sensible people may go on their way, knowing that if the suffragettes are not in prison they are at any rate in nursing homes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will tell us what is the cost to the taxpayer of the administration of this Act. I suppose that the nursing homes are chosen by the Home Secretary, and that, therefore, the bill is paid by him.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. KING: I am very glad to hear that that it not so. If the right hon. Gentleman ever has to pay the bill I hope he will combine due comfort with proper economy. I now proceed to a matter which is much more serious, and in regard to which I can give no approval whatever to his action. There is still one German condemned for espionage lingering in an English prison. The Committee will remember that, on the occasion of his Gracious Majesty's visit to Berlin some time ago, three British officers were set free from German fortresses long before their sentences had expired. It was hoped by all who desire mutual good feeling between the two countries that the one German spy in England would be similarly treated. We have recently had two German spies. One, after having served only five months of his sentence, was set free in December last by the Secretary for Scotland in order that he might furnish certain information to one of our spending departments. I shall raise that matter on the. Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. I mention it merely as a contrast to the action of the Home Secretary. The Secretary for Scotland set free on very trivial grounds a German spy with only one-third of his sentence expired. The Home Secretary has many good grounds for setting free this spy, whose name is Heinrich Grosse, but he refuses to act on any one of them. This spy is a gentleman, a sportsman, an author, a man who has always shown a great preference for living in England rather than in Germany, who speaks English as well as he speaks German, and who is well known by his writings and otherwise. He is a very considerable author; he is well known as having espoused the cause of good relations between England and Germany. He has had, however, a very checkered and romantic career. [Laughter.] The Home Secretary need not laugh. I am not laughing at him. I am extremely serious, and I hope he will adopt a similar attitude.
  I do not claim that this man is a saint. Ho is a sinner like the rest of us, or rather more so. He has been in prison, I admit, He is, however, a man of most remarkable abilities, and he has seen life from many points of view. I could give his whole life-if necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would be a great deal more interesting than many speeches. He is undoubtedly a man of the standing of an officer of the

  2127
  Naval Reserve. He has taken his examinations as a captain in the German Naval Commercial Service, and he has served a year in the German Navy. If war broke out to-morrow and he were in Germany he would be summoned at once to take his place as an officer upon a German man-of-war. If the right hon. Gentleman wants absolute proof of my statements I can show him the documents. Taking advantage of a mere quibble, I am afraid it is nothing more, the right hon. Gentleman refuses this man the status of a German officer. He says that the Kaiser has set free British officers, and if we bad a German officer in one of our prisons we would set him free. Apparently, at the time he made that statement he was ignorant of the fact that this man is an officer in what would be considered the German Royal Naval Reserve. I seriously think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider the case. He says that the case has been considered; but I do not think it has been considered with a due realisation of the important facts. This man is now suffering from what I am afraid must be considered chronic kidney disease. I believe he will never again be in the same state of health as before. He has friends who, if he were set free, would look after him better than he has ever been looked after hitherto. I most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reopen the case. There are serious matters to which I have not alluded, because the right hon. Gentleman has allowed me to have a conversation with him upon the matter. I admit that he has considered the question, but I do not think he has considered it in all its bearings, or with the full sympathy and sense of justice which I implore him to bring to bear upon it. I think the justice of the case might even be allowed to be strained a little in consideration of the fact that it has been stated again and again in German popular papers that, whereas Germany set free three English officers who were sent over there by our Service, who were given full pay during the time they were in German prisons, and who, when they came back, would count the time they were in those prisons for pensions and promotion, yet this man, who is undoubtedly a naval officer, is not allowed to go free. I appeal most earnestly to my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I will deal with the matter first which has been brought before the House last, and with the words of the hon. Member (Mr. King) still ringing in our ears. I will say nothing about the first part of his speech. As to the second part, the hon. Member has very rightly and frankly said that he did not tell us all he knew about the gentleman to whom he referred. No doubt that reticence on his part prevents those of us who have heard him from coming to a decision, as might be the case with all the facts before us. He spoke of taking all the circumstances into account. I understand that he puts the case before the Committee to-day upon the grounds of international courtesy—
  Mr. KING: And that he is an officer.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: And that he is an officer and a gentleman; also the hon. Gentleman puts his case mainly upon the ground that as Germany did something for us we ought to do something for Germany. If the hon. Gentleman has any information at his disposal that the freeing of this officer and gentleman from one of our prisons would give intense gratification to Germany and the Kaiser the position would be somewhat altered. Up till now, from circumstances upon which I cannot enter, I do not think there is much evidence to come to that conclusion. The action of the hon. Gentlemen does more credit to his heart than to his head. Before I come to deal with the points which have been mentioned in the course of the Debate, I would like to deal with the general allegations made on both sides of the House. As hon. Members know, we have from time to time taken our part in international negotiations. We have attended conferences for years past. Officers from the Home Office have attended conferences this year on the night work of women and young persons. So far as conditions of labour are concerned we are, at any rate, abreast, if not ahead, of the nations of Europe. We have nothing to lose but everything to gain by bringing their standard up to ours. The hon. Member for Midlothian mentioned the question of the Explosives Order. He put a very reasonable case for the consideration of the Committee and of the Home Office. I understand his objection was not based so much on our general principle, as against the application of it to the particular circumstances of his constituency.
  Major HOPE: May I say I am of opinion that the whole Order might be relaxed, but I particularly request it in this special case?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I quite follow. May I explain to the Committee how this matter rests? The present requirement is that unused explosives must be brought out of the mines by the workmen at the end of the shift. This rule is based upon the views expressed in the Report of the Royal Commission on Mines. The object of this rule is no doubt to secure better control over the explosives in the mines, and thereby to secure greater safety. Speaking for myself, though it does seem a hardship at first sight—there being 700 feet from start to finish—and at the beginning and the end of the shift!—while it does at first sight seem to raise a presumption of hardship, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member who puts the point that this principle upon which we are acting in the matter of explosives shall not hold good or that it will be altered. A great deal has been said about the humidity of cotton-weaving sheds. The subject of humidity was recently inquired into by a strong Committee representing both operatives and employers. Mr. David Shackleton, onetime Member for Clitheroe, was a member of it,. This Committee, speaking in the name of the employers and workmen, arrived at unanimous recommendations, and these recommendations have been embodied in the new Regulations, which have been in force for some time. We have very great hope that a strict enforcement, of these regulations will get rid of the difficulties to which the hon. Member has referred. With regard to the slatching rooms, the point, as I understand it, which is emphasised in respect to these rooms is the moisture that is generated in the course of the operations—that Something should be done to carry it off. Of course, so far as possible, it is carried off by the hoods at the present time. I am given to understand that these rooms are comparatively large, and the number of operatives is comparatively small—that really it is not a question so much of ventilation as moisture. The hon. Member referred to something new. If the hon. Member desires, after this Debate is over, to put forward further points, either my right hon. Friend or myself will be very glad to inquire into them. In respect to State medical referees, I understand that
  2130
  the point was that, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, instead of having referees paid by fee from case to case, State medical referees, probably whole-timers, should be appointed, at any rate, paid for under the Compensation Act. If under the Insurance Act State medical referees are appointed for other purposes, without pledging the Department in any way, I do think that that, perhaps, alters the whole complexion of the case, and it might be possible to consider the subject from a much more sympathetic point of view. Then there is the question of light.
  Mr. A. SMITHmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member knows what he said. The present is perhaps a little early to make the inquiry asked for, but I may say, quite frankly, we have not lost sight of this matter. We have promised eventually that inquiry shall be made; it is really only a question of time. At any rate, the hon. Member can be quite certain we are not losing sight of our promise, nor of what he has placed before us. With regard to the lighting, there is a Lighting Committee. As hon. Members below the Gangway know, it is a strong Committee, but it deals with a very difficult subject. It has got a great deal of investigation work to enter into. When it comes to a decision, that decision will be carefully considered, and we hope it will have a good effect. Then, as regards the question of shuttle-kissing: I do not quite like to give the same answer this year that I gave last, but I am afraid it is the same answer which must be given. The real point is this: That we arc all anxious to remove the present system. We all admit--it is conclusive—that it works badly. The real question is what has the substitute to be? The moment there is an adequate substitute, when there is really a practical substitute, hon. Members need have no fear but that we shall do our best to remove the evils of the present system, and so far as we can, to substitute the new method.
  My attention has been directed to the matter of a museum of safety appliances. That is a very important subject. Some time ago I went to Stoke to open an exhibition there. I do not speak as an expert upon these matters, but the exhibition was a really wonderful one. It impressed me very much to see all these safety appliances, to see employers taking an active and leading part in bringing this exhibi-

  2131
  tion about—I need not mention names—and also to see the workmen going through performances with these appliances. I ventured upon that occasion to make the suggestion that this should become the basis of a permanent museum in that district, and for that particular neighbourhood. Since then other exhibitions have been held. Matters in this country sometimes proceed very slowly, and that probably will be the way in which this museum idea will work out. Something was said about having a museum in London and another in the North. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion if it could be brought about. At any rate, there ought to be an arrangement for a sort of exchange between London and the provinces, though the matter is much more important for the North than it is for London. There has, I say, quite frankly, been delay in this matter—the delay which always arises in our dealings with the Treasury, but that has been got over. It is now proposed to provide a museum under the Public Buildings Expenses Bill, which deals with the moneys available for the erection of Government buildings at Westminster. We hope, under the provisions of that Bill, to get a permanent Vote for these safety appliances. I should like to say a word about nominations. You may allow the Government to appoint the best man without examination. The moment you proceed by examination you may get the men who are not ripe for this class of work, because no examination can really secure the characteristics necessary for this work. The great and hopeful thing is that the conferences to which reference has been made—and already three have come to a decision—and we have now a fourth sitting—of employers and employed, with the presence of one of our inspectors, will have an effect of bringing about that consent in respect to many matters, and ensure amicable discussions between employers and employed, which are so very desirable.
  Mr. BOOTH: Various extraneous matters in connection with the Home Office have been dealt with. I wish to draw attention to the administration of the Children Act. There is a certain amount of overlapping at the present time. There are officers appointed under the Children Act which are, I think, under the aegis of the Home Office, and there are also school attendance officers, and general administrators and inspectors. One of
  2132
  the curious spectacles which, I think, can only be seen in London—
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under the Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order).
  Order for Consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now considered."
  Sir JOHN BETHELL: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of the provisions relating to the constitution of the Borough of East Ham as a County Borough, which appeared in the Bill as originally deposited."
  The Bill was before the Local Legislation Committee for six days, when evidence was given for the Bill on behalf of the borough of East Ham and against on behalf of the county of Essex. In addition to this evidence the Committee had before them a Report on the Bill by the' Local Government Board, in which the-Board expressed the view that "nothing should be done that might in any way prejudice the unhampered consideration of the future government of the Metropolis as a whole." And I think the Committee were influenced against the Preamble of the Bill by the Report of the Local Government Board. The Chairman (the hon. Member for South Leeds), however, in giving the decision of the Committee against the Preamble of the Bill, used-these words:—
  "I am desired by the Committee to add this remark—which is entirely outside their judgment-that t hey feel that the questions raised tire, in regard to consideration by a Committee, so novel, so important and so wide-reaching, that they would thoroughly welcome, if it were possible, the reconsideration of their decision by the House as a whole and if t he promoters of the Rill should, in the exercise of their own judgment, see their way and consider it in their interests to appeal from this Committee to the House as a. whole to decide the broader question, we should rejoice, soil that, for our guidance in cases of a similar nature in future, we might know the view of the House of Commons."
  We have here a definite suggestion from the Chairman of the Committee, which the corporation of East. Ham have accepted, and they have asked me to state

  2133
  the case from their point of view. East Ham is a municipal borough of about five square miles, situated in the extreme south-west corner of the county of Essex, and separated from London by the county borough of West Ham. Its progress and development have been most remarkable, and I venture to say without parallel in the United Kingdom. In 1881, the population was 10,700; in 1891, it was 32,700; in 1901, it was 96,000; in 1911, it was 133,400; and at the present time it is estimated at 143,000, the rate of increase today being about 5,000 per annum. The rateable value is £550,000. Of course, the population and rateable value of the borough will further increase when the dock extensions of the Port of London are completed.The borough is well equipped. It possesses electricity and tramway undertakings, which are serving the needs of the people, and have produced a profit in reduction of the local rates. It has twenty elementary schools, in which there are 25,000 children being educated. It has an efficient fire brigade, public baths, four libraries, town hall, municipal buildings, a technical institute, parks, and pleasure grounds. That index to good administration is to be found in die fact that the death rate is only 10.6 per 1,000 per annum. Of course the expense of administering the affairs of the borough is heavy, but that must always be the case in a rapidly developing district, inhabited almost entirely by the working classes. Hon. Members therefore will not be surprised to learn that the local rates amount to 10s.in the £. Now Sir, it is evident that a heavily burdened authority like this is not in a position to contribute to the revenues of an outside authority with which it has nothing in common.
  East Ham is now paying to the county of Essex a sum of at least £10,000 a year over and above the cost of any services rendered to it by the county; in other words, the borough pays 5d. in the £ on its rateable value to the county without getting anything in return. Although 5d. in the £ is a considerable item to the oppressed ratepayer of East Ham, the only benefit derived from this contribution by the county ratepayer is a ½d. in the £. I admit therefore that severance would add in the £ to the county rate, increasing it from 11d. to 11½d. in the £. Against that, however, the borough will pay the county compensation on the basis of the Report of the Joint Committee of 1911. The financial question is an important one,
  2134
  but there are other questions of equal importance. Under the present conditions, the secondary education of children in East Ham is under the control of the Essex County Council, but the money for that purpose is raised by the levy of a. special rate on the burgesses of East Ham. You have, therefore, one authority providing the money for another authority to spend. What East Ham wants is full control of the secondary education of the Children, and to be free to develop and extend the present system of secondary education in the borough. We have a large number of bright and intelligent boys and girls who have passed with distinction through the elementary schools of the borough, and we are anxious that they shall have the same opportunity to complete their education, as is now enjoyed by children in more favoured parts of the country.
  With regard to the maintenance of the main roads, there has always been contention between the borough and the county, and the ratepayers of East Ham' have been very unfairly treated by the county of Essex. They have to maintain roads which ought to be paid for out of the county rate. The administration of the National Insurance Act is under the control of the Essex County Council, although we have 40,000 members of approved societies resident in the borough. The licensing and control of music-halls is under the control of the Essex County Council. The administration of the laws for the sale of foods and drugs, a most important work in industrial districts, is under the control of the Essex County Council. The Motor Car Acts and Acts relating to weights and measures, etc., are controlled by the Essex County Council, which meets at Chelmsford, twenty-five miles away, and moreover, meets at eleven o'clock in the day, when it is impossible for the working men representatives of East Ham to attend. The area of the county of Essex is nearly 1,000,000 acres, roughly 300 times that of the borough of East Ham. The population is 1,061,000, seven and a half times that of East. Ham, and the rateable value £5,231,000, ten times that of the borough of East Ham. It is admitted by the Essex County Council that the Clauses of the Bill carry out the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the two Houses which reported last year. They admit that the compensation and adjustment recommended by the Joint Committee is reasonable. I cannot under-

  2135
  stand the action of the Essex County Council in opposing this Bill. The Southend Corporation have a Bill before the House this Session; it was introduced in the House of Lords and passed through all its stages in that House, and received the Second Reading here, and is now before one of our legislative Committees. The Essex County Council have agreed not to oppose it. The Preamble was approved yesterday, and the Bill is likely to pass all its stages in this House. I say that if this House grants county borough powers to a town like Southend with a population of 75,000, it cannot deny these powers to East Ham with a population of 143,000. I have dealt with the question between the county and the borough. It now only remains to me to deal with the Report of the Local Government Board. The Report assumes that the granting of county borough powers to East Ham would prejudice the future government of the Metropolis. As to that, county borough powers were granted to West Ham and Croydon in the extra Metropolitan areas, and why should the granting of such powers to East Ham prejudice the future government of London? If you annex East Ham you must annex Croydon and West Ham. County borough powers have already been granted to fifty-eight boroughs with smaller populations, but East Ham, the twentieth great town in England and Wales is denied these powers. Fncler the Local Government Act of 1888 no distinction is made between boroughs in the neighbourhood of London and boroughs which are not in that neighbourhood in connection with the granting of county borough powers. The Corporation in East Ham will be subject to the same terms and conditions as West Ham and Croydon in the event of absorption by the county of London. They are prepared to agree to anything within reason, but they are not disposed to agree to the postponement of county borough powers for the sake of a scheme that may never see the light of day. What evidence is there that the London 'County Council wish to add to its present tremendous responsibilities? What evidence is there that 2,500,000 or 3,000,000 persons over the border desire their areas to be annexed to the county of London? What prospect is here of such a demand arising in the near future, and a Session of Parliament being devoted, as it would have to be devoted, to a measure
  2136=of this magnitude? I say there is practically none. I appeal to the House to pass this Amendment and to say chat we shall be no longer denied in East Ham the fullest opportunity to develop our corporate life and to have the seat of municipal administration in the midst of our people, and to encourage that civic patriotism which is the essence of self-government. I beg to move.
  Mr. PERCY ALDEN: I beg to second the Amendment, and I wish to say that all the other larger extra Metropolitan areas may possibly be in the same position in the future that East Ham finds itself in to-day. If this Motion for recommittal is refused we shall also be in the same difficulty as Walthamstow. We shall never be able to claim larger powers, and never be able to control the services to which the hon. Member has referred. I should like to mention the difficulties in Walthamstow to reinforce the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Walthamstow's total contribution to the county rate of Essex in 1900 was £7,770. In the year ending March, 1913, it was £26,441, and of that amount Walthamstow received back in 1913 only £6,500. I think these figures alone are very conclusive, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education yesterday shows that this is only the beginning, and that very much larger contributions will be required from Walthamstow and from those other extra Metropolitan districts for secondary educational purposes, and they will rot get back from the county anything like t he amount that they subscribed.
  There is one other point, and with that I shall leave the county of London so far as I am concerned. I do not see that the conferring of county borough powers on East Ham would in any sense or degree prejudice the question of Greater London. Indeed, the moment you begin to consider the question of Greater London you have to deal with the two counties, Essex and Middlesex, and when you clear the county difficulties out of the way, you would make it much easier for any statesman who desires to deal with the immense problem of Greater London. I trust the county borough powers will not be denied to East Ham and that they will not be denied to any of those large county boroughs or urban districts. We know nothing about the plans for a Greater London. So far as I know, no scheme has

