Sitting of 31 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to know whether I shall be entitled to block private Bills now on the Paper in order to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary procedure of His Majesty's Government in regard to a certain Irish Bill. I do not want to cause any trouble to the promoters of the Bills, but I certainly want to raise this question with reference to the action of the Board of Trade on the Kingstown Bill, and unless there is a full explanation I shall, tomorrow and every day, block the Bills for the rest of the Session.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers is the Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill, when that comes on the hon. Member can object, and it will go over.
Dundee Boundaries Bill,
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Southampton Harbour Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 30th July, and agreed to.
Ebbw Vale Water Bill [Lords],
To be read the third time To-morrow.
Huddersfield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Pilotage Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to say a few words of objection to the taking of this Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member speaks on the Bill now, he will only have five minutes—until three o'clock. If he takes objection, under the Standing Order, it will go over until to-morrow, and if still opposed, a date can be fixed for taking it at 8.15 in the evening.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Government if they will fix an evening sitting, and what date will be appointed, in order that I may call attention to this Bill in connection with which the Board of Trade have committed the greatest scandal ever perpetrated by any Department.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The fixing of a date for taking a contested Bill rests with me. I could not on the spur of the moment say on what evening next week it could be taken, but if it be convenient, I should be glad to hear from the hon. Member on what evening he would like it to be taken.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I formally object.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Consideration deferred till Wednesday next.
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.
Aberystwyth Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 21) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow
Morley Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B).
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords, That they have agreed to—
Dunfermline Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment,
Temperance (Scotland) Bill,
Derby Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the collection and recovery of mono is due under Affiliation Orders; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Affiliation Orders Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of certain lands held by the Trustees of the late John Inglis Chalmers, esquire, of Aldbar, in the county of Forfar, and the investment of the proceeds of sale; and for other purposes." [Aldbar Trust Estates Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wemyss Tramways. [Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Aldbar Trust Estates Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 298.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 246.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 246.]

POOR LAW ORDERS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of First Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board, with respect to the Poor Law Orders [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for England and Wales for the year 1910–11. Part VII., Summary and Index [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 245.]
IRISH LAND BILL.
Copy presented of Memorandum explanatory of the Finance Clauses of the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF TRADE (COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Reports to the Board of Trade on the Conditions and Prospects of British Trade in Central America, Colombia, and Venezuela, by Mr. G. T. Milne, Special Commissioner of the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade on Commercial Intelligence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Eighty-first Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ending 31st March, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE.
Copy presented of Judgment of the High Court in the case brought by the Masai Tribe against the Attorney-General of the East Africa Protectorate and others, dated 26th May, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Copy presented of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1912, compared with the four preceding years. Volume II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 23rd July, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Further Payments to Approved Societies) Order (No. 3), 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MODE OF ISSULNG THE DOLLAR IN THE EAST.
Copy presented of Report of the Treasury Committee on the mode of issuing the Dollar in the East, together with Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  British Steamship "Tai On."
  PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report of the recent piratical attack on the British steamship "Tai On," in which the officers lost 1,800 dollars in addition to the value of clothing and
  700
  effects; and whether he intends to demand reparation from the Chinese Government, as has been done by the French Government in the case of a similar attack on the French steamship "Robert Lebaudy," which has occurred since the "Tai On" case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): As stated in answer to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on 5th May last, the circumstances of the attack on the "Tai On," as reported by the Governor of Hong Kong, do not appear to disclose any ground on which compensation could be demanded from the Chinese Government. I will inquire into the case of the "Robert Lebaudy," regarding which I have at present no information.

  War in Balkans.
  RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the instrument known as the Treaty of London is a definitive treaty, or only peace preliminaries requiring ratification by the Governments concerned; whether it has been ratified. by the Ottoman Government; and whether, in the absence of such ratification, the Powers of Europe have any right in international law to demand its observance by Turkey?
  Sir E. GREY: The instrument in question is a definitive treaty of peace, but it requires ratification by the Governments who are parties to it. I am not sure by which of them, if any, it has been ratified. As regards the attitude of the Powers towards the various belligerents, no specific provision of international law affects the question.
  RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the break up of the Balkan League, the violation by Servia and Bulgaria of their treaty obligations, the atrocities committed by Bulgarian troops in territory conquered by them from the Turks, and the armed intervention of Roumania, there is any rule in international law to prevent the Turkish Government denouncing the Treaty of London and taking steps to restore her sovereignty in Adrianople and Eastern Thrace, especially having regard to the failure of Bulgaria to maintain effective occupation in that region?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware of a rule of international law that applies; the question appears to me to be one of ethics, political expediency, and self-interest.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that there is any reason of political expediency for adopting a policy of coercion against Turkey?
  Sir E. GREY: That arises on the next question. My answer applies to the question the hon. Member has put, which does not relate to His Majesty's Government at all; it relates to the Turkish Government.
  RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, at the outbreak of the Balkan War, His Majesty's Government and other European Powers intimated to the belligerents that no departure from the status quo ante bellurn would be permitted to result from the war; whether there was any reason except the unexpected success of the Bulgarian and Servian arms for the subsequent reversal of this declaration by the Powers; and whether, in view of the failure of the Allies to make good their conquest of Turkish territory, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will refuse to join in any coercive policy against the Turks for the purpose of preventing them from recovering by force of arms any losses they have sustained in the war, or to consent to the employment of force for that purpose by any other Power or combination of Powers?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for North Somersetshire on the 31st October last. I suppose the best general answer to the second part of the question is that the Powers did not consider it desirable to intervene by force to make good their original view. But I must qualify this by observing that as regards the Ægean Islands and Albania the Powers did continue to reserve their decision, and in the case of Albania have intervened by force to make it respected. It must not, therefore, be assumed that they will take no action at all in other cases, though hardly any one case is an exact parallel to another. I cannot give any undertaking, such as the hon. Member desires in the last part of his question, which might entail the separation of His Majesty's Government
  702
  from the rest of the Powers under circumstances that have not yet arisen and cannot be foreseen.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: May I ask. whether, in view of the Powers having allowed the former Allies to indulge in a naked war of conquest, there is any reason to object to the reoccupation of former Turkish territory in accordance with the. principles of nationality, which the right hon. Gentleman formerly supported?
  Sir E. GREY: These questions are really based on the assumption that the action of the Powers is regulated by logic and international law. The action of the Powers seems to me to have been influenced in the case of each individual Power, first, by the view of what its own interests require, and, in the case of all the Powers, by a common desire to preserve the peace of Europe. I imagine that their action will continue to be regulated by those influences.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners, after inspection by one of their officers, told Mr. Daniel Courtney, of Clahananode, Castlegregory, on the Ventry estate, that they regarded his case as one that should be dealt with by them; will he say what steps have the Commissioners since taken to carry out their promise; and what is the cause of the delay in dealing with this case?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners, on further consideration, decided that this was not a case in which they should take any action, and from this decision they are not prepared to-depart.
  Mr. REDDYasked what is the cause of the delay in the issuing of vesting orders on the estate of W. B. Lauder, at Clanfaulough, and Glebe Clonmacnoise, King's. County; and whether the money will be advanced this year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The holdings on this estate will be vested in the tenant purchasers as soon as the question of the allotment of the turbary on the estate has, been settled.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to improve the slip at Bulbawn, Ballyfenither, county Kerry; whether, seeing the number of fishermen employed, and the necessity for improving the landing place in the interest of the safety of the fishermen, steps will be taken to have this work attended to as soon as possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have referred the question of the improvement of this slip to their engineer for inquiry when next in the district, and they await his report in the matter.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that Michael Keane, Grange, Turloughmore, county Galway, with his family, were evicted in the year 1896 by his landlord, Vesey FitzGerald, out of his holding situated at Grange, Turloughmore; is he aware that Keane's son forwarded to the Estates Commissioners an application for reinstatement or an equivalent holding some time ago; and, seeing that a mere technical difficulty stands in the way of Keane's application, that is, the fact of not having applied before