  2137
  been put forward that has ever been seriously considered by the extra-Metropolitan boroughs. When such a scheme is put forward whichever Government is in power, such a scheme will find the extra-Metropolitan boroughs perfectly willing to listen to any scheme. They do not want to divorce themselves from London or the interests of London. For the present they must consider their own interests and they ask for these larger powers because they have shown in the past they can when given these greater powers administer their own civil affairs economically.
  Mr. MIDDLEBROOK: As Chairman of the Committee that had to consider this Bill, I feel it is due to the House that I should make some explanation, and I may say that the attitude of the Committee was not one in any sense hostile to the claims made by East Ham. They started on the assumption that they have a right to look for guidance from this House in this respect. The history of East Ham in regard to these matters is somewhat unusual. In 1888, Parliament passed an Act giving powers to any borough which might have a population of not less than 50,000 to apply to one particular Department—a Department supposed by its knowledge and experience, to be the best suited for coming to a conclusion upon questions of this nature. That Department must hold an inquiry arid if it finds on inquiry into all the circumstances that in the words of the Act, it was desirable that the borough in question should become a county borough, then the powers might be granted subject to the confirmation of the Order issued by the Local Government Board. The Act seems to fail upon one point, and that is in giving any indication of how far the word "desirable" is applied. We want to know whether it is to be solely from the point of view of the borough that is making the application and the possessors—the only qualification referred to in the Act of Parliament—of numbers, or were they to be desirable, not only from the point of view of that borough, but also of the county which necessarily must he affected by having the borough taken cut of its area; or whether there may not be a still wider view, and the word "desirable" should apply to all the circumstances affecting the particular case and the whole of the area, not only of the borough itself and of the county, but of all the surrounding area, whether in the county or not.
  2138
  Under those circumstances the borough of East Ham, having a population of upwards of 100,000, now estimated at about 140,000, made the application in the usual course to the Local Government Board. After some correspondence that Board, took the usual course and held an inquiry. The borough and the county were represented and, so far as I know, every other interest affected was represented. That inquiry went into the details of the case in every respect, and the result was the refusal of the request for the county borough powers. The borough not being satisfied with that decision, adopted the course of promoting a Bill in Parliament asking that those powers might be granted to them. That Bill is the first occasion upon which a Committee of this House has had to consider a question of this nature, except in regard to Eastbourne, which raised a question of a very different nature, in which there were other items involved. I believe I am correct in saying that a Committee of this House has never before had to consider an application for county borough powers opposed by the county from which it proposes to divide itself, and certainly has never had to consider such a question in the nature of a Bill brought before Parliament. The Committee had to consider the course taken by that Department and the report made to them advising that they should reject the application, and they came to the conclusion that whilst that action and that report formed one element to which they should give such weight as they considered necessary, it did not compel the Committee in any way to arrive at the same decision as the Local Government Board. They felt that the Committee, as representing for the time being this House, was not only entitled, but was bound to consider the whole of the circumstances of the case, and giving some weight to that report, and to the fact of that inquiry having taken place, they treated it as one element in the matter, but their decision was not based on that alone.
  They arrived practically at the conclusion that to grant these powers in regard to East Ham meant that no application of that nature where a borough population exceeded 50,000 inhabitants could ever be refused in the future, and the reasons for the suggestion, made when giving the decision of the Committee, state that if they apply to this House the Committee would rather welcome the application, because it would give them guidance in cases of a similar nature in the future

  2139
  to know what view the House might take. I am not going to attempt to deal with this question from the point of view of the merits or demerits of the borough of East Ham. The Mover of this Amendment has put this case in a perfectly fair way before the House, and I have not a word of complaint to make as to his statement, or a word of criticism to make in regard to the borough itself. The points he has put before us, however, do not cover the wider ground which the Committee desire the House to consider, and they felt that they were entitled, in view of the facts urged upon them, to ask for the assistance of this House. I would just like to say that in June last the House really considered this very question in the case of Provisional Orders relating to Cambridge, Wakefield, and Bedford, and the House gave directions to the Committee considering those Provisional Orders to take into consideration, not only the circumstances of the borough, but also how the decision of the question will affect the county. In this case we require the assistance of the House, not only as to how it will affect the borough and the county, but also how it will affect the other districts. The circumstances being different from any other case which has come before us.
  The Committee gave six days to the hearing of this particular aspect to the Bill, and every opportunity and assistance was afforded, both the promoters and the opponents, to place before the Committee in the fullest way the whole of the facts bearing upon this question. I think I am justified in stating to this House, that if I have any predilection at all it is in favour of the borough from the fact that the whole of my life I have been engaged in municipal work in a borough. I cannot agree to the full with the Mover that because a borough pays to a county a larger sum of money per annum than is actually spent within its own boundaries that that county makes a profit from the borough. It is true upon the face of it, but it is not true when you consider the whole facts, and East Ham is rather a valuable illustration of this case. As has already been stated, East Ham contributes about £10,000 per annum more than they actually receive in expenditure within their own area, but the evidence showed that 90 per cent. of, that payment was in respect of main roads. It so happens that the main roads within the area of East Ham borough bear a very small proportion to the main
  2140
  roads in the total area of the county, but the supporters of this Motion would never say, nor would any other hon. Member of this House say, that a borough derives benefits solely from that portion of the main roads within its own boundary, and no benefit from the main roads outside its own area, although it contributes to those roads. That would lead us to a very difficult conclusion, and almost a ridiculous one, because if accepted it would mean that a small hamlet with a large length of main road running into it, and having little or no need for its own purposes of that main road, should simply pay such an amount as would maintain a road sufficient for its own local purposes. That would be a ridiculous contention, because we know the condition of the main road must be maintained throughout the whole length equal to the traffic that has to use it.
  That question really leads you to the much larger one whether the maintenance of the main roads should be neither a county nor a borough but a National matter. That question, however, is outside the limits of our discussion, and I simply want to use it to this extent. It so happens that the borough in question has a very small length of main road within its boundaries in proportion to the total main roads of the county, and yet it derives a very much larger advantage than accrues to it by the use of the short length within its own area. The reasons which led the Committee to this decision were really cumulative. There were reasons as regards the detrimental effect of the withdrawal of this area with its large population and its large contribution to the county rates, a contribution arising to a very great extent from works that are strictly no part of the borough—the portion of the London Docks and the large gasworks that serve the area of greater London that are included in the borough. It came to the conclusion partly because of the very great injury that the county would suffer by cutting out this particular area from it. It came to the conclusion, further, because it felt that the time is ripe, and it hoped that its action might be one of inducement to the Government, to deal with the question of greater London. And it came to the conclusion, in addition, because there are four, five, or six other places with similar conditions to those at East Ham which are watching the action now being taken, and which will almost certainly follow this application if

  2141
  it be successful. The Committee felt that their action in the refusal of East Ham would probably lead to the acceleration of those applications, and that, whilst it is a matter of serious injury to the county that you should take one area after another of this nature out of the county over a succession of years, it was better they should know at one time one definite scheme affecting the whole.
  The conditions existing are probably peculiar to this county. It is not the common case we have constantly before us of a self-contained borough standing alone in the county surrounded by a large rural area. East Ham is one borough at one corner of the county with four or five or six urban authorities in the same corner of the county, each one in a condition to apply for its own county borough powers, and it would he better that these applications should come altogether rather than be spread over a series of years. The reason for that is that the county has to make its plans for its own management. It is now considering questions such as the provision of a lunatic asylum and of sanatoria, and questions of that nature, and, until it knows the area and population for which it is responsible, it is difficult for it to formulate definite plans for the management of its affairs. I come back to the one main point the Committee had in view and which they desired that the House should recognise. The refusal of this power to East 11am would probably, for a time, cause not only serious disappointment, but, in view of the course that has been adopted in the past, some injustice to that borough; but that is smaller in its effect, if this application be granted, than the settlement of the great principle that neither this House nor any Committee nor the Local Government Board can, in the future, consistently refuse any application that conies from a borough with a population of the number required by the Act of 1888. If the House in its wisdom thinks fit to say that is to be the attitude with regard to the formation of county boroughs, this Committee will appreciate the guidance given to it, will loyally abide by the decision to which the House will come, but will feel that in so doing the House is settling a great principle that will seriously affect the future government of our country.
  Captain WEIGALL: As a Member of the Committee, I should like to associate myself with every word that has fallen from the last speaker. I feel that this
  2142
  question raises far wider issues than the ordinary issue which is raised in questions of this sort. Usually, it merely revolves itself into a financial wrangle between the urban interest on the one hand and the rural interest on the other. I cannot help feeling that here on the floor of the House we are concerned with rather wider issues than that. It is perfectly easy for either the urban interests to make out a good case that benefits are not received for the expenditure that is insisted on, and in the same way it is perfectly easy for the rural interests to make out a good case, but here I do venture to suggest we are concerned with the national interests in this problem. We know perfectly well that both the urban and the rural interests are mutually interdependent one upon the other: the urban interests are dependent upon the rural interests for what I may call a living stream of humanity to maintain their virility and vitality, and the rural interests are dependent upon the urban interests, because they supply a common commercial centre for every form of production; but in this case we have the widest interests involved.
  We had the whole of this rural and urban question argued before the House admirably only a few days ago, and we are not concerned to-night with rearguing that question. I would ask the House, so far as the history of East Ham is concerned, to remember that if they reverse the decision of the Committee, which spent six days in sifting the evidence, they will take on themselves a very grave responsibility. I would ask them also to remember flat the whole of this evidence was heard previously by an inspector of the Local Government Board. I think that it would have saved a great deal of time and a considerable amount of expense if we, on that Committee, had been allowed to see the evidence and also the report of that inspector. I asked for it, but was told that it was a confidential document and that we could not see it. It only makes the case all the stronger. The whole of this question has been threshed out before two separate tribunals. They have both arrived at the same decision, and I venture to submit that our Committee, in addition to hearing the whole of the evidence, availed themselves of the legal advice and the Parliamentary procedure advice which this House places at the disposal of Committees upstairs, and, as a result of that advice, we came to the conclusion that the word "desirable," in the Act of 1888, allowed us to take into

  2143
  consideration the national effect—the effect, on the one hand, on the county of Essex, and, on the other hand, the effect on the extra-Metropolitan area.
  9.0. P.M.
  Let me take the effect on the county of Essex first. We felt strongly, from the point, of view of Essex, that if East Ham was to be granted these county borough powers it would probably be followed by the successive separation, I might almost say by the successive divorces, of Ilford, Walthamstow, and Leyton, every one of which, if East Ham were given county borough powers, would claim the same powers, and the Local Legislation Committee could not refuse them. Just think, from the point of view of Essex, what the result would be on the whole of their finances and on their administration. I will only mention one effect. They are negotiating with the Road Board for the improvement of the whole of their main roads, at a cost of something like a quarter of a million sterling, and the negotiation is based on the assumption that they are going to retain, at any rate for some considerable period of time, the same rateable value that they now possess. I feel strongly, from the point of view of the county of Essex, that it is reasonable for them to ask, if there is to be a divorce, it should be comprehensive, so that they may know where they are in the matters both of finance and of administration. I feel, from the point of view of the extra-Metropolitan area, that this is a very large question and that we cannot deal with it piecemeal. We are not concerned to-night whether the extra Metropolitan area should be included in the Metropolitan area, or whether it should be dealt with in some other way. I know there is a large body of opinion which feels that the extra Metropolitan area should be included, but there is also a large body of opinion which feels that the area now controlled by the London County Council is almost unwieldly as it is, and that no addition should be made to it. I am not concerned with those two questions, but what I am concerned with is this: that it is so large a question that it ought to be dealt with by some higher tribunal than the Local Legislation Committee, and that it ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive way. You may say, "You arrived at a decision, and, through the mouth of your Chairman, asked the advice of the House not on the East Ham ques-
  2144
  tion." I will give the Mover of the Instruction every one of his arguments. I will admit that East Ham has proved its case up to the hilt, that it is worthy of county borough powers. But by an accident of geography it happens to form a portion of a larger area, the future of which we cannot divorce from our minds. It is really on this ground that we come to the House for a guiding principle that we may act on in future on the Local Legislation Committee, when this self-same question, as affecting other areas, comes before us. The words of the Chairman were these:—
  "And if the promoters of the Bill should, in the exercise of their own judgment, see their way to consider it in their interests to appeal from this Committee to the House, as a whole, to decide the broader question."
  That is the whole point. This broader question, I feel, is a question of imminent importance that can only be decided by a higher tribunal than a small Committee representing this House. I am going to make a very strong appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to agree to have the whole of this question referred either to a Royal Commission or to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept that position, if a Royal Commission can be set up and can report either before or very soon after the House meets after our recess, I feel that no harm can come to the borough of East Ham. I do not want to close the door to East Ham. My position is this: If East Ham had been where Southend is, I should have been perfectly prepared to give my vote in favour of granting these county borough powers. Southend is on an entirely different plane. It is 40 miles away. It is a self-contained area which has apparently complied with all the conditions that were contemplated when the Act of 1888 was put by this House on the Statute Book. But these other boroughs that are within the extra Metropolitan area are on an entirely different plane, and the matter is of sufficient importance to send either to a Royal Commission or to a Joint Committee of both Houses. In the reference to that body I would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to include the whole question as between urban and rural areas. It was dealt with by the Prime Minister in answer to certain deputations, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman gave the only advice that a man of his capacity and ability could give, namely, that these cases must be dealt with on their merits. Here is a case outside the category of the urban and rural

  2145
  question, and I say that it should be settled once and for all. It affects every single Member of this House. We are all either rural or urban partisans. I am free to confess that if it comes to open partisanship the whole of my sympathies would go with the rural community. These, however, are not the grounds on which I oppose this Instruction. I go still further and I say that all these questions would be very much better judged in this House if it were a condition of candidature for Parliament that a man should sit at least three years on some local authority. I make a most earnest appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to hang up this matter of East Ham until the whole question of the extra Metropolitan area has been decided by a Royal Commission, and also the whole urban and rural question, so that at any rate we on the Local Legislation Committee may have sonic sound basis on which to decide the question.
  Mr. BECK: After the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member opposite and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Middlebrook), it is hardly necessary for a Member representing an Essex constituency to say anything further.But what I do wish to associate myself with is this: I do not in the least desire to stand in the way of any aspiration on the part of East Ham. I do not in the least quarrel with the very able way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir J. Bethell) put forward his case, but what I do say is this, that these so-called rural areas are not being fairly treated if the House to-day retreats from the position it took up only three weeks ago. We then, on the Bill in which Cambridge and other towns sought county borough powers, appealed to the Local Government Board that those counties in which the particular towns were should not be cut about and made almost unworkable as a local governing community. The President of the Local Government Board then agreed to a recommendation being made to the Committee which was to consider the question, and that recommendation was:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee particularly to consider the probable effect that the continuation of each Provisional Order included in the Rill would have on the capacity, whether financial or otherwise, of each county council affected, to continue efficiently county council administration in the residue of the county area."
  Hon. Members below the Gangway and elsewhere accuse those of us who represent rural areas of being reactionaries.
  2146
  We are always told that we are selfish. I have never seen where we are selfish. My own opinion is that we carry a great deal more than our fair share of the burdens of this country. What I want to say, and I say it with all respect to hon. Members who differ from me, is that we agreed to that Instruction without a protest, and we did not divide the House upon it. Yet to-night borough Members ask this House to turn its back entirely upon what it resolved three weeks ago. They told us then that it was really absurd for Members representing rural constituencies to object to the Bill being considered by a Committee of this House. The Bill before us to-night has been considered by a Committee of the House, and we have heard two most able speeches from two of the most able Members of that Committee. No impartially minded man, with any sense of fairness to our rural districts, could listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds without being convinced of the weighty reasons which induced that Committee to refuse borough powers to East Ham. That is really the substance of our argument. To further show our good faith, we actually welcome the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Weigall) that we should submit our case to any fair and impartial tribunal this House likes to set up. Whether it is a Royal Commission or any other tribunal, we are quite willing to submit the whole of our case to that tribunal. What we do say—and I should have thought that every London Member would have been with us in this contention—is do not let us proceed blindfold in these matters.
  We have had two inquiries into the question of East Ham. Both inquiries, the Local Government Board inquiry and the Committee appointed by this House, say that this Bill should not proceed without the question being considered as to its effect on the whole of this part of the country generally. Yet we are told tonight that we should dragoon this Committee—for it means that if you pass this Instruction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly it does. Hon. Members do not know the procedure of this House. If we pass this Instruction the Committee is bound to give these powers to East Ham. [An HON. MEMBER: "They ask for our guidance."] They do not want the guidance we can give them in a few minutes of time now, but they ask, and we county Members are perfectly prepared to abide

  2147
  by it, for the guidance of this House upon the whole question. We cannot do more than that. You may outvote us if you desire to do so, but we cannot do more than frankly say to you "We will submit our case to any tribunal you like, and so long as you consider the whole future of the county councils, you can divide the country into fresh county council areas if you wish, but do not let the county councils go on spending money on roads, education, asylums, and all those objects which every Member with experience of local government knows so well, and then suddenly, without notice, cut a great area out of a county council and leave it stranded and unable to fulfil the functions which this House in past years has given to it." I do not think anybody can give greater proof of sincerity than by saying, appoint any impartial tribunal you like, and let it consider the question, but do not, in a partial, parochial, and narrow spirit, cut out a portion of a local rating area, and turn your back on the Committee you yourselves have appointed, and, above all, do not stultify the House by reversing the decision which it gave a few weeks ago.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I venture to take part in this Debate with some diffidence, because I recognise to the full the varying views entertained in the House on this very intricate and important question. If I thought that in what we are doing to-night we were doing what my hon. Friend who has just sat down suggested, namely, putting ourselves in antagonism to a Committee which has given this matter full and detailed consideration, I should have very great hesitancy in supporting it. I do not understand that that is our position for a single moment. I am responding to an appeal which has been made to us from that Committee, itself recognising that it was placed in a very difficult position and asking the House for guidance. Instead, therefore, of our acting in the matter in a spirit of hostility to the Committee, it is rather in accordance with the request of the Committee to make some attempt to give the guidance for which they ask. I recognise, too, that we are in a position of difficulty by reason of the course taken by the Local Government Board. There is no man who devotes himself more faithfully to the government of our country in its local aspects than the President of the Local Government Board. I am perfectly satisfied that in the course he has taken he has only been impelled by
  2148
  the highest motives and the desire to do what is best for local government. I desire, as one more or less identified with municipal government, to try to approach the question in the same broad-minded spirit.
  I recognise that it is of vital importance to our country that we should approach the further development of local government—and we certainly have not said the last word in regard to it—from the broadest possible standpoint and with the one supreme desire, whether it be county or municipality, to do what is best for local government in this country. Approaching it in that broad way, I am trying to face the issue placed before us, which I admit is a very difficult one. In doing so, I want to try to differentiate our present position to-night from that which was presented to us when the Cambridge and other proposals were before us a short time back. The hon. Member who has just sat down says that if we accept the proposal of my hon. Friend we shall be going back on all that we did the other night.I venture, very respectfully but entirely, to disagree with him. I say there is a complete distinction between the present proposal and the proposal which was then under consideration. I wish to explain that position. In the first place, the great matter which was-before us on that occasion was the effect of the appointment of a county borough upon the county itself. We referred that to the Committee, I think rightly, to take all the surrounding facts into consideration and in view of them to see whether or not it was "desirable." I have looked into the evidence of the Committee, and I find that the circumstances of this case are entirely different from the circumstances presented in the case, for-instancee, of Cambridge. This question was put to the clerk to the Essex County Council:—
  "May I take it that you agree with the answer which was given to the question put by one of the hon. Members, that if this were not a part of a large area formed by London you would not think it was at all inequitable that East Ham should desire this emancipation?"
  The clerk's answer was this:—
  "I think that if East Ham were an ordinary county provincial borough, and were not part of greater London, it would have a very good case."
  That differentiates the case altogether from the position presented by my hon. Friend. It is the statement of a man who knows best what the county of Essex is, the clerk of the council, and therefore eliminates the whole question, in my view,

  2149
  as between the county on the one hand and the borough on the other, and raises therefore the larger question, to which I desire to come back, which was more especially brought to our attention by the Chairman of the Committee. We have to face this question from the standpoint of the Act of 1888. That provides a definite method of procedure, and the point I put before the House, which, to my mind, it is capable of deciding, and which it ought to decide, is this: Procedure having been provided under an Act of Parliament which hitherto has been followed, in my view very wisely, if it is not to be followed, the onus must rest upon those who desire to prevent it being followed, and not upon those of us who desire in a particular case that the procedure shall go on. That onus has not been fulfilled by those who take the responsibility of opposing the Borough of East Ham being made into a county borough. I recognise that all the facts have to be taken into consideration, but I submit that for that purpose they must be facts. You must take the existing condition of things, and not some mere problematical position in the far future which none of us can gauge. Cambridge came to us under certain circumstances. The county of Cambridge said there were certain existing difficulties in which they would be seriously affected if that borough were taken out of it and formed into a county borough. Our answer was, "Let the Committee take all these facts into consideration and finally decide whether it is desirable or not, and by their decision we should be bound." If that had been the decision come to by the Committee in this case I should have accepted it. But it is rather an admission that it goes entirely beyond that and raises a bigger problem. If it does raise a bigger problem I want to understand what that problem is, and I submit with confidence that until that is submitted to us in a practical form the only possible course is to follow the procedure given us by the Act of Parliament. Therefore it is not from us who are standing in favour of East Ham having this right, that any proposal should come, but from those who oppose them and who are putting an obstacle in the way. We have had no suggestion made to us. The Government have not intimated that they are going to make any proposal and the county of Essex have not, indicated that they are going to make any proposal.
  Mr. LEACH: A Committee of Inquiry.
  Mr. G. THORNE: A Committee of Inquiry is not a proposal. I feel under those circumstances it is not fair to the individual borough of East Ham. I have not the slightest objection to East Ham being made an object lesson in forcing matters forward, but I object to East Ham being made a victim to mere suggestions of the future. When those suggestions are before us in practical form it is time to consider whether boroughs coming up under those conditions should be refused or should not be refused. East Ham comes under existing conditions. Her case should be decided under existing conditions and it does not seem to me fair to suggest something in the future or something vaguely left to the imagination. Essex has not produced any proposal, the county council of London has not indicated that it has any definite plan. No other body has indicated it either, and why is East Ham to be held back from what is desired because some day, no one knows when, someone, no one knows who, may propose something, no one knows what? I do not think it fair in a position so utterly vague as that that East Ham, asking to be made a county borough, following the line of county boroughs all over the country, should be deprived of her rights by a vague position of that kind. If any body is formed whereby and through which later on definite proposals are made, then it will be a different matter altogether, but under existing conditions it seems to me that the procedure of the Act of 1888 holds the field, and that East Ham has a right to make a claim and receive its due reward.
  I am told that if this be granted to East Ham it will still further hinder this larger scheme which is proposed. I should be very sorry for anything of the kind. I believe in larger schemes, because I believe they have to come, not only in London but throughout the country. The development of local government is one of the most important directions in which we have to turn our attention. But until these proposals are before us I object to an individual borough being prevented from having the right it ought to have under the existing procedure. What is proposed in opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend is just a wrong course. It is not only putting the onus in the wrong direction, but it is really preventing the impetus which is necessary to produce this larger result. If East Ham be refused, what happens? The county is perfectly satisfied. It has just what it has been

  2151
  wanting. It will sit absolutely quiet and rest, and no difficulty will happen so far as they are concerned until some other borough comes under similar conditions to East Ham and makes a proposal again, and it will then receive, I presume, the same treatment. But if my hon Friend's proposal is granted, and we refer it back to the Committee, it does not refer it back, to my mind, in the particular way suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds—that every Committee is bound to give every-applicant its county borough, because it has still to take into consideration all the surrounding existing circumstances to see whether it would be fair or not. But if the suggestion of my hon. Friend is granted and it is made a county borough, I can understand that the county of Essex and all the other counties which are similarly involved will realise that their interests are concerned in facing this problem. Then they will undertake the facing of the problem. Then it will be to their interest to propose some solution of the problem, and something will be done to face what is asked for hereto-night so strongly. The onus lies not on East Ham. East Ham comes within its existing right. The onus lies upon the county and those who are associated with the county, and until some definite proposal is made which shall take it out of the range of the Act of 1888, which still holds the field, it will be unfair and unjust, and compared with other boroughs, cruel to East Ham, to refuse it that which it now so earnestly desires.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am glad to have the opportunity of commenting on the speech, so courteous in tone, so forceful in phrasing, yet at the same time so absolutely giving the go-by to the real crux of this case, as the speech of my hon. Friend. This matter will sink, as one feared in the previous Debate, into the slough of low-class competition between borough and county, unless we are free to take it upon a line, which is entirely free from that. My hon. Friend's argument, if one can divest it of the personal charm which so naturally attended it in every phrase, comes to this, that because you had in the Act of 1888 certain procedure laid down under conditions which then subsisted you are never to vary that procedure, although every sane man knows perfectly well that the conditions have altered, and that you are bound in matters of local govern-
  2152
  ment, as in matters of daily life, to exercise elementary foresight as to the future.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: However reactionary the proposal.
  Sir R. ADKINS: What authority has the hon. Baronet for interposing that remark? He will have an opportunity -of making his observations in a moment or two. The point is surely this: My hon. Friend's argument is that the Committee upstairs and this House are not to consider what will be the effect upon the future development, either of London, or of the English counties, or of the English boroughs, when they decide a particular case. I desire, as definitely as man can do, to repudiate that doctrine. Every Committee upstairs to which matters ofthis sort arereferred,and this House, when the matters come before it, are bound to consider, not far off, possible, and remote contingencies. That is my hon. Friend's dexterous rhetorical method of disguising the facts. This House is bound to consider the facts which are now before it. If my hon. Friend is under the impression that London, for instance, is not going to increase in population, and that the granting of county borough powers to East Ham can have no effect for many years on the problem of Greater London, then his argument is sound, but I doubt if he believes that, and, if he does, he is in a small minority. I approach this question from an entirely different point of view. I am not speaking here, I have no authority to speak here, nor do I wish to speak here, on behalf of the County Councils Association. I had the honour of speaking a few weeks ago in regard to the problem of Cambridge borough. The County Councils Association, rightly or wrongly, have made no official pronouncement which they ask to be brought forward in this House, except in cases where they think that county councils are to be injured by the proposals made.
  I hope the House will hear me if I speak as one who has devoted a good deal of such life as I have had to the problem of local government. May I point out, with great respect, that what we have to do is to take every step we can in the pursuit of what is really the best form of local government for all parts of the country. See what arises in this case. This is not a case where the granting of county borough "powers to East Ham would

  2153
  thereby destroy the county council position. It does not affect anyone of those far-off contingencies which my hon. Friend so exquisitely phrases, but in the ordinary plain language of common people is it not a fact that the granting of county borough powers to a great community like East Ham, which is part of Greater London, whether we like it or not, does embarrass any comprehensive treatment of the whole problem of Greater London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and "No."] I am delighted to hear expressions of opinion on different sides, and I hope the House will give its attention to the question whether the granting of these powers would, or would not, affect the problem of Greater London. I am not in any way trying to prejudge how that problem ought to be settled, but, if you take a great community which in ordinary parlance is part of Greater London, and put it in a different position from that of the remaining parts of Greater London which are analogous in character, surely that is dealing with a great problem in detail, and seriatim, and not dealing with it comprehensively.
  Similarly we think that the other problem of Cambridge has an effect upon county government entirely different from that of any proposal to create a county borough. What is the result? In this ease a Committee of seven Members of the House—Members of the Local Legislation Committee who have special experience—have heard evidence for six days, and they come here with a report and a decision, which, I quite agree with my hon. Friend, is asking advice, but is, first of all, an expression of opinion on the matter in question. The Committee ask advice on the matters involved. The case here is exceptional. It is a matter of common knowledge that the preamble of the Cambridge Bill has been passed by the casting vote of the Chairman under conditions which bring it back with a minimum of authority to the House, and practically with an invitation to this House to reconsider it. Therefore, whether we are borough men or county men, or whether some of us, thank God, are both, does it not bring us back to this point that where you have a problem, either like that of Cambridge, or of East Ham, in which with the proper machinery a Committee upstairs are confused and embarrassed, and come to no certain voice on the subject, you must ask what is the proper conclusion 1 Is this House, at 9.30 in the evening, with such Members as are
  2154
  present, the kind of tribunal which any of us would wish to decide the subtle and far-reaching problems of local government in an atmosphere in which urban and rural feeling are not altogether quiescent? Surely the conclusion is that where you have the ordinary and proper methods under the Act of 1888 pursued, as they ought to be pursued, by this House, and leading to the appointment of Committees, and you find alike in Cambridge and East Ham, that these Committees speak with little or no authority, and with obvious embarrassment, because of the peculiarities of the position, it is the duty of the Government and this House to devise some mehod by which these unforeseen and exceptional problems shall be dealt with in another way.
  That is why I join my appeal with that of the hon. Member for the Horncastle Division to appoint a Royal Commission or some Joint Committee which shall deal with the conditions that have arisen, and which could not have been foreseen in 1888, which do absolutely alter the ordinary problem dealt with under that Act, arid which, as we have seen, with regard to the Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds presides, and as we know, or shall know in a day or two, in regard to the Committee over which the hon. Member for Tyneside presides has the effect that in both cases you do not get that confident pronouncement to a Committee which is necessary and proper in dealing with problems of this kind. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, on reflection, will not really think that it is true to say that the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Joint Committee means the indefinite shelving of this problem or acute unfairness to the great community of East Ham. It is nothing of the kind. What we want is—and I hope that this desire is shared in all quarters of the House—to get some recommendation by an impartial tribunal, empowered to consider the changes which twenty-five eventful growing years have made in the conditions of local government, as to how this House would be well advised to act in problems of this peculiar description. You cannot leave it as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton would represent. You cannot say, "Pass this Bill and do the unusual thing of recommitting it, and then, perhaps, the county of Essex will be content with some Special Committee."

  2155
  I care not whether the county of Essex is satisfied or dissatisfied. I care not on this point whether the great community of East Ham is satisfied or dissatisfied. Whether it is pleased or displeased at the present moment the general problem remains and ought to be taken up by the Government without any delay whatever. Therefore, I suggest that this proposal, which is a most unusual proposal, in which the Chairman, I will not say is straining, but is exercising the powers of this House in a way that is rarely done, will not be sanctioned by the House, not because I am opposed to East Ham becoming a county borough, when all the circumstances and the inevitable corollaries that follow from it have been considered by an adequate tribunal. My own predispositions are as much in favour of a community of 150,000 being made a county borough as they are against a solitary town of something like 50,000, embedded in a rural area, being made a county borough. I am not in the least opposed to East Ham on its own merits, so far as they are not affected by the peculiarities of the position, but I do respectfully say to Members of the House, whatever kind of constituencies they represent, that they should not add to these controversies and to the growing and deepening gulf between urban and rural ideals and conditions until the two special cases where the creation of a county borough eviscerates the county, and where the creation of a county borough makes impossible a comprehensive dealing with the problem of greater London, until those exceptional types of circumstances are dealt with by exceptional means. The only way in which we can get to that necessary solution is on this occasion to reject the Motion to recommit, and if we ran get from my right hon. Friend who now sees, I am confident, that he has dangers to face on both sides, both from county government and large borough areas, a pledge which we know we can trust if we have it that these two great difficulties shall be referred to an independent tribunal, then I am confident not only that this problem and the Cambridge problem would be solved by common consent within a reasonable time, but that that which is a real danger to local government would be permanently avoided.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): This Debate is taking such a wide range that I feel bound to rise to make an endeavour to bring hon.
  2156
  Members back to the point which the House has to decide to-night. I do not propose to offer advice to the House on the merits of the question at issue. That is rather a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, if he so desires, but I think in view of one or two things that have been said that I ought to make hon. Members Aware of the exact issue on which they are called upon to vote to-night. There is a Motion on the Paper in my name following on two Motions standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rom-ford Division (Sir J. Bethell), which, if I did not explain it, might possibly give rise to some misapprehension. The Motion is, that in the case of the East Ham Bill, Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Committee on the recommitted Bill have leave to sit and proceed tomorrow. What I desire to say on that is simply that in the exercise of my duties I have thought it well to provide for either event. I do not know what the decision of the House is going to be, but I thought that I ought, in order to save time in future proceedings, to recognise the possibility of the House deciding to recommit the Bill, and in that case to see that no further time was lost in carrying out the decision of the House. That was not intended as in any way implying any judgment of mine on the issue which the House has to determine. One further thing I desire to say on the Motions that stand upon the Paper in order that hon. Members, before giving their votes, may know the exact effect of those Motions. The Motion to recommit the Bill, and the Instruction which of course will follow if the first Motion is carried, means a position on the part of the House to override the decision of the Committee. I do not suggest in any way that the House ought not to do that, if it deliberately thinks fit to do so. The Chairman of the Committee has quite clearly indicated that the Committee is of the same opinion still, but that if the House takes a different view from this Committee the Committee will loyally abide by the decision of the House. That, I think, makes the position quite clear as between the Committee and the House.
  The Committee, as we all know, is perhaps the strongest and most experienced Committee that we have. They came to a definite decision on this partiticular issue after hearing the whole of the evidence in the case. The Chairman has told the House the range of consideration which was present to the minds of the

  2157
  members of that Committee. At the same time he has stated that the issue which they had to decide is one both novel and important, and for that reason I think that they have in a very honourable way presented the decision to the House as a considered decision, but yet they say that if the House gives a different verdict they will recognise the decision of the House and will promptly and loyally act upon it. That seems to me to put clearly before hon. Members what is the point at issue. It is not, in my opinion, very much good talking about Royal Commissions and Joint Committees, and so on. To-night this Bill is down for decision, and the House has to decide whether the verdict of the Committee on this particular issue in this particular case is to be maintained or reversed. Let the House give its decision on the merits of these questions, without going too far into much bigger and wider matters.
  Sir NORVAL HELMEAs a Member of the Committee to consider this matter I would like to say that in taking the course which the Committee took we felt we were only doing our duty, based on the consideration of all the facts of the case. The outcome of that decision is that we gave the opportunity for Parliament to consider the Act of 1888 having regard to all the interests involved. It has been my lot to spend many years in municipal and county council work. I have the honour of being an alderman of the borough of Lancaster, and also of being an alderman of the county of Lancaster, and therefore I claim to speak in this matter as one without a bias either to one side or the other. There is no question but that during the last twenty-five years there has been a great change in the functions which Parliament has called upon the county councils to carry out. I maintain, and I boldly say, that in the light of present-day work the 1888 Act is unfortunate in that it has hitherto been understood to carry a right for every populous borough of 50,000 population to claim absolute independent government. That is my own opinion, and I think the government would be wise if they looked at this question, because on the one side the smaller boroughs are smarting under a sense of injustice in the fact that the Act of 1888 puts them under disabilities which do not apply to some boroughs that were smaller in size when the Act of 1888 was passed. They were the smaller boroughs specially named at that time. In
  2158
  the county of Lancaster we are able to see the working of this Act perhaps on a larger scale than is given to most areas. In that county we have now eighteen county boroughs, and I venture to suggest to the Government to-night that there are questions which should be raised in fairness even to the county councils. In the administrative county of Lancaster we spent on the main roads no less a sum than £179,779 for this year. The expenditure has risen from £89,379 since 1890, and now we are only receiving 11 per cent., whereas formerly we had 50 per cent. from the Exchequer contribution in relief of those rates. I hold that, owing to the development of population and the new methods of traction, for the commerce of such great towns as Oldham and Rochdale, and others—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing the affairs of the county of Lancaster.
  Sir N. HELME: I was only giving that as an illustration of the point which I wish to press on the Government, but, of course, I submit to your ruling. As the counties at the present time have to pay the cost of maintaining the roads in the administrative county, some of that cost should be placed upon the county boroughs, which use the roads for their great traction and other engines from place to place. Thus this question that is before us to-night in regard to the appeal that we are making to the Government to consider this question is based upon the interests of the smaller populations as well as the greater ones. I hope the Government will respond to the appeal that has been made to them, and that by the Committee's action we have done service in withholding consent to the making of this county borough, and I hope the opportunity will cause the Government to act in this matter.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: If this had been the decision of a Committee upstairs on the merits of the Bill, and if the Committee had decided against granting the right to East Ham Corporation, of becoming a county borough, I should hesitate very much indeed to speak against the advice of that Committee. I am a member myself of the Local Legislation Committee on the B section, and therefore I claim to have some experience of what Committee work upstairs is. Certainly there have been to-night some very extraordinary assertions made with regard to the duties and the work of those Committees, and as to what they ought to do.

  2159
  I strongly demur to some of the statements that have been made. The hon. Member
  for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) laid down What is in my opinion a most extraordinary doctrine as to what the Committee upstairs should do. He first of all complained or argued that this low-class competition between the county boroughs should be done away with, and that we should reach a higher plane, and he went on to say that it was the duty of the Committees upstairs to consider future developments both in London and in the counties. He further went on to say that the Committees should not altogether decide upon the evidence before them, but that they should take into consideration problematical questions that might arise.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I said nothing of the kind, and I am in the hearing and recollection of the House. I never said a single word that Committees upstairs should decide anything except upon evidence. Evidence of conditions that are certain to develop is just as relevant evidence as evidence of how things worked some years ago.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understood the hon. Member laid it down that the Committees upstairs should consider future developments both with regard to London and with regard to the English counties.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Certainly, so far as they are borne out by the evidence before the Committee. Evidence can be given as to conditions which are certain to develop.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I contend it is the duty of the Committees upstairs, and I shall certainly act upon it, while I am a Member, to take evidence and decide upon the evidence that is placed before the Committee. That is really your duty, but that is not what this Committee has done. They have really gone beyond that, because they are asking us to decide a very important point. Let me read what the Chairman has recommended this House to do. He says:—
  "If the promoters of the Bill should in the exercise of their own judgment see their way and consider it in their interests to appeal from this Committee to the House as a whole to decide"—
  not to decide whether East Ham should become a county borough upon the
  evidence brought before the Committee, but
  "upon the broader questions, we should rather rejoice, if for our guidance in cases of a similar nature in future that we might know the view of the Howe of Commons."
  2160
  What does that mean? I It means that in all future cases, as far as Committee A are concerned—I do not say as far as Committee B are concerned—they are going to take into consideration the decision of the House upon this particular question. I contend that the Committee have no right to decide in advance future applications of non-county boroughs. The fact is that every non-county borough has the right, under the Act of 1888, to apply to become a county borough.
  Captain WEIGA LL: I am sure the hon. Member forgets that the word in the Act is "desirable." The Committee took the highest legal opinion and the highest Parliamentary procedure opinion, and both those opinions were to the effect that the word "desirable" meant desirable, not in the interests of East Ham alone, but in the interests of the county of Essex and generally.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I agree that the real contest is between East Ham and the county of Essex.
  Sir R. ADKINS: No.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: London, as such, has nothing to do with it. Members of Parliament, representing county Divisions as such, have nothing to do with that contest. That is what I complain of. In former applications by non - county boroughs, until quite recently, this distinctive fight between counties and boroughs never took place.
  Sir R. ADKINS: They were not affected in the same way.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes. I am speaking from experience when I say that when non-county boroughs hitherto have applied to become county boroughs there has been no difference of opinion between any other county and the borough making the application, except the county from whom they were separating for administrative purposes. Since a very important decision was given some years ago by the House of Lords, the County Councils Association does now demur not upon a particular case, but upon the broad question whether it is right or wrong for boroughs to become county boroughs. I contend that we ought to decide this question upon its merits. I appeal to any hon. Member upon the merits of the case. Here is a large borough of, not 50,000, but 150,000 inhabitants, in close conjunction with West Ham. This borough, according

  2161
  to the evidence placed before the Committee, is very heavily rated, having rates of 10s. in the £. It is contended by them that they are paying £25,000 a year to the county of Essex. I ask any Member, whether a borough or a county Member, whether he thinks it right that people living as the people of East Ham are living, poor people, should contribute £25,000 a year towards the cost of local government in Essex when they have also to bear a very heavy rate for the maintenance of local government in the borough? Suppose the borough of East Ham were drawing from the county council, not £25,000, but £5,000 a year. Does any Member believe that the county council would tolerate that for a moment? They would allow the borough to become a county borough. The system is unjust. I do not care what the Local Government Board may say upon the matter. I look upon it merely as a matter of right as between the borough and the county. Wherever you have this discrepancy, whether it is in Lancashire or in any other county, where you have large towns contributing large sums to the cost of the upkeep of county government, you will from time to time have these applications. Therefore, I appeal to the House not to decide this question on the broader issue, not to give a direction to Committees upstairs that in future under no circumstances must they make a non-county borough into a county borough. It is the right of every non-county borough under the law of the land to make an application, and if they can make out their case showing that it is desirable as between the county and themselves, and not as between other counties and themselves, I contend that it is our duty to give them the powers for which they ask.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The House has heard four or five speeches from Members peculiarly qualified to speak upon this important question. First, the Chairman of the Local Legislation Committee said, with perfect truth, that they were in no sense trammelled by the Report of the Local Government Board upon this subject, and that for six days they went with great minuteness into the claim of this particular district to have county borough powers. He was supported in that view by two other members of the Committee, who said that, independently of the Report of the Local Government Board, the Committee—I
  2162
  believe that six out of the seven members agreed upon their final decision—came to their decision on the merits, on the evidence, and on the whole circumstances and conditions affecting the case. Beyond that we have had from the Chairman of Committees a speech upon the issue involved, to which I do not intend to refer further, because it was so recently delivered, and is in the mind of the House. Beyond those speeches ex parte statements have been made by Members representing the district, which statements, if they are to influence the House, ought to be, and can only be accepted when they have been subjected to that examination and cross-examination upon the facts and the evidence which a Committee alone can secure. It seems to me that the House to-night after one and a half hours is not in a position to traverse adequately the work of a Committee which took six days, and which after giving those six days to the examination of the subject confirmed in almost every particular the Local Government Board's previous decision, which had been arrived at after an exhaustive inquiry occupying three days. I have risen to give the view of the Local Government Board upon this particualr matter. In so doing, may I say at the outset that it is not altogether a fair and serious subject of controversy between rural and urban Members that we should discuss an attempt by a private Bill—not through the agency of a Provisional Order—and to say that this is on "all fours" with another area independent of London forty, fifty, or a hundred miles away. It is not fair to say that the rule that applies to, say, Southend, Luton, or Cambridge, is a rule which is equally applicable to areas seeking county borough powers within five or six miles of Charing Cross. There is a difference in the circumstances, facts, and conditions that entitles the matter to rather different consideration. What those are, I will very briefly mention. I am not sorry to see that some hon. Members think that the time has arrived when certain provisions of the Local Government Act of 1888 must be reviewed, and perhaps revised, in the light of change, and owing to modern traction, and the spreading of large towns and cities, for almost a revolution has occurred which was not foreseen when the Act was passed in 1888.
  What are the facts in regard to London and the outside areas since 1888. Only two areas have been created county boroughs. They were created by the Act itself through the House of Commons. They

  2163
  are Croydon and West Ham. That ought to be borne in mind by the House. Since 1888, twenty-five years ago, no other county borough has been formed in Greater London. Two applications only have been made—by Hornsey and East Ham. In both cases these applications have been refused by the Local Government Board irrespective of the political complexion of the Presidents of that great Department, who have held the view that it would be a mistake until Greater London government was considered to make any more areas adjoining London into county boroughs. There are four only at the present time. There are four municipal boroughs in Greater London qualified by population alone for this honour. There are also nine urban districts in Greater London. This makes thirteen areas in all with a population of over 50,000. If the House of Commons, on insufficient evidence accepted the Resolution to-night to recommit this Bill, if East Ham were made a precedent by this Motion being, carried to-night, these areas could—and undoubtedly would—use that precedent as a reason for an application for county borough powers. We suggest, as at present advised, that it might ultimately be a great mistake even for those areas outside London, to so rapidly follow the East Ham precedent, presuming this was carried, and become county boroughs. For this reason: The rateable value of London, I am glad to say, shows signs of getting over the position in which it was two or three years ago. It is now on an ascending scale. There is the probability that if we had fifteen or sixteen areas in Greater London outside the county, whose rateable value was going down at the same time that the rateable value inside London was rising, they might be damnified and their poor inhabitants be worse off for many years.
  Look at it from the point of view of the application. What arc the facts with regard to it? They are simply this: East Ham thinks that the Local Government Board was wrong in refusing to convert their desire to be a county borough into a Provisional Order—to refuse to adopt the course which East Ham asked some three or four years ago. East Ham has a, population of 134,000. That in itself in London, is not argument sufficient to make it a county borough. There are large areas inside London with three times that population, that have only borough council powers. My own parish has
  2164
  170,000 inhabitants with powers not so advanced as those which East Ham seeks to acquire. We have a right to get to the facts of the enthusiasm in relation to this scheme. That enthusiasm was not, and is not, very great. The meeting that inaugurated the scheme was a very poor one, and by 78 votes to 38 a poll was demanded. No one will contend that that number, in a population of nearly 140,000, shows in "a fine frenzy rolling" for county borough powers.
  Sir. J. BETHELL: The whole of the members of the East Ham Borough Council are in favour of this Bill.
  Mr. BURNS: I do not dispute that, but there are other facts which qualify that simple statement. One is that of 25,000 electors qualified to vote on this subject only 2,157 voted, and of that number there were 1,467 for and 690 against, or less than 6 per cent. of the total population. The London County Council, when appealed to, decided to take no action thereon.
  Captain JESSEL: The council were neutral.
  Mr.,BURNS: It was neutral. It took no action. The Local Government Board went into this matter exhaustively for three days and came to the conclusion that, in the permanent interests of Greater London, it would be inadvisable to confer these powers. Since that was done the House itself has had an opportunity of discussing the principle underlying this in connection with the Cambridge Bill. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Middleton raised this point. We have had the advantage of the consideration which the House gave on the Cambridge Bill. It gave the Committee an absolutely free hand. They were told to work according to the Cambridge Instruction, and the Debate in this House, and they were free and independent of any Report of the Local Government Board. Of their own volition, and on the facts alone, they had to decide whether or not this district should have county borough powers. What did they do The Corninittee heard the evidence, and all the circumstances, not only in respect to East. Ham, but in respect to the county areas surrounding. They arrived at the decision that was adverse to East Ham being made a county borough by a private Bill. In that they confirmed the Local Government Board view, and supported the old

  2165
  view of all the Presidents of the Local Government Board. It is not altogether relevant to this subject that we should have it stated as an argument seriously, that the case of Southend, which is forty miles from and independent of London, and which probably will have conferred upon it county borough powers, is to be a precedent and a justification for East Ham, the latter being more or less dependent on London, and practically a dormitory of East London. Then the other fact which ought to be borne in mind is this: I am not going to argue for or against Greater London; I am riot going to discuss the point of whether the county council should swallow the City of London or whether the City of London should absorb the county council, or whether both combined should agree upon the extinction of the boundaries of the existing county council and the City Corporation or not. That is a point which I am not going to argue or discuss in any way whatever. But everybody will admit that the outer areas of Greater London cannot be disconnected from the growth and development of trade and commerce, or of the social interests of seven and a quarter millions of people—that community known as Greater London. For instance, if East Ham got county borough powers, nine or ten out of thirteen districts might risk for those powers how are we to differentiate East Ham and London from other districts? For instance, the London Water Board, on the security of London's rates, supplies districts in and outside London; and the London County Council, through its main drainage plans, also serves outside areas. Roads are becoming a matter in which not only the London County Council, but local authorities outside of London, are interdependent; but both now are becoming more or less dependent on the State for Grants and for other considerations in a great part of this very district of East Ham which wants separate county borough powers is a large portion of the dock extensions which have been bought on the security of the London rates; and there are, besides, poor law, public health, housing, and even fire brigade, main drainage, and road problems in which London not only does its own duty inside its own area of the county but 'helps outside in the matter of education, and even of the fire brigade. With the development of traffic, with running powers over tramways, and with main drainage and other things in such 'districts as Ilford, Walthamstow and
  2166
  others, upon agreed terms, the House of Commons must see thatthere is a great difference between East Ham and such places as Cambridge, Wakefield, or Bedford. What is the argument in support of recommitting this Bill? The Committee had all the facts put before them during an inquiry which lasted six days, yet the House of Commons is asked to come to a conclusion for their guidance in future in an hour and a half. The Chairman did not ask for future guidance simply in relation to East Ham, but in reference to future consideration of county borough powers. What did the Chairman say? I am entitled to read his words:—
  "I am desired by the Committee to add this remark—which is entirely outside their judgment—that they feel that the questions raised are, in regard to consideration by a Committee, so novel, so important, and so wide-reaching, that they would thoroughly welcome, if it were possible, the reconsideration of their decision by the House as a whole, and if the promoters of the Bill should, in the exercise of their own judgment, see their way and consider it in their interests to appeal from this Committee to the House as a whole to decide the broader question, we should rejoice, and that, for our guidance in cases of a similar nature in future, we might know the view of the blouse of Commons."
  It is one thing to ask the advice of tins House, and it is another thing to take a particular course on a particular Bill.
  In conclusion, may I say that if the promoters of this Bill—and I see no indication of it—were willing to defer its consideration until some impartial tribunal considered the particular circumstances of London and Greater London, I am not indisposed to consider such a proposal. A Royal Commission has been mentioned, a Joint Committee has been mentioned, or some other tribunal might be constituted by means of which the peculiar circumstances of London in relation to outside areas seeking county borough powers might be investigated and examined, but I gather from the promoters of the Bill that they are disinclined to accept that. May I say, as one who sympathises with what is known as the dormitory areas outside London in the main composed of very much poorer people than they will be ten or twenty-five years hence, it is a short-sighted policy that they should be so intent on getting county borough powers at this moment and not willing to accept investigation by some competent tribunal such as is suggested. My own view is that the day is not far distant when many of the outside areas will appeal both to the City Corporation and the county council to reconsider the organisation of municipal London in relation to outside areas. I am certain if that subject in relation to this

  2167
  particular Bill and similar Bills, could be made the object of investigation we would not be disinclined to accept that view; but I gather to-night that East Ham declines to consider that as an alternative. I have the authority of the Prime Minister for saying if some such investigation as that were sought the Government would not be unwilling to consider it in some form or other.
  The Chairman of the Committees of the House of Commons has told us to-night that that is rather without our purview. We have to decide whether or not East Ham should have county borough powers. We have to decide that practically, plus something else, which is that the House of Commons should give this Committee guidance for the future. Hon. Members have interpreted that to mean that if this House votes for this Motion the Committee will take the Bill back and give East Ham County borough powers. The point we have to decide on this Amendment is whether East Ham shall have in future county borough powers. On that point, as President of the Local Government Board, as one who has gone into this, and whose office has inquired into it for three days, as one who has read the evidence of the House of Commons Committee which sat for six days upon this particular subject, as one who listened to the speeches of the Chairman and members of that Committee, who confirmed the view of the Local Government Board that East Ham ought not to have county borough powers, I am compelled to advise the House that, whatever the consequences may be, after an hour arid a half or two hours' Debate, without having plans before it, and without having been able to sift the evidence, the House of Commons is not in a position to override the decision of its own properly constituted Committee, that such county borough powers should not be given. I would point out to the House of Commons that if they take the course suggested by this Amendment, then in other cases There a Committee considers whether or not an area should have county borough powers, the decision, if this Amendment is carried, will be an incentive and a temptation to the Member for that particular district to move to have the particular decision reconsidered, and on every private Bill we shall have discussions similar to this. While I sympathise with the outside areas I have come to the
  2168
  conclusion that there is nothing left to the House of Commons but to support the Local Government Board, and the Committee after its six days' investigation, in the decision arrives at by the Committee, against East Ham being made a county borough.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I have not had an opportunity of sitting upon many Committees with regard to matters similar to this, but I have taken part in many Local Government inquiries in different parts of the country on matters similar to this. They may not have been applications for leave to become county boroughs, but many of them were for an extension of boundaries where very similar questions arose. From my own experience, I can say that it is absolutely, impossible to lay down any general rule to apply to all cases, and you must take each case upon its merits. In my experience at the Bar and at those inquiries I have never found two cases alike. They are all different, and you cannot come to any proper decision unless you hear the whole of the evidence and weigh it very carefully. Very often it is a very difficult matter to decide. The question in each case is whether it is desirable that the powers asked for should be given to the borough which is making the application. I have to give a vote on this Question, and how can I come to a proper decision without hearing the evidence arid considering it and without forming a well-considered opinion. I have not had that opportunity. The Committee has been appointed for the very purpose of considering that question. They have had the evidence of witnesses before them, and they have had full opportunities, and I understand they have considered it for fully six days. Nobody suggests that they were biassed and they have considered the matter from an impartial point of view. Although that Committee has referred this question to the House, I do not see how it is possible to take the responsibility off their shoulders. How in the world are we going to do that in the space of a couple of hours without hearing one single particle of evidence? It seems to me that there is only one way to decide this question, and it is that having appointed a proper tribunal to hear the evidence and advise us we ought to adopt their decision.
  Mr. MORRELL Mr. MORRELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Serjeant-at-Arms, will you kindly ask hon. Members outside in the Lobby to maintain silence?
  The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 146.

  Division No.206.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Gulland, John William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Webb, H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Field, William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Middlebrook and Captain Weigell.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Denman, Hon, Richard Douglas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Kelly, Edward

  Alden, Percy

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King, Joseph

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Doris, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barnes, George N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Leach, Charles

  Barton, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lundon, Thomas

  Blair, Reginald

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Boland, John Pus

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  McGhee, Richard

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Buyton, James

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hackett, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Clough, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Meagher, Michael

  Clynes, John R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molloy, Michael

  Cotton, William Francis

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Craig. Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hodge, John

  Morison, Hector

  Cullinan, John

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Davies, Davison (Brixton)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Muldoon, John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eif on)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Nolan, Joseph

  De Forest, Baron

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sutton, John E.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Thomas, James Henry

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Touche, George Alexander

  O'Malley, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rowlands, James

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Worthington-Evans. L.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Radford, G. H.

  Snowden, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir J. Bethell and Mr. George Thorne.

  Reddy, Michael

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Proposed words there added.
  Ordered, That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of the provisions relating to the constitution of the borough of East Ham as a county borough, which appeared in the Bill as originally deposited.—[J. Sir Bethell.]
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the recommitted Bill that they shall, if they deem it expedient so to do, reinsert in the Bill, with or without modifications, the provisions relating to the constitution of the borough of East Ham as a county borough, which appeared in the Bill as originally deposited.—[Sir John Bethell.]
  Ordered, That, in the case of the East Ham Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 236 and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on the recommitted Bill have leave to sit and proceed To-morrow.[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SUPPLY.— [SIXTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

  HOME OFFICE.— [CLASS II.—VOTE 4.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £177,613, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices." [Note.—£90,000 has been voted on account.]
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOOTH: When the Proceedings were interrupted by the private Bill, I was drawing attention to the administration of the Children Act. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) wishes to bring a matter forward, I propose to give way to him. Upon sonic other occasion I hope I shall have an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Home Office to the administration of that Act. I had an uncompleted sentence at 8.15, and it is only fair I should complete it. I was pointing out that there is a curious spectacle presented in London which is not to be seen in any other city in the world, namely, that parents on a wet day often go into a public-house, and, owing to the Children Act, are compelled to leave little children outside in the rain. I am not saying that to challenge the "children's charter," but to point out that legislation of that sort cannot be considered final. I know nothing more tantalising to anybody who has worked for the welfare of the-children in London, as some of us have, than to see that spectacle at the public-house doors on wet days in this great Metropolis. It is a scandal and a shame to our civilisation. I do not blame the Act for it, but it is one of the results of the Act. Out of deference to the wish of the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie), I terminate my remarks now to give him the opportunity he wants.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I want to call attention to one or two points in connection with the administration of what is popularly known as the "Cat and Mouse" Act. There is one point upon which the Committee and the country are entitled to more information that has yet been given. The Committee is entitled to know under what authority the Home Office caused the police

  2173
  to enter the Pavilion, on Monday last, to rearrest Mrs. Pankhurst. She was out on licence under the terms of the new Act, and, after an attempt made to rescue her failed, then, so far as I know, for the first time, the police were authorised to enter a building and to arrest the lady there. I ask the Home Secretary under what authority that was done, and why the police were also authorised, in the cases of persons liberated under these licences, to enter private houses for the purpose of rearresting them. My second point is that when arrests are being made there are frequent complaints against the undue and unnecessary force used by the police when making the arrests. I do not propose to go into that case because it is sub judice, but I desire to raise it in its general form, and suggest to the Home Secretary that special instructions should be issued to the police that no hitting or punching should be employed when making these arrests.
  Then I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied with the administration of the Act himself? The idea of its being introduced and carried through under its present administration was to ensure that the law might be respected and that these prisoners should not be able to go upon hunger strike. We warned the Home Secretary that this anticipation was doomed to failure, and the facts as they have been disclosed since the Act came into operation speak for themselves. I ask the Home Secretary whether the whole method by which the Act is being administered is not calculated to bring the law into contempt. You find these women being arrested one day, being put into prison, going upon the hunger strike, at the end of three, four, or five days being liberated on licence, again dragged back to prison, the same performance repeated, and meanwhile the country is looking on with a feeling partly of disgust and partly of horror. It would be a thousand times better to revert to the old practice. There was some dignity about that proceeding. The present method of administering what is called the "Cat and Mouse" Act has neither dignity nor is it calculated to enhance respect either for the law or for its administration. The prolongation of the agony which these women are bound to suffer is revolting every feeling of humanity, and it is not only active supporters of the militant section of women who are feeling this, but many of those who have no sympathy either with the
  2174
  methods or the tactics of the militant section, but who realise that they cannot stand quietly by and see these methods of long-drawn-out torture continued in the name of law and order. The Home Secretary and the authorities generally must, sooner or later, admit that this Act is bound to fail of its purpose, as all former methods have failed. In the interests of law and order, in the interests of the reputation of the country, this method of torturing women who are engaged in what they believe to be a right struggling, is not one which should be allowed to be continued. I, therefore, suggest that if the Government is not prepared to adopt the only method of putting an end to this agitation and bring in a Bill for the enfranchisement of women, then at least this method of barbarism should not be continued in its present form.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will reply to the questions put to me by the hon. Member. He desired to know under what authority the Home Office on Monday last effected: the arrest of Mrs. Pankhurst. No special' authority was required for that purpose. It was open for the police to arrest her just as they could arrest anybody else in such circumstances. Mrs. Pankhurst being a convict at large was liable to be arrested. The hon. Member asked whether the police would be authorised to enter private houses. If he means whether they would be authorised to break in, the answer is—No, unless they have a warrant; but if a private house is open to them, they are at perfect liberty to enter and effect an arrest. Then the hon. Member said there had been ill-treatment of people by the police. Anyone who has read an account of what took place at this meeting must, I think, agree that the hon. Member's description is a real travesty of the facts. When you see that the police were outnumbered I do not know how many times, that they endeavoured to do their duty in a proper way, and that they were unlawfully and brutally resisted, I fail to see that he has made out a shadow of a case against them. His other question was whether I was satisfied with the administration of the Act. He stated that the intention of the Act was in order to prevent suffragist prisoners liberating themselves at will by going on hunger-strike. The hon. Member is mistaken. The intention of the Act was that when prisoners were liberatedfor hunger - striking, they should not have their sentence

  2175
  discharged, but that they should still have it hanging over them. I am perfectly satisfied with the way in which the Act has been administered. It has effected its purpose. When we are confronted with the situation in which these women refute to take their food, we have now power which we had not got before to liberate them in order to prevent them committing suicide, and yet, while we liberate them, we still retain power to enforce the law and to compel them to serve the sentence imposed upon them by the Courts. The hon. Member spoke of the torture to which the prisoners are subjected. We offer them food, and if they refuse it they are torturing themselves. It is ridiculous to suggest that in the administration of this law there has been the slightest torture inflicted upon any prisoner by any prison official, or by any servant of the Government. The practice of the prison officials is to treat all prisoners with humanity—humanity which is not exceptional, but humanity in the ordinary course and according to the manner in which all prisoners are treated. If they refuse to take food, or, as some of them are now adopting the practice, refusing to take water, they are undoubtedly injuring their own health, and undoubtedly the effect of their action on their constitutions may be serious and permanent. But the action is their own and they cannot hope to liberate themselves from the law. They cannot hope to become licensed law breakers merely by the expressed determination to take neither food nor water. The law has passed punishment upon these women, and so long as the powers which the law has vested in the Home Office remain in my hands to administer I shall do my best to enforce the law. The hon. Member has said that it would be better to let them commit suicide than to murder them. We are doing neither the one nor the other. It is impossible for the administrator of the law to say that prisoners shall not commit suicide. But we will not be parties to their committing suicide. At the same time we will make every effort to enforce the law and ensure that these prisoners, who have been properly convicted and are being properly punished, shall be made to endure the sentence of the law.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not rise for the purpose of adding to the very great difficulty which undoubtedly besets any
  2176
  Minister who has to enforce the law under very difficult circumstances. So far as I am concerned, my only object has always been to see that the law is enforced. My object in enforcing the law is to put a stop to crime. It is not in order to punish the criminal. The punishment of the criminal is a necessary evil, an evil which we all deplore, and which we would all see avoided if possible. I should be glad if the Home Secretary had been able to answer the question: How far the administration of this Act has, in fact, stopped the committal of crime l If it is achieving its object in putting a stop to crime, yet it is so much in the general interests of the community to put a stop to crime that I would make very little criticism of the actual methods that were employed. But, judging as a man in the street, without any official information, and no information of any other kind, I must say that the impression made upon me by the administration of the Act is not favourable. If it is stopping crime, that is a matter which is within the knowledge of the authorities no doubt, but the actual effect of it is not favourable to a mere onlooker. The same crime apparently is going on, the same criminal is being arrested, and liberated, after being told by a judge of the High Court that she may look for no mercy. After being told to look for no remission of her sentence she is, from the point of view of the outsider, liberated after three or four days. She again commits some crime or defiance of the law, is again arrested and again liberated; and that has taken place two or three times in the case of some prisoners. I cannot say that that strikes me as a very dignified or a very satisfactory method of administering the law, but I confess that I feel this about the whole Act. You may arrest a prisoner for a very trifling offence. One was arrested the other day for obstructing the police. She was bound over, but refused to be bound over, and a sentence of fourteen days' imprisonment was passed She was released after four days, and I believe she is to be rearrested some time this week. It does not seem a very good plan—
  It being Eleven of the clock the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Thursday).

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment, to be read the third time To-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr.>Burns.]
Dr. ADDISON: I do not wish to delay the Second Reading of this Bill, but I should like to receive an assurance and to raise two points in connection with it. The Prime Minister explained the other day in a question which I put to him, that this was a small Bill in connection with certain matters as to tuberculosis, but the Bill appears to effect a very profound change in the public health administration of the country, because the third Clause, while personally I heartily agree with it, says:—
"It shall be lawful for the council of any county or county borough to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the treatment of disease."
As that stands it may mean anything. I believe the intention of the Local Government Board is that it shall be really an extension of the powers of the Infectious Diseases Act which I hope will be wisely interpreted. The other point is in connection with the recognition of the Metropolitan Asylunis Board with respect to the reception into their institutions of patients suffering from any disease. Of course, the object of this provision is no doubt to put into proper order the reception of tuberculous patients into the institutions under the Metropolitan Asylums Board. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to offer any objection to that. But I should like the President of the Local Government Board to state precisely what is meant by the words in Clause 4. "For this purpose the managers shall be deemed to be a sanitary authority." It would be a very bad principle, indeed—and I should offer my most strenuous opposition to it—to give the Metropolitan Asylums Board any sanitary powers outside their own institutions. I hope that, in clue time, we shall see the London County Council the public health authority for London, and I do not want
2178
to give the Asylums Board any additional powers with regard to public health outside their own institutions. I am not saying this in any depreciation of the Asylums Board's work. I believe that they administer their institutions in a thoroughly efficient and first-rate manner. It is only because we have such a medley of public health authorities in London that to add to the confusion by giving increased powers to one of them, which I believe should not ultimately be the public health authority, would only make confusion worse confounded. If the intention is purely to limit their authority to the institutions over which they have charge, and with respect to which they make arrangements with the London County Council or anybody else for the reception of patients, as far as I am concerned I have no objection.
Mr. BURNS: The object of this Bill is primarily to enable the Metropolitan Asylums Board to carry out more promptly the provision of sanatoria under the Insurance Act, and to do effectively, as they desire to do, the work which has been put upon them by the Act. Clause 4, which removes the disability under which the Metropolitan Asylums Board now labour, really answers my hon. Friend's question if he will read it closely, because it says:—
" It shall be lawful for the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District with the sanction of the Local Government Board to enter into agreements for the reception into hospitals provided by the managers of patients suffering from any disease, and for this purpose the managers shall be deemed to be a sanitary authority."
My hon. Friend asks for a definition of "sanitary authority." I can assure him that there is no intention under this Bill of devolving upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board any of the public health duties and functions now exercised either by the borough councils or by the county council. It is limited to the institutional treatment of disease—infectious disease, tuberculosis, and so forth—in regard to which the Board are anxious to have increased power. With regard to Clause 3:
"It shall be lawful for the council of any county or county borough to make any such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the treatment of disease—"
we propose not to retain the last two lines—

2179
"and for the provision of laboratory facilities for use in connection with the treatment or prevention of disease."
The disease intended to be dealt with under Clause 3 is primarily tuberculosis; but in the event of a tubercular patient suffering at the same time from some other disease, it is intended that there shall not be a disability on the part of the Board to deal with that complaint other than the major disease for the treatment of which the patient was removed to the institution.
I trust with these two explanations that the House will allow this Bill to pass, and thereby give the Metropolitan Asylums Board that extra facility which it is entitled by the past excellent way in which it has met the emergency of the Insurance Act, both with courage and resource, and so enable it to continue that good work.
Mr. BOOTH: I do not propose to offer any opposition to this Second Reading, but I do ask that the Committee stage may be arranged so that London Members may be able to give their views fully. I am particularly sorry that the Chairman of the London Insurance Committee is not here, so that we might have here the advantage of his view.
Mr. BURNS: May I, with the indulgence of the House, say that the Chairman of the London Insurance Committee has seen this Bill and approves of it.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL (Lords).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. HOGGE: I desire to ask a question of the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), who, I understand, is in charge of this Bill. While the Bill was in the other House a promise was given by the First Commissioner of Works that, so far as Scotland was concerned, a separate Advisory Board would be set up to deal with the ancient
2180
monuments of that country. Clause 15 of the Bill has words to this effect:—
"and may, if and when they think it desirable to do so, constitute separate Advisory Boards for Scotland and Wales."
I do not want to offer any opposition to the Bill, of which I approve; but I want the hon. Member to assure me that the undertaking which was given in the other House is a Parliamentary undertaking; that the matter will not be left in this form, but that when the Bill becomes law a separate Advisory Board will be set up at once to deal with Scottish monuments.
Mr. KING: This, in my opinion, is a very good Bill. We ought to be grateful to the Upper House for giving it the consideration they have and passing it. I am of opinion though that it does not go quite for enough. I have a few Amendments I would like to make, and I propose to put them down for the Committee stage. I trust that now I shall get some encouragement to go forward with them.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not think it necessary to go beyond what my Noble Friend said in the House of Lords in reference to the Scottish Advisory Board. I think my hon. Friend should be satisfied with the expression of the intention of the First Commissioner to set up such a Board. Perhaps between now and the Committee stage we might discuss the matter together and come to some understanding. As regards the hon. Member for Somerset, I trust he will not put down any Amendments of a controversial kind, because I am afraid if he does so time could scarcely be found for them, and it might be bad for the Bill.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will a similar Advisory Board be established for Wales?
Mr. BENN: The First Commissioner has the power to establish separate Boards both for Scotland and Wales.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Scottish Board be similar to the Welsh Board?
Mr. BENN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me time to consider.
Mr. BOOTH: I hope the hon. Member for Somerset will not talk to make the Bill go further, and that it will be passed without discussion. I know well his opinion about preserving bar parlours and public houses in the Midlands, but if he attempts

2181
to make this Bill go further,, then he will prevent its passage.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
Lords Amendment considered.
Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 1 and insert a new Clause for the extension of the polling hours.
Mr. WILLIAM PEARCE:I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When this Bill left this House there was a general opinion that in many districts an extension of the polling hours was required. The extended hours were fixed at from 7 o'clock to 8 o'clock in the morning, and from 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock p.m. It was also agreed that the option should be left to the duly nominated candidates to decide. The Bill referred to Parliamentary elections alone. The Amendment of the Lords in no way alters the fundamental structure of the measure. The option left to the candidate by the House of Commons was of a rigid character. The Lords have, by their Amendment, introduced three options—from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; or for both. I think this may be for the convenience of certain constituencies who desire to have the poll longer open at night, or to avoid an extension in the morning.
Captain JESSEL: As one who very strongly opposed the original Bill as proposed by the hon. Member, I desire to say a few words. In the first place, I must congratulate the hon. Member on arriving- within sight of the goal of success. Certainly it is the only private Member's Bill that has got through this Session, and the fact that it has got through is largely due to the tact, patience, and courtesy of the hon Member opposite. The Bill when first brought before us, the hon. Member said, was of much wider operation and much more rigid in operation than the Bill as it has now emerged from its various stages in this House, and after what has occurred in another place. The Bill has now three options. Above all, it takes away what we regarded on this side as not at all a good thing, and
2182
in favour of which there was no evidence. It takes away the idea of change as regards municipal elections, and justifies what was said on our side. In order to show that the opinions we held were not entirely confined to our side. I quote the hon. Member (Sir T. Whittaker) who said that the Bill is only desired by something like 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the constituencies in this country, and that the majority do not want it at all. I think for these reasons my Friends and myself were thoroughly justified in our opposition to the original Bill. At the same time, we always recognised that in those places outside the larger and populous districts, outside London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, there was a need for some change, and we are very glad to see that by the common sense of both Houses and the promoters of the Bill such changes are made as will make it a useful and workable measure. At the same time, I have no doubt that at the next election that takes place many candidates will ask for this, thinking that it will give them a party advantage. I do not believe that it will give a party advantage one way or the other, because I believe that now, as always, the candidate with the more popular policy and better organisation will have the bigger majority at the polls. For these reasons, firstly, I congratulate the hon. Member, and, secondly, I think that the Bill as it now stands justifies the opposition which we on this side gave to the original proposal.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think that this Bill in every respect is an excellent one, but there is just one doubt I have about it. The Bill when it left this House involved thirteen hours instead of twelve, but, as it has come back now, there is a possibility of fourteen hours. I do not know whether it has really been taken into consideration that it will involve in large constituencies very heavy expenses if you are going to have the polling booth open for fourteen hours. There will have to be relays, and the expense will be considerably increased. In addition to that, the strain of fourteen hours upon people responsible for the arrangements at elections will be very great. The police, the presiding officers, and all concerned, will incur a heavy strain. It seems to me that now while the strain of, twelve hours is very great, it might possibly in the interests of the voters be a convenience to extend the hours to

2183
thirteen, either from seven in the morning to eight in the evening, or from eight in the morning to an extra hour after eight in the evening. To extend the hours to fourteen seems to me to make it almost impossible to stand the strain.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The hon. Member seems to me to be under a misapprehension. The Bill as it left this House and went to another place was a Bill which, if taken advantage of, must be taken advantage of in this sense, that it would extend the hours necessarily to fourteen. It left nothing to choose between twelve hours and fourteen hours. The Amendment made in the Bill in another place, and with which my hon. Friend has moved that this House do now agree, is an Amendment which mitigates the rigour of that extension, because it gives an option more elastic. It makes it possible to have an extension not going the length of fourteen hours, but an extension which may prceed from twelve to thirteen hours, that is by one hour at the latter end of the day. The hon. Gentleman will see whatever force there is in his criticism that criticism is not strengthened by the words now proposed to be agreed to but is to a certain extent met.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDA-TION AND AMENDMENT [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of any expenses under the provisions of any Act of the present Session, to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Ancient Monuments, and for other purposes in connection therewith. (King's recommendation signified) Tomorrow.—[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes after 'Eleven o'clock.

  Public Utility Societies (Loans).
  Public Utility Societies (Loans).
  Income Tax (Military and Civil Officers).
  Income Tax (Military and Civil Officers).
  Guaranteed Stocks (Government Purchases).
  Guaranteed Stocks (Government Purchases).
  Increment Value Duty
  Increment Value Duty
  Agricultural Labourers' Strike (Lancashire).
  Agricultural Labourers' Strike (Lancashire).
  Insurance Rates.
  Insurance Rates.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Land Purchase (Ireland)
  Land Purchase (Ireland)
  Army Officers' Expenses.
  Army Officers' Expenses.
  Malta (Coast Defence.)
  Malta (Coast Defence.)
BRITISH ARMY
  TERRITORAL FORCE
  TERRITORAL FORCE
AIRCRAFT.
  MORANE SAULNIER HYDRO-AEROPLANE.
  MORANE SAULNIER HYDRO-AEROPLANE.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ASSISTANT CLERKSHIPS.
  ASSISTANT CLERKSHIPS.
  Montserrat Exports.
  Montserrat Exports.
  Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill.
  Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill.
  Rural Cottages.
  Rural Cottages.
  Swine Fever.
  Swine Fever.
  Free Breakfast Table.
  Free Breakfast Table.
  Vaccination in Germany.
  Vaccination in Germany.
  Domestic Exports.
  Domestic Exports.
  Imports (1882 and 1912).
  Imports (1882 and 1912).
  Load Line.
  Load Line.
  Money Orders.
  Money Orders.
  Probate and Divorce Court.
  Probate and Divorce Court.

Preamble
The Lord ISLINGTON—Took the Oath.
The Lord FURNESS—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LORD ISLINGTON'S VOTE.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, it is with feelings of concern that I address the House to offer an apology to your Lordships and to make an explanation for a vote that I recorded last week on the Home Rule Bill prior to my having taken the oath of allegiance in this House. I desire to say that this violation of the procedure of the House was carried out by me, it is needless to say, with no feeling of disrespect to your Lordships' House, but through, I am afraid, a lack of knowledge of the strict procedure of the House. I know now, what I did not know before, that it is necessary at the commencement of each Parliament for noble Lords to take the oath of allegiance. Having been absent from England during the last three years, and during that absence lowing omitted to notice the regulation which is, I believe, issued to all new members of this House, I was under the impression that the oath of allegiance that I had taken prior to my departure abroad would suffice, and that it was not necessary for me to take a fresh oath at the beginning of the new Parliament. This, my Lords, is the explanation of my conduct last week. I can only offer an ample apology to your Lordships, and I must leave it to the discretion of the House as to what action you may think fit to take.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships will accept unreservedly the statement which has just been made by the noble Lord to the effect that the irregular part which he took in our proceedings was due entirely to inadvertence on his part. Indeed, most of us feel that the particular circumstances of the noble Lord's case in a way explain the omission of which he was guilty. What steps are necessary and whether any steps are necessary in order to correct upon the records of your Lordships' House the irregularity which has taken place, I really do not know. I was not aware that the noble Lord was
1282
going to make a statement, and I have had no opportunity of looking into the technicalities of the case.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am in the same position as the noble Marquess, not having known that my noble friend behind me was about to present his apologia to the House. Noble Lords, no doubt, will remember that some years ago a noble Lord, also sitting on this side of the House, was guilty of a similar offence, only in what was considered a more flagrant form; and as the result of that performance of my noble friend a Committee was appointed which dealt with that matter, and also with other kindred matters relating to the order of your Lordships' House. Perhaps the noble Marquess and I might consult together with the officers of the House as to what the proper form should be for indemnifying my noble friend, as I gather that that is the desire of the House generally, for the consequences of his rash action.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 135.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

NATIVE LABOUR IN PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the conditions of slavery in the Portuguese islands of St. Thomè and Principe, and also to slave trading and slave owning in Angola on the mainland of Africa; and to move for Papers showing:—(a) that slave owning and slave trading no longer exist on the Mainland and Islands of Portuguese West Africa; (b) that the recruitment and shipping of labourers from the Mainland to the Islands has ceased; (c) also, the rate and condition of repatriation from the Islands and the administration of the Repatriation Fund.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into the wrongs of slavery in any way, because those wrongs are recognised now by every civilised country in the world. But I shall have to trouble your Lordships with some quotations from the White Book which has been published by the Foreign Office and also some other quotations. In these islands the finest cocoa in the world is grown. To give you some idea of the value of the produce I may say that in 1911 cocoa worth £250,000 was carried to Europe in the holds of one vessel. the steamship "Angola." The Portuguese contract system, by which these labourers are got there, is a euphonious name for slavery.
1284
The native knows nothing of a contract; all he knows is that he is collared and put on board ship and taken to St. Thomé or Principe and made to work, and there he stops, as a rule for the rest of his life. We do not know how many natives were on the islands prior to 1887, but we know that from 1887 to 1897 there were 24,059, and from 1898 to 1908, 39,884. These were all brought from the Portuguese African mainland of Angola. I know something of this traffic myself prior to 1887, because in 1882 I travelled in the Lisbon Mail steamer up the coast, and at Benguella we took on board some of these contract labourers, serviçaes as they are called, and delivered them at St. Thomé. I went forward to the front part of the ship and looked at them. I did not realise the seriousness of it then as I was much younger than I am now, but I must say they looked more like cowed wild animals intended for the Zoo than human beings.
Now let me come to more modern times. I wish to quote from a pamphlet by a Portuguese gentleman who was formerly curator on the island of Principe. His name is Senhor Jeronimo Paiva de Carvalho. He left his appointment in 1907, and this pamphlet was published in 1912. In it he says—
"The existence of slavery in the islands is an actual fact, although it appears to the public to be a system of free labour. The very nature of it involves a compulsion that makes the negro renew the contract again and again, till it constitutes forced labour for life. The lack of a law making repatriation compulsory, leads to slavery; such a law has been systematically and with one accord averted by the Government and the planters. These contracts are not really for five years when they can be perpetuated at the will of the planter. Technical repatriation, established by law to deceive people, is useless when we remember the depth of the negroes' ignorance—an ignorance which in itself enables the planter to buy them outright.… The laws, good or bad, are never kept, and their existence is confined to the paper they are written on. What actually takes place is surprising. This method of obtaining negroes is a grave offence and constitutes an attack on their liberty. I am not referring to the labourers from Cape Verde or Mozambique, as in their case the law is faithfully kept. I speak of the labourers born in Angola. They are actual slaves. Caught in the interior, or sold to the Europeans by their chiefs, they come down to the coast like any other sort of merchandise."
That I saw myself. Senhor de Carvalho proceeds—
"There they are formally taken into the presence of the curator, who, I believe, makes

1285
the contract in good faith. He may possibly suspect that these unfortunate beings from the interior are the victims of an illegal bargain. But if he has such a suspicion, there is never any proof to verify it. And woe to the curator who dare stand up against the iniquities of the traders in black flesh. I know from experience that he would be a lost man."
That comes, as I said, from a Portuguese official, and it puts very clearly the state of the case.
I may state that up to now 2,300 of these labourers have been repatriated. I will deal with the manner of their repatriation later on. Some of your Lordships will remember, no doubt, the lawsuit that took place between Mr. Cadbury and the Standard newspaper. The trial took place in September, 1908, and it did more to enlighten the public in England as to the conditions of contract labour in these Portuguese islands than all the correspondence and despatches emanating from the Foreign Office. Reports were published in the newspapers, and people took a great interest in them at the time. Sir Rufus Isaacs, who acted as Mr. Cadbury's counsel, referring to the labour on the islands said—
"Labour which certainly, I think, can only be properly described as forced labour, and constituting a condition of slavery. There is no issue in this case about that, and never has been. The plaintiffs have come to the conclusion, as you will hear, from inquiries which they made, that there was a condition which amounted to slavery in these islands.… It might be difficult, perhaps, to exaggerate some of the evils which we see, but it is no part of my duty to do anything more than to state the simple facts."
Of course, this is only Sir Rufus Isaacs's personal opinion on the evidence he had before him, and it has nothing to do with the Government or their opinions on the subject.
I should like to say something about this White Book which I hold in my hand, "Africa," No. 2 (1913), issued in February. It is entitled, "Further Correspondence respecting Contract Labour in Portuguese West Africa." As one reads through the despatches of Ministers, Chargé d'Affaires, Consuls, and Vice-consuls, one is struck with this fact—that the whole hosts of bureaucratic officials are hard at work explaining away the 40,000 slaves working in the cocoa plantations of St. Thomé and Principe, and that slavery if it is carried out under a respectable alias, as, for example, "contract labour," is not slavery at all. One is inclined to put to oneself
1286
this conundrum, When is a slave not a slave? When he is a serviçal or contract labourer. In fact, the perusal of this Foreign Office document leaves one quite cold. The contention of the Anti-Slavery Society is this, that the Portuguese Government have done little or nothing to remedy the state of things in these islands, unless, in truth, we accept promulgations, decrees, and regulations issued by the Portuguese Government from Lisbon, which they do not carry out in any way, in place of deeds.
Now I come to another matter, and I hope your Lordships will give me your attention with regard to this. I wish to deal with a statement made by Mr. Acland, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the debate on Foreign Office Supply on May 29 last. I am quoting from Hansard. He said—
"There is no longer any recruiting from Angola for St. Thomé, and a great deal of what he"—
He was alluding to Mr. Hoare, Member for Chelsea—
"referred to as being conditions of slave trading on the mainland is a closed chapter altogether. I do not deny that in some parts of the Hinterland of Central Africa a state of domestic slavery, or something very like it, probably exists, not exclusively in Portuguese dominions, but the great matter of complaint—namely, a real system of slave trading between Portuguese dominions on the mainland and Portuguese dominions in the islands—has been brought to an end."
That is a very important statement. It is, I may say, a great deal stronger than anything that has ever been put forward by the Portuguese Government when they have been tackled in regard to this matter. In answer to that let me quote from the Official Bulletin of the Portuguese Government—
"On May 2 the steamship 'Malange' took 11 men; on the 19th the 'Loanda' took 87 men and women; on the 31st the 'Ambaca' carried 32—making a total of 130 shipped from Angola to San Thomé during the month of May, 1913. The steamship 'Cazengo' and the steamship 'Mozambique' have been granted licences to carry 300 and 800 labourers respectively for San Thomé and Principe from Angola."
That last statement that these steamships have been granted licences is quite sufficient to refute the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for what is the good of granting licences if there are no labourers to be carried. After this proof that slaves under the pleasant name of "contract labourers"

1287
are still carried to the island, we are somewhat sceptical about any of the reforms carried out or promised by the Portuguese Government and so largely set forth in the White Book which I have mentioned.
Let me examine some of these statements. The Portuguese Government are recruiting labourers from Cape Verde and Mozambique. That is the first. There is nothing to be said about that as the contracts and the law with regard to those labourers are faithfully kept. They know what a contract is, and they take very good care when their contract comes to an end to see that they are properly treated and sent back. Naturally as recruiting is going on from these two places I assume there are less coming from the mainland than in the days when I was on the coast. But the great evil in the case of the Angolan labourers is that they cannot get away from the islands. They are sentenced for life, especially those who were contracted prior to January, 1903. I will give you the four heads of the contract. (1) The contract is to be of five years duration; (2) the serviçal or contract labourer is to be supplied with board, lodging, and wages—he gets board and lodging and a certain amount of wages—(3) the planter is to act as a "beneficient guardian." He does act as a "beneficient guardian," because he puts a sentry over these labourers to see that they do not run away. Head (4) is that the planter must repatriate the servçal at the termination of the contract if it is not renewed. These are the four main conditions of the contract, and they differ very little in substance from the later ones. What does an ignorant native know of contracts? Nothing. What does he know of repatriation? He knows nothing about that at all; he does not understand the language; he comes from the inland parts and understands only the language or the dialect of his particular district.
The most curious part of all this is that there is actually a repatriation fund. That fund was established in the year 1903 by deducting one-third from the wages of the serviçaes; it was later raised to two-fifths. In December, 1907, the fund had reached the sum of £100,000. That is a good round sum, but it was left in the hands of the planters, the very men, of course, who want to keep these wretched natives on the islands. Eight months
1288
later, when the sum should have been considerably more, Mr. Cadbury, who visited the island of St. Thomé, was shown the books there and the fund had by some means decreased to £62,000—nearly £40,000 gone. But it had not gone to repatriated labourers, for none were liberated till the following December, 1908. The planters' opposition to repatriation is well known. Even Mr. Drummond Hay, the Consul at Loanda, knows this very well, for when he called on Senhor dos Santos in May of last year this gentleman, who is the curator in San Thomé, referred to the opposition of the planters, but Mr. Hay said that in spite of their conduct he was determined to carry out repatriation. All honour to him. No wonder he is unpopular, and, if he insists, he will very likely get his recall to Lisbon, because, as is well known, an enormous number of governors have been appointed to St. Thomé of late years and through the influence of the planters their dismissal has been procured and they have been sent back to Lisbon.
A word as to the rate of repatriation. On the islands of St. Thomé and Principe there are about 37,000 slaves or contract labourers and their children at the present moment, but few of the children survive. Since December, 1908, when repatriation began, some 2,300 have been emancipated, this being an average of 500 per annum. The rate has considerably increased since last year, but even at the highest rate of repatriation it will take twenty or thirty years at least to repatriate the whole of these slaves. Thousands die; the death rate is appalling. The mean death rate, as far as we can ascertain, over the two islands is about 10 per cent., but no proper statistics are available. In December, 1907, the Portuguese planters issued a very fine manifesto which said "Each repatriated labourer will receive about £18 upon landing on the mainland in Angola." The truth is, the only labourers that are repatriated are the aged and infirm. When they have done their work the planters are, of course, glad to get rid of them. Mr. Vice-Consul Smallbones had an interview with the Vice-Governor of Angola on November 24, 1911, and this official admitted to our vice-consul that repatriation had become a mauvaise affaire that men had not been repatriated but expatriated. Recently 163 landed in Angola, but in only twenty-eight cases was it possible to give their ages and the time

1289
they had been on St. Thomé. That is another evidence of the fictitious nature of the contract theory. The average age of these twenty-eight was just below forty-two years, and the average period they were kept on the islands was about thirty-one years. Therefore after over thirty years of slavery the much trumpeted bonus of £18 for a five years' service worked out at about £3 apiece. What we ask is that the standard of repatriation should be the capacity of available shipping from the islands to the mainland, and that at the end of the five years' contract the labourer, if he does not re-contract, should receive his £18 on landing in Angola. There are ample funds for this, and they are still accumulating; but we must remember that the funds are in the hands of the planters, who are in no way inclined to help these people out of the islands while they can make them work. So much for the conditions of contract labour, or slavery, whichever it is called, on these islands.
Now I wish to say something as to the mainland. What evidence is there that this practice has disappeared? Who says it has disappeared? I say there is evidence of its existence. I must quote from this White Book, if your Lordships will allow me, and I wish to draw attention to the Despatch addressed to Sir Edward Grey by Count de Lalaing, the Belgian Ambassador in London, dated June 8, 1912. He says—
"In reply to your Excellency's letter of the 23rd May last, I have the honour to inform you that the King's Government has learnt with satisfaction that His Britannic Majesty's Government is disposed to assist it to eradicate the slave trade in the regions bordering on the frontier between the Congo, Angola, and Rhodesia.
"The Portuguese Government has received our overtures in this direction equally favourably.
"I have the honour to bring to your Excellency's knowledge the following information which has been collected by the Belgian Colonial Administration:—
"The black labour necessary for the Angola plantations and the porters who carry to the railheads of the Loanda and Lobito Bay Railways the rubber emanating from Belgian Congo are recruited, principally in Belgian territory, by regular slave-trading operations.
"The traders who are engaged in this special recruiting do not work personally in Belgian territory. They reside in the neighbouring colonies and dispatch from the other side of the Congo frontier coloured agents who get into touch with one of the powerful native chiefs and induce him, in exchange for guns and powder, to hand over his own domestic slaves or prisoners
1290
made in raiding neighbouring tribes. Police operations directed in Belgian territory against the slave-dealers have not for this reason brought about hitherto the arrest of any European, and consequently have not enabled the root of evil to be touched.
"The blacks acting as intermediaries are chiefly Ambacarongos and Quiocos. The former work in the south-west of the Kwango and the west of the Kasai, the latter east and south of the Kasai.
"They buy rubber at the same time as slaves in Belgian territory. The rubber is carried to the coast or railway on the backs of men. To outward appearance the purchased negroes are engaged to work in some factory in Angola or on the coast, and they start off with a load on their heads. In reality they are slaves attached to the plantation or factory which has acquired them.
"At the instigation of the traders the population living on the two slopes of the watershed, from Lake Dilolo to the meridian of Kayoyo, are actively engaged in smuggling, arms traffic, and slave trade."
That is a very straightforward statement; and I must say that it is a very cunningly carried out system by the Portuguese slave traders.
Now I should like to draw attention to a Despatch from one of our own Consuls to Sir Edward Grey of a later date. It is dated Loanda, September 23, 1912. Loanda is the capital of the Portuguese West African possessions. This is pretty good evidence of what really goes on. It is on pages 37 and 38 of the White Book. The Consul says—
"On the 23rd and 24th ultimo the Governor-General visited a plantation called 'Tentativa,' which belongs to the Companhia Agricola de Dande, and lies in the district of Alto Dande. This plantation employs about 700 labourers, who apparently were contracted under the regulations of 1902. They made a demonstration outside the house his Excellency was staying in, asking to be allowed to leave the plantation, and even accompanied his Excellency to the railway station when he left, some five hours away. Thirteen soldiers were sent from Loanda to intimidate them, and they returned to work. His Excellency informs me that he had them recontracted under the regulations of 1911. I pointed out to his Excellency, who discussed this question with me most willingly, that according to those regulations this was irregular. I had in mind Section 3 of Article 2, and quoted it from memory. That section says that the obligation to work is considered fulfilled 'by those who work for wages or pay for at least a certain number of months every year, the number of months being laid down by local regulations.' The local regulations have not yet been made, but it is obvious that they cannot stipulate that a man has to enter into a new contract at once when he has been working for the last twelve months continuously. My contention, therefore, was that as these labourers had, so I understood, worked continuously on an average for from

1291
five to nine years they could not possibly be forced into a new contract to which they were not yet liable. His Excellency admitted my contention, but remarked that in the present state of the labour supply such scrupulous observance of the regulations would entail the entire stoppage of a large plantation for which he could not be responsible. I have ventured to relate this incident, because it shows the difficulties of the situation."
I do not think that anything can be clearer than that those labourers on the mainland are slaves, and that the Governor-General reconfirmed them in their slavery after the many years, as I have read, they have been working on these plantations.
I will tell you what I saw myself in 1882, and I have not heard that the conditions are much altered at the present day. We had a long desert march up to a settlement in the interior where I do not think any Englishman had ever been before. We arrived at a Portuguese farm. Outside that farm were collected a number of natives who were being served out with their rations, consisting of a heap of sweet potatoes. They then all trooped into a large courtyard, on each side of which were little huts where I could see they began kindling the fires to cook their evening meal. Some very heavy doors were then shut to and they were locked up for the night. I saw those same people working in the fields the next day. Those are the sort of slaves that are working on the plantations in Angola at the present time. I do not think there is any doubt about that. As to domestic slavery, I have been waited on myself at Portuguese farms by negresses and I am bound to say they are treated very well; they become part of the family, as it were, and so far as domestic slavery is concerned the actual house slaves are not at all badly treated.
I do not wish to say anything more on this subject. I have stated the facts, and it is for the Government to refute them if they are not accurate. I hope I have made it clear that the existing situation on the Portuguese mainland and in the islands of St. Thomé and Principe is one which cannot be prolonged for ever. The people of Great Britain have a clear right to demand either that slave-owning or slave trading should cease, or that we should no longer be bound by a Treaty with Portugal to defend Colonies in which slavery is not only tolerated, but, under a respectable alias, maintained and defended.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I make no complaint whatever of the noble Earl for having brought this subject under the notice of the House, nor have I any complaint to make of the tone he has taken, though I hope I shall persuade your Lordships that the concluding inference that he draws from all these detestable facts is one to which one cannot prudently listen. Whatever differences there are among us in other fields of Imperial duty, all political Parties, all churches and chapels and denominations, and those who belong to none of them, agree in maintaining the old historical obligation which is the glory of the British name—the obligation of keeping a vigilant eye, and a vigorous hand so far as a hand can be useful, over the hateful crime of slavery and still more abhorrent crime of slave trading.
Now, as to the case in the Portuguese colonies in West Africa. Some language has been used by those most ardently in agreement with the object of the noble Earl which is really extravagant and tends to defeat the philanthropic cause that those who use it have at heart. One man of considerable eminence and distinction makes a public speech in which he charges His Majesty's Government with being the apologists for slavery, both on the cocoa islands and on the mainland, for defending slavery, and so forth. I am not at all concerned to quarrel with strong language or with the ardent humanity that prompts strong language, and I say frankly that there can hardly be too much strong language about this state of things if it is rightly directed. But turned against His Majesty's Government it is strong language wholly out of place. The most philanthropic strong language should be measured by justice and by facts.
We are told that the present case is one of great disappointment and of great disillusionment in consequence of the action of the British Government. Language of that kind can only be justified by two things—first, by failure and default in effort; and, secondly, by failure and default in result. I think by those standards this language fails to be justified. I will accept, if he likes, the language of the noble Earl. I will not cavil as to whether the condition of things in the Hinterland of Angola or in the cocoa

1293
islands is or is not as described by the noble Earl, or as to whether the Portuguese name of indentured labour is a respectable name for slavery, or as to the shades of difference that exist between slavery and indentured labour in this region and whether there is any real difference or not. I do not think there is. Nobody denies that the conditions of labour under which these people exist are in effect bondage. So they are in other places where indentured labour is not unknown. But, my Lords, you cannot prevent the conditions of labour in the tropics under white management, and so forth, from being at the present stage of human things unpleasantly akin to slavery. The noble Earl did use rather uncharitable language when he said that this deplorable state of things is kept out of sight and perhaps disguised, I think he said, by a host of bureaucrats. He certainly goes beyond the facts there.
Nobody believes, and we do not believe, that there is no slavery in the Hinterland of the Portuguese West African colony of Angola. That has been established according to the judgment of capable authorities. But you must take a backward social State as you find it until time and humanity have ameliorated the conditions, and that time, we hope, will not be long. I think the noble Earl recognised that the state of things inland, as practised upon the native tribes, is of course slavery of a horrible primitive kind, but the Portuguese Government cannot reach it. This evil state of things goes on in regions so remote, so inaccessible, that nothing short of strong military armed power could effectively put an end to it, if even that could. All those who have thought about these things are aware that the social state in a place such as this, in a wild inaccessible region, cannot be dealt with even by military force.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I was not speaking of slavery practised by black man upon black man, but of slavery practised by white man upon black man, such as I saw myself and which exists still on the Angola plantations. That is quite near enough to civilisation, because some of the produce that is produced by these people is shipped to Europe.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I understood the noble Earl to be referring to that. But I thought he referred to a state of things which existed in the Hinterland of Angola.
THE EARL OF MAYO: That is where I they get the slaves from.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I know they find them there. Heaven forbid that I should defend the practice, but I think we have a right to ask the House to realise the enormous difficulties of the position. The noble Earl talked rather as if we were the complete masters in these colonies. He assumed—it was the drift of his contention—that we, if we liked to be energetic enough, and made regulations enough, and sent officers enough, could redress all the hideous things he has described. The House will remember that these are Portuguese colonies, and that what we can do, what we have done, and what we are doing, is by counsel, advice, protest, and remonstrance, to induce the authorities who are responsible to take measures which will, at all events, ameliorate the mischief.
I should like to give this fact to the House, a fact upon which really our justification, if justification were necessary, rests. The old system of contract labour was replaced by the regulations which came into force between 1909 and 1911. The noble Earl admits that. That was done mainly under our counsel and advice. And not only that, but we have endeavoured that such measures in the shape of those regulations should be taken as would abate the more scandalous features. The noble Earl referred to recruiting. Recruiting in August, 1909, was suspended until these regulations could be introduced, and with the exception of last year, in which a few voluntary labourers were sent off to the islands on a contract only for a single year, recruiting ceased though it was partially resumed in 1911.
The noble Earl alluded to language used by Mr. Acland, the Under-Secretary, in the House of Commons on May 29, and referred to the case of the "Ambaca." It is quite true that Mr. Acland, when he made that observatnoi, did not know, and I do not believe that the ardent and zealous friends of the noble Earl knew, of the case of the "Ambaca." There is no reason to suppose that there was any scandal about it—perhaps so much the worse!—nor any reason why the men who were sent off on the "Ambaca" should not have been shipped under the new regulations, which, if they were

1295
properly carried out, are judged by those who know the conditions at close quarters to be entirely satisfactory. As to the figures of repatriation, I think the noble Earl has not got them quite right. In the year 1911 there were from 385 to 400 repatriated to Angola; in 1912 there were 1,665. The numbers had gone up, showing that the process of repatriation, in spite of the difficulties in the way, the motives of the planters, and so forth, had gone on, and that, the number repatriated has something like quadrupled.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I admitted that.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: During the first four months of the present year the repatriations were 956. We are doing all that we can to secure a steady stream of repatriation at a proper and practicable rate, and every labourer who is entitled to repatriation shall be repatriated. The noble Earl talked about the attitude, not only of ourselves, but of the Portuguese officials. He quoted one of them whom I do not recognise, but I am sure, if he quotes it, that such a person actually did use the language which the noble Earl read to your Lordships. But I will say against that—and I am surprised that the noble Earl is not acquainted with it, for, if he had been acquainted with it, he would have told your Lordships of it—the fact that the Governor-General has incurred the utmost obloquy; he has been abused in the newspapers; he has been traduced in the Portuguese Parliament; he has gone through fire and water in order to uphold these regulations and to maintain a higher standard of conduct.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am sure the noble Earl is glad to hear that. That ought to be remembered. It is not all black and odious; there are good sides. As to the repatriation fund, it is quite true that that fund is in the hands practically of the planters. It is quite true that the figure is defective; the figure ought to be higher than it is by £30,000 or £40,000, but we cannot administer that fund. That is impossible. Here is a fund raised by not very agreeable means; it is rather hard lines for the labourers, but still we cannot say to the Portuguese Government, "We insist upon your ad-
1296
ministering that fund and submitting an audit of it." It is impossible for us to undertake a process of that kind under those conditions.
When the first of these repatriations took place, the unfortunate beings who were repatriated suffered great distress when they were landed on the mainland, many of them being without a farthing in their pockets. The Portuguese colonial authorities did the best they could. They established depôts at two landing places; work was provided for those who wanted to work and who did not wish to return; they did all that the humanest authority possible could be expected to do. What have we done? Within the last two years, in addition to our Consul at Boma, we have established two paid Consuls, one of whom alternates between San Thomé and Fernando Po, and the other resides at Benguella. They take note of the arrivals and departures, and they can keep a watch over recruits, over repatriation, and over re-repatriation. We have instructed the Vice-Consul, whose name was quoted by the noble Earl, to keep us informed of the rates of contracts, of the termination of contracts, and the repatriation of those who entered into those contracts. In June this year we asked for a return of the amount paid in bonus from the repatriation fund throughout the year 1912. This month we asked for a further return, laying great stress on the importance of this fund being accurately kept and the returns being trustworthy.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will those returns be published?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I do not know, but I will ask. There would be no objection, I should imagine. I almost think I could promise that. Then we have made inquiries as to German ships. There are not ships enough to carry these people home from the islands to the mainland, people who have fulfilled their contracts and are entitled to be sent back. That is one of the difficulties which the noble Earl knows exist, and it is a tremendous one. We made inquiries as to whether German ships plying between St. Thomé and the mainland ports were registered for carrying the returning coolies, or whatever you like to call them. Surely anybody who will take the trouble to think out the actual conditions of the situation will agree that we have not been remiss. It is very easy

1297
for the noble Earl to say—it has been said by other people very often—you ought to say to Portugal, "If you do not get rid of slavery in your colonies we will no longer be bound by the Treaty of Alliance which compels us to take a part in the defence of your colonies." I would ask the House whether this is a good moment for making a representation of violence, as I should call it, of that description to the Portuguese authorities. What is the moment you choose for making this rather violent representation? You choose the moment when the Portuguese authorities have given the very best evidence they could, by making the regulations, that they are trying to meet our views. That is the moment you choose, after years of complete acquiescence in these enormities. When they are mending and things are looking brighter, that is the moment you choose to say "We will take the violent step of ending the relations between the two Governments unless you do this thing that we ask you." That is, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, a headlong suggestion of his.
The picture that the noble Earl painted, I admit without, excess of colour, is of course detestable. But in all these cases you have to measure your force and the means by which you can get at the root of these mischiefs and His Majesty's Government are doing all that they can wisely and prudently do. We recognise that the Portuguese authorities, so far, are doing their best. Some of their local authorities are acting extraordinarily courageously. And I submit to the House, while sympathising entirely with the object of the noble Earl, while recognising the deplorable state of things that exists, that he has not made out any case—perhaps he did not even desire to do so—for our taking further steps; and so far as his Motion makes still warmer English opinion about this matter, there can be no reason whatever to complain about what the noble Earl has done.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think the House and the country should be grateful to the noble Earl, and not for the first time, for the action that he has taken in calling attention in Parliament to the wrongs of those who do not naturally, or quite obviously, find spokesmen to take up their cause in this country. Of this I am quite sure, that he could not have made an appeal to any one who would in his heart
1298
sympathise more fully with his aims than the noble Viscount who has just spoken. People are, I am glad to think, waking to a wider interest in the question of these particular wrongs. Interest has been awakened, or deepened, perhaps, from indirect as well as direct reasons not unconnected with journalism or even with politics, and other circumstances besides the sorrows of the native population affected have led people who might not otherwise have thought much about the subject to look into the facts and try to understand them better than they otherwise would.
No one can so look into them and try to do it dispassionately and honestly without frankly admitting the enormous difficulty of the question. The question is difficult in many ways. Obviously, on the surface, from the immense areas we are talking about, and from the enormous distances apart of the various people who can supply information and bring force to bear. From our own experience of the conditions of what is called indentured labour, we must realise how hard it is for any country, even with the best intentions possible—and I am sure that ours were of the best possible—to bring to an end rapidly and finally the conditions which accompany indentured labour when the employers of that labour are not men moved primarily by philanthropic thoughts for the interests of the labourer. We have found in our own experience—the South Pacific is full of records of it—the hardships that may be inflicted or are supposed to be inflicted—and, be it always remembered, on many of the employed—by the drastic and peremptory prohibition of indentured labour because we are unable to get the conditions to be exactly what we like. I say that because I think we are bound to recognise the extreme difficulties of the question when we bring the matter to the public notice.
But, having said all that, I am bound to say that the perusal of these two White Books as a whole leaves in my mind a very uncomfortable feeling. The noble Earl said that the perusal of those books left him cold. I would rather say that it left me hot. I felt that something or other seemed to be amiss. I am bound to say the action and words and despatches of our own authorities seemed to me to have a disappointing tone about them as regards

1299
our attitude towards wrongs the gravity of which it is impossible to exaggerate, so grave and so terrible they are. I felt the reading of this White Book as a whole to be rather humiliating. I do not want to go into the details, many of which have been referred to by the noble Earl and which will be found in the White Book by those who will look for them. But I confess I should have liked to hear from the noble Viscount and to have seen in the despatches a little more about the difficulty of repatriation, because the particulars given in the White Book of what repatriation means are not very full. When they have reshipped these unhappy people, when they have landed them on the coast perhaps 2,000 miles away from their homes and with no means of getting there, they seem to think that the responsibility of repatriation is discharged. The mode of meeting the difficulty may not be easy, but when we look at the details of what repatriation sometimes means it seems to have something of a mockery about it.
It interests me to remember, when we have been celebrating this very year a great centenary, the centenary of Dr. Livingstone, that the most memorable event, perhaps, in Dr. Livingstone's life was the journey that he took across Africa from Lake Tanganyika, in the very regions we have been referring to, down to the Angola coast. If any one will read the chapters which describe that journey, either from Dr. Livingstone's own Journal or from the more compendious summary in that admirable little biography written by Tom Hughes, he will see the very places referred to there that have been referred to by the noble Earl, and he will find that accounts are given in full by Dr. Livingstone as to what he found with regard to the recruiting of slaves, the difficulty of bringing that curse to an end, and the ultimate problem, as it presented itself to him when he reached the Portuguese coast and put himself into communication with the Consul there, Monsieur Gabriel, who was an agent for the suppression of slavery. I mention this for this reason, that reading these chapters, as I happened to do not long ago, I was struck by finding that, instead of things in that region being better now as regards the slave trade, there are districts of the country in which they have positively become worse. There was a slave trade in the opposite direction to the Eastern coast which has, happily, been terminated;
1300
but the slavery that we are speaking of here—the supplying of what is called indentured labour, which means, in plain English, slavery, to the regions on the Western side—seems to me to have increased rather than diminished; the very thing that Dr. Livingstone tried to extirpate, and which we thought that, with the enthusiastic support of Englishmen, he had extirpated.
I am not sure how far Treaty obligations do practically bind us in the matter; but putting that aside, I do not think any one can say that it is Englishmen who are directly responsible in any way for what is here being spoken of. There are not wanting those who rather scoff at what is supposed to be an Englishman's notion of trying to police the world in a general way. That scoff is very easy to make. The answer I should like to give, and do give when I hear it, is in the first place that, although the true responsibility of England may not be easy to define, the indirect responsibility is surely not absent. What about the cocoa business and all that it means? How far is it really unstained by connection with things of this kind? How far are the economics, of which the boast has so often and quite legitimately been made, as to the cheapening of that particular form of merchandise, due to causes which can really be found in the evils of which we are now talking? When the scoff is made—and I have no doubt it will be made to-morrow when the discussion here is reported—as to our policing the world, I should like to point to what has been done in the last few years by the very fact of our protests in this country. Take the case of the Congo. Would any one say that the condition of the Congo would be what it is to-day if there had been no protests and no attempt "to police the world" on the part of those in this country and America who really care about these subjects? Take Putumayo. How far things are cured there no one seems clearly to know at this moment, but there cannot be any doubt that it was the action which took place in this country that called attention to the wrongs which were rampant there. Therefore whether or not we can put our finger on some definite thing which has been left undone and say it should be done, the fact of our bringing the matter forward on an occasion such as this, in the surroundings in which we are bringing it forward to-day, is not merely likely to do good, but there

1301
is actual proof of the beneficial results that have followed from a like protest in the last few years.
What I am anxious we should do in this matter—and that is why I cannot help feeling that these White Books leave on me the uncomfortable feeling I have mentioned—is to create and strengthen, not only in England but elsewhere, a strong public feeling in such matters as this. And that can only be done, when despatches such as these come before us, by protests on the part of our Government in England and in other similar ways. Evidence is not lacking in the White Books themselves of the effect produced by some of the despatches, but our representatives on the whole seem to take what I venture to think is a curiously cold view of the wrong which is being done. The sort of answer that comes to our very mild and doubtful form of remonstrance is "After all you do not really think the thing is very bad, and you will probably be satisfied that we are doing our very best to put a stop to it." I should like to see in these despatches a more definite brushing aside of the old humbug arguments of the native being better off there than at home, and of his being a lazy dog who would not work if you did not make him, and so on through the familiar list. Instead of rubbishy arguments of that sort being brushed aside in this correspondence, it does seem to me that, although they may not be accepted altogether, they certainly are taken as being worth a great deal more than they really are. The Foreign Office and the people of this country seem to be a great deal more apathetic with regard to this matter than we have been with regard to others where the evil, perhaps, has not been so great.
The noble Viscount said that strong language with regard to this matter could only be justified by one of two things—either by failure and default in effort; or secondly, by failure and default in result. I venture to think—and I say it with genuine diffidence in the presence of one who is so true a champion of the cause we are thinking of as the noble Viscount himself—that there may be failure and default in the tone in which the whole thing is spoken of and the general way in which it is handled in the eye of those who are criticising it outside. I cannot keep myself from saying that, taking the White Book as a whole, the despatches it contains and the character
1302
of the correspondence as a whole leave me with the thought that the tone and attitude adopted towards the question, speaking largely, has been not as warm as I should have hoped it might be, and as I venture to hope it may still come to be while the matter continues to be the subject of correspondence.
The noble Viscount said that it may not be a prudent moment now to make a protest, and that we ought not to peremptorily state that our alliance shall be broken off with the Portuguese Government if this thing is not remedied at once. I really do not know anything about that. That is a Treaty question and a question for politicians and diplomatists rather than for me; but our recognition of the grave difficulty of using threats of that sort does not necessarily mean that, taking the correspondence as a whole, such possibilities should not have been hinted at and our Alliance and Treaty obligations referred to at an earlier stage in the whole business. It is doubtless at this moment right to say that some amelioration is apparently taking place. We hope that a great deal more amelioration will take place in future; but I do not think that prevents us from feeling that the cause might have been presented with greater firmness on our side and with a more obvious sense that we feel the gravity of these wrongs perpetrated upon a helpless people.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I did not come down to the House with any intention of speaking on this subject, but as I have had from time to time a great deal to do with this question of slavery and slave trading I should like to say a few words. We have been united by Treaty to the Portuguese Government for a very long while, and I do not suppose that any one wishes to press them too hard or fails to recognise the great difficulties of their position, as also those of the Portuguese officials to whom the noble Viscount alluded. But I may say, so far as my own experience goes—and I have had a good deal to do with putting down slavery—that although it is very difficult, there is a great tendency on the part of those interested in the question to exaggerate the difficulties.
Let me remind your Lordships of what happened in the Sudan. The Sudan is a very large country. I do not know how it

1303
compares in size with the Portuguese possessions in Africa, but I should say that it is nearly as large, and that some portions of it are almost as inaccessible. Many years ago, when Ismail Pasha was Khedive of Egypt, he issued a Proclamation doing away with slavery in the Sudan. That was in accordance with a Treaty with His Majesty's Government. The Proclamation turned out to be quite valueless, because it could not be carried out, and Ismail Pasha knew that it could not be carried out. The only result of it was to cause great dissatisfaction in the Sudan, so much so that your Lordships will remember—I am sure the noble Viscount will do so—that the very first thing General Gordon did when he got to Khartoum, in spite of his great antipathy to slavery, was to cancel that decree; his action was received with great satisfaction throughout the Sudan. Eventually the Sudan was re-conquered, and we then set to work in a very different way. There was no Proclamation. I rather think there was no law passed. There was nothing done of any sensational description which attracted attention. I suppose those interested in anti-slavery in this country had confidence in what we were doing, but anyhow they were wise enough to leave us alone, and not to make any great stir.
What was the result? As I say, no Proclamation was issued and I do not think any law was passed, but a steady, continuous pressure was put on by my friend Sir Reginald Wingate, the Governor-General of the Sudan, to do away with slavery; and if he were here he would be able to tell your Lordships that, in spite of the enormous difficulties, and in spite of the fact that we were told over and over again that it was impossible to do away with slavery, at this moment there is neither slavery nor forced labour of any kind in the Sudan. That shows what can be done. In the Portuguese possessions, of course, it is a much more difficult question. We only had to deal with Arab slave owners, whereas here you have to deal with European slave owners who have newspapers and capital behind them; but still, what I have said shows what can be done if those concerned set about it with a good will and in a proper way. All we can do is to keep on insisting on the Portuguese Government putting pressure upon their own officials and keeping them steadily up to the mark.
1304
There are two other points on which I should like to make a few remarks. I confess I have not read these Papers with great attention, but I have heard it stated that there are a certain number of British subjects who are slaves in the Portuguese islands. I do not know whether this is actually the case or not, but I must say I find it very difficult to reconcile myself to the idea that a British subject, however humble, should be kept as a slave against his will anywhere. If it be the fact that there are British subjects there, I think that some rather vigorous measures might be taken to bring them away, and that His Majesty's Government might send a ship and insist on their removal. I am, of course, aware that it is difficult to know who really is a British subject, but I am told that experts who know all the different marks of the various tribes can state with confidence who is a British subject and who is not. The noble Earl said that we could denounce our Treaty with Portugal. I can quite understand the noble Viscount when he said that this would be a very inopportune moment for His Majesty's Government to make any such declaration as that. As a private individual I made a similar suggestion myself in the introduction to a book recently written by Mr. Harris; but that is a very different thing from the Government making such a statement. The reason I made that suggestion was that I was a private individual, and therefore could not speak with the same authority as a responsible official. But I think it would be desirable, whatever the action of His Majesty's Government may be, that the Portuguese Government should understand that if unfortunately it may ever happen, as I hope it may not, that they should call upon our assistance in time of war to act up to our Treaty rights, it would place the Government of this country in a very embarrassing and delicate position to be asked to use the armed force of this country to support a slave State. I thought and I still think it a desirable thing for those who are not hampered by official ties, and can thus speak their minds freely, to bring that fact to the notice of the Portuguese Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am tempted to add a few words to this discussion, because I should regret to be thought by my noble friend behind me to

1305
be involved in that official conspiracy to explain away the facts to which he referred at the beginning of his speech. The facts cannot be explained away, and I am myself only too well aware of their gravity. These indentured labourers are not people who are competent to enter into contracts of their own free will. Their condition is one of forced labour for life, as my noble friend described it, and under very cruel conditions. It is, if I may borrow the noble Viscount's phrase, a condition of bondage akin to slavery, and it is a very detestable system. Upon that I think we are all agreed.
The reply which my noble friend elicited may not have seemed to him altogether as reassuring as he would have desired, but I am bound to say that it appeared to me in the main to be a not unsatisfactory reply. I listened attentively to the noble Viscount's speech, and I gathered from him that he was able to point, to a distinct improvement in certain particulars which he enumerated. In regard to the exportation of indentured labourers to the islands, he told us that new regulations of a satisfactory description had lately been introduced. As I think he said himself, it is easy to frame regulations; the difficulty lies, of course, in enforcing them. Then the noble Viscount said that repatriation was progressing more rapidly. He added that the Portuguese Government were endeavouring as far as possible to deal with the question of slavery on the mainland; and, finally—and I think this was probably the most satisfactory point of all—he gave credit to the Portuguese Government and to the Portuguese officials, and notably to the Governor-General, for a loyal desire and intention to put down these abuses.
I am afraid the case is one where we must be content with a gradual improvement. The system to which we all take exception is firmly established in these regions, and it has ramifications over a great part of Southern Africa. I do not believe that it would be practically possible to put an end to it by a stroke of the pen. I go further and say that in my belief to attempt to put a stop to some of these practices too abruptly might only have the effect of increasing the amount of suffering to which these people are exposed. We have bad a case in point in regard to repatriation—a case in which, owing to there being no means of restoring the repatriated labourers to their homes, many of them went through great tribulation. All, I think, that
1306
we can say this evening is that we trust that His Majesty's Government will continue to press upon the Government of Portugal the necessity of dealing adequately with these abuses. I heard with satisfaction the noble Viscount's announcement that additional Consuls had been appointed. That seems to me to be a practical and a thoroughly sound step.
With regard to our action as to the Portuguese Government, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that the occasion is not one for what he described as violent representations. But may I say, on the other hand, that it appears to me that the Portuguese Government will be extremely short-sighted if they do not take to heart the warning language which has been uttered upon this and other occasions with regard to the condition of things in these islands and on the adjoining mainland. Portugal is our old ally. She is united to us by bonds of traditional friendship, and not only by bonds of friendship but by a series of ancient Treaties, some of them going back, if my memory serves me, as far as the reign of King Edward III. Those Treaties are recognised by us as binding. They have been officially referred to within recent memory as binding, and I do not think any one would desire to call in question the obligations which they imply. But I do think it reasonable to ask that the Portuguese Government should take into account that if they are not careful a condition of things might arise in which we should be confronted, on the one hand, by our Treaty obligations, and on the other by a very strong and almost irresistible outburst of public opinion in this country; so irresistible that it might make it difficult for us to act up to them. That, would be a most unfortunate contingency, for Portugal particularly; and I earnestly trust that by the manner in which they will handle this question, and perhaps other questions which have attracted attention lately, they will avoid doing anything which might place the Government of this country in that most unfortunate dilemma.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but in thanking Lord Mayo, as others have done, for bringing this subject forward, I would like to take the opportunity of urging upon the noble Viscount that our Government should press the Portuguese Government to take

1307
full advantage of the ships that are there, and repatriate the men who, I understand, are waiting to leave but who are prevented from doing so by those interested in this business and in keeping these people there. I believe there are one or two British ships per month which would be available to repatriate these unfortunate people; and then when they reached the mainland it would be easier for other organisations to help them and see that they receive the £18 to which they are entitled, and if they had that money there would be a chance of some of them, at all events, being able to get to their homes. I venture to ask whether the noble Viscount can give any assurance that the Portuguese Government will be pressed to do this work of repatriation more rapidly by taking advantage of the ships which go there from time to time.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, before the Motion is put I beg leave to amend it. The form I should like it to take is as follows:—To move for Papers giving details of the recruitment and shipping of labourers from the Mainland and Islands of Portuguese West Africa; and also the rate and conditions of repatriation from the islands and the administration of the Repatriation Fund. I beg to move the Motion in that form.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers giving details of the recruitment and shipping of labourers from the Mainland and Islands of Portuguese West Africa; and also the rate and conditions of repatriation from the Islands and the administration of the Repatriation Fund.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY: May I just say, in answer to the noble Earl, that we shall present Papers as soon as they are available, and I will submit to the Foreign Office as to whether these are points which the Papers will show and represent. In answer to Lord Kinnaird, I should like to say that I will mention his point, which is an interesting one, to the Foreign Office.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

POPULAR GUIDES TO MUSEUMS.
LORD SUDELEY LORD SUDELEY rose to move for an Annual Return to the 31st of December in each year from all public museums, including the Tower of London, picture galleries,
1308
and botanical gardens, in or near London, and in Edinburgh and in Dublin, in the form set out on the Notice Paper; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether, as it has been found difficult to obtain at present a similar Return from provincial institutions, the Board of Education will undertake to call the attention of the local authorities to the desirability of enabling the public to obtain information by means of "guide demonstrators," as far as possible, in all the principal local museums, galleries, and gardens throughout the United Kingdom, and request particulars as to what is being done in the direction indicated; and to ask if this information may be embodied in the Return.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Return for which I venture to move will, I feel sure, meet with the approval of the House. There is, however, one little difficulty which has arisen in regard to it, and about this I should like to say one or two words. I was very anxious that it should be possible to enable this Return to be made for provincial museums as well as for those of the metropolis and Edinburgh and Dublin. Unfortunately a technical difficulty has arisen and therefore it has been thought better not to press the matter, although in other respects there is no objection whatever to it. In these circumstances I want to ask His Majesty's Government if the Education Department will call the attention of the local authorities to the great desirability of the public having the means and facilities for obtaining information from all local museums, gardens, and galleries by means of guide demonstrators, and also if they will at the same time request the different local authorities to inform them as to how far this arrangement has been carried out. I hope that the information so obtained may be admitted more or less into the Return.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, His Majesty's Government will be very glad to give the Return for which the noble Lord opposite has asked. They will also engage to call the attention of local authorities to the various points which have been raised by the noble Lord. There is, however, one amendment which I hope the noble Lord will allow me to suggest in the form of Motion, and that is the omission from the first line of the word "annual," so that it should not become

1309
necessarily an annual Return in this particular shape. I know that the noble Lord himself is not altogether satisfied with the present form of the Return, and it is not unlikely that in future years he would wish the Return to be amended and perhaps put in a different shape. It would therefore be more convenient, I think, if the noble Lord were to renew his Motion another year, and put it upon the Table of the House in the form in which he would really like the Return to be made.
LORD SUDELEY: I have no objection

Number of Visitors (Approximately).

Museum, &c.

(a) Special Students.

(b) Schools.

(c) General Public.

Method of Demonstration, whether by speciallv appointed "Guide Demonstrators" or by Members of the Stall.

Whether any Fees are Charged for such Demonstrations, and if so, what.

Whether Demonstrations are given in a Special Lecture Room or in the Galleries or Gardens.

Remarks.

—(Lord Sudeley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE ENOS-MIDIA FRONTIER.
LORD HAVERSHAM*LORD HAVERSHAM rose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether the European Powers, having exercised pressure upon Montenegro to accept the frontier of Albania decided upon by the Concert, would exercise similar pressure upon Turkey to maintain the recognition of the Enos-Midia agreed to in the Treaty of London, with the sanction of Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to offer any suggestions or observations of my own to the House on this subject, because I feel that I should place myself entirely in the hands of my noble friend and leave him to decide what information he will vouchsafe to us on the question. I am sure, however, that all
1310
whatever to the word "annual" being omitted. No doubt, if that is done, next year we may, as the noble Earl has said, be able to obtain a good deal more information under a different form. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return from the 1st of January to the 31st of December 1913, from all Public Museums, including the Tower of London, Picture Galleries and Botanical Gardens, in or near London, and in Edinburgh, and in Dublin, in the following form, viz.:—
noble Lords will feel in what a terrible position the inhabitants of Thrace would be if the Turkish yoke, removed by the late war, is reimposed upon them. I also wish to state that in my opinion no more violent and outrageous infraction of a Treaty could be made than when the Turks, who assented to their representatives here signing the Treaty of London, gave orders to their Cavalry and Infantry to cross the Enos-Midia line and re-enter Adrianople.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, before a reply is given from the Front Bench opposite I should like to observe that we may regard it as an act of foolishness or a great mistake on the part of the Turks to make this forward move. But the noble Lord opposite has referred to this advance by the Turks as a great infraction of the Treaty that was signed in London. No doubt it is an infraction of that Treaty;

1311
but it is really more essential to consider the action of the other party to the Treaty—that is, Bulgaria. We must remember that Bulgaria, at any rate so far as I am aware of the facts, never evacuated that territory as she ought to have done under that Treaty. She has never made good the Treaty, and she was still in possession of the land inside the Enos-Midia line. What has happened seems to me to be a matter of the fortune of war. We know that there has in the last few weeks been an extraordinary turn of events, and that Bulgaria has not only had to retire from that strip of territory reserved to Turkey, but has gone back right into Bulgaria itself, leaving vacant the district in which Adrianople is situated.
The noble Lord opposite referred to the terrible state to which things would come if the Turkish Government were again acknowledged in that portion of the territory. Presuming that it is not the intention of the Turkish Government that the Turkish Army shall advance further than Adrianople, the amount of territory which would be brought again under Turkish rule would be, as far as I can make out from looking at the map, only about double the amount of territory reserved to Turkey under the Treaty signed in London. Although it includes Adrianople, which has mosques and shrines of bygone importance in Turkish history, the area, as I have said, is small, and this is a fact that we should bear in mind in considering the present situation. Seeing that the whole war has produced such an extraordinary series of events, you cannot altogether blame the Turkish Government, who have been harassed and maltreated by the Bulgarian, because they take advantage of the chance of reoccupying a certain portion—as I have said, a very small portion—of the territory over which they formerly held sway.
I wish to add another word or two in regard to the effect of the present situation on our Indian Mahomedan subjects. I received a cable from India protesting in the following terms against interference with Turkey—
"On behalf of Indian Moslems pray you to persuade Government observe strict neutrality towards Turkey as observed when Bulgaria was victorious. Empire and common honesty both demand it."
I do not know what pressure the noble Lord opposite thinks should be applied—
1312
he did not explain—but I think it would be unfortunate if we applied any very drastic pressure, because we do not desire to see the Treaty of London broken into. The idea of taking drastic steps ought to be reserved, and the line of action adopted should rather be to see what can be accomplished by the aid of diplomacy. Perhaps it might, when the whole situation is considered, be desirable to ask the Turkish Government to retire within the frontier fixed by the Treaty of London, and to see what compensation could be given her if she did so. I do not think we should adopt a strong partisan attitude and say that, because the Great Powers got the Treaty signed in London fixing the limits of Turkey's European territory, the Turkish Government will have to adhere to that Treaty to the very letter, when the fortunes of war have given them a chance to reestablish their position in some degree.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite will not take it amiss if I decline to follow them into the discussion upon which they have this evening embarked. I am sure that they and the rest of the House will perceive that the situation, both diplomatic and military, is far too critical and delicate a one for any advantage whatever to be gained by any discussion in your Lordships' House. I will not discuss with my noble friend the analogy which he implies between Montenegro and Turkey, nor the analogy between the frontier of Albania and the Enos-Midia frontier. I can only say that the conditions of the two frontiers and the two States are not identical. By the Treaty of London the Turkish frontier was fixed to be the Enos-Midia line. That line was to be delimitated by an International Commission. To that International Commission all the Great Powers have sent representatives, and they will begin the process of delimitation in a very short time. By the same Treaty Constantinople and all else within that frontier east of the Enos-Midia line, and all the Asiatic possessions of Turkey, were secured to Turkey. The policy of His Majesty's Government—I may say this without provoking discussion—has been, and is, to support the Ottoman Government in putting their finance on a sound basis, in improving the administration, and in setting up a definite position. We still desire to pursue this policy; but, of course,

1313
as your Lordships well know, that desire must be given effect to in co-operation and in agreement with the other Great Powers, If, to come nearer to my noble friend's Question, Turkey reopened the question of the Enos-Midia frontier, such action may be very likely to act most unfavourably on those questions in which Turkey is closely interested which were not raised during the war between Turkey and the Balkan States, and which we hoped had been closed by the Treaty which was signed in London. I can, in reply to my noble friend, make no statement as to what action the Powers may be compelled to take as to pressure—to use my noble friend's own word—if Turkey should unhappily disregard the advice which they have all given her.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD EVERSLEY: I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Eversley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2:
Public use of way for twenty years conclusive that way is a public highway.
2. Where a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway unless it shall appear that there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way, or unless during such period of twenty years there was not at any time any person in possession of such land capable of dedicating such way. And, where such way has been enjoyed as aforesaid for a full period of forty years, such way shall be deemed conclusively to have been dedicated as a public highway unless there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way, and, in either of the cases in this section mentioned, a notice by the owner of the land over which such way passes inconsistent with its dedication as a highway, placed and maintained in such a manner as to be visible to those using it, shall, in the absence of any proof of a contrary intention, be sufficient evidence to negative the intention of the person so placing such notice to dedicate such way as a public highway: Provided that, in the case of any land let on lease, the person for the time being entitled to the reversion shall, notwithstanding the existence any such lease, have the right to cause such notice to be placed and maintained: Provided
1314
that each of the respective periods of years mentioned in this section shall be deemed and taken to be the period next before the time when the right of the public to use a way shall have been brought into question by notice as aforesaid or otherwise: Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall affect the incapacity of corporations or other bodies or persons in possession of land for public or statutory purposes to dedicate any such way where such way would be incompatible with such public or statutory purposes.
LORD HYLTON: I move to add at the end of Clause 2 the following proviso: "Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall apply to any highway which has been or shall be stopped up by an order of Quarter Sessions." The other day when the Bill was in the Report stage I ventured to point out to your Lordships a considerable danger that seemed likely to arise from the wording of this clause. The clause provides that "where a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway." I would venture to remind the House that all over the South of England, at all events, there are still in existence a great number of old green lanes, tracks, and ways that in former days were public highways, but have been legally stopped up as such by the orders of Quarter Sessions duly and formally obtained. These roads, tracks, and lanes of which I speak have ceased for a great number of years to be repaired or repairable as public highways, but at the same time I need not remind your Lordships that they are not unimportant in number. They probably extend to many hundreds of miles all over the country. Although a great number of these old roads and lanes have ceased to be public highways for many years past, there is no doubt whatever that in a considerable number of cases the public have not been debarred from using them as footpaths. Whether the public legally have had a right to use them as footpaths after they have been stopped up by order of Quarter Sessions as public highways is a point which it is unnecessary for us to consider. It is the fact that in a great number of instances they have been so used.
Now under Clause 2 of Lord Eversley's Bill it is sought to enact that where for a period of twenty years a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the

1315
public such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway. The effect, therefore, of the Bill, so far as I can understand, if passed in its present form, would be that in any case in which it was proved that the public had used any of these old roads, tracks, and lanes to which I have referred as a footpath for twenty years, it would revert to the position of a public highway, despite its having being properly and legally stopped up as a public highway by order of Quarter Sessions. What, then, would be the effect of my contention if correct? The effect would be that these old lanes and tracks would again become public highways; and the law relating to public highways is as follows. When a highway authority has failed to maintain and repair any public highway it is open to the parish council, or parish meeting where there is no council, to complain to the county council, under Section 16 of the Local Government Act of 1894, or steps can be taken under the Highways Amendment Act, 1868, and there is also the Common Law remedy by indictment at Quarter Sessions open to anybody in case of failure by the authorities to repair. Therefore, if Lord Eversley's Bill becomes law without some such Amendment as I have ventured to put down enormous expenditure might be caused to the rates of the county by a parish council forcing the county council, or proceeding under the Common Law or taking other steps, to put back this old disused stopped-up highway into a condition so as to be again used not merely as a footpath but as a highway.
In view of the really serious mischief which might ensue were the Bill not amended on this point, I have ventured to put down the Amendment standing in my name. I have great hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept it, because of something he said the other day when we took the Report stage. He then said that he would be quite prepared to accept any Amendment which would make it clear that there would be no liability put on either a private individual or a public authority with regard to the repair of these ways which, under this Bill, will again become public highways. If that is so, I hope the noble Lord will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 11, after ("purposes") insert ("Provided further that nothing in this
1316
section contained shall apply to any highway which has been or shall be stopped up by an order of quarter sessions").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD EVERSLEY: I understand that the object of my noble friend opposite is to meet a case where Quarter Sessions have stopped up a road which afterwards the public have continued to use, and which, under this Bill, might again become a public highway. The noble Lord is under the impression that that would be a case of reverting to the original highway, and that the local authority would be again bound to repair it. I can assure my noble friend that that is not so. If such a case as that were to occur, it would be a new footpath and not a reverter to an old one; and under the Highways Act, 1885, it is absolutely certain that the local authority would not be bound to repair it. I think I must ask the noble Lord to take that from me as the state of the law. It is absolutely certain that in such a case it would be a new footpath, and the local authority would not be in any way bound to repair or maintain it. Therefore the proviso is quite unnecessary. It is a harmless proviso, but I do not think it is a wise thing to encumber this Bill with unnecessary provisions of that kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): I only wish to say that I agree with the view of the law stated by my noble friend. I have read this Amendment with some attention, and I am wholly unable to see what effect it could possibly have if put into this Bill, except to make people wonder why it was put there. The Bill has nothing to do with old ways, nor with anything which can revive or restore them to their original condition. It is a Bill to deal with new ways; and what other meaning could be attached to this new proviso except that we in this House did not know what we were about, I am unable to conceive.
LORD HYLTON: I know that on Report the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack advised us not to put in another Amendment, but the House decided in its wisdom to do so. I am entirely in the hands of the House. I took legal opinion upon this—not, of course, comparable with that of the noble and learned Viscount—and I can assure the House that I was not trifling with it by putting down a frivolous Amendment. But I am entirely in the hands of the House whether to proceed with it or not.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend, I think, succeeded in making his intentions perfectly plain to the House; but in view of the extremely confident statement made by the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill, and in view of the support given to the noble Lord by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, I cannot help thinking that my noble friend would be wise not to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who is unable to be here. I understand that the matter has been discussed between him and the noble and learned Viscount, and that there is no objection to the clause.
Amendment moved—
After clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Saving as to liability is respect of maintenance and repair.
".Where a way has become a public highway under this Act the owner of the land over which the way passes shall not be subject to any liability for the maintenance or repair of such way, or in respect of anything arising from neglect to maintain or repair the same, which he would not have been subject to if the way had not been dedicated as a public highway."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is quite a useful one, because it deals with a particular point. It is conceived that if some one dedicated a way under this Bill, and afterwards was minded to fence it off, and it got out of repair, and some one remembered the old law of liability ratione clausurœ a serious question might arise. These words are directed to this specific point. Therefore, speaking for myself, I quite approve of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There is another Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Salisbury which, I understand, is consequential. It is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, line 22, leave out" (2) Nothing in this Act shall impose upon the owner of land over which a public highway passes any liability for the maintenance or repair of such public highway which he would not have been subject to if this Act had not been passed."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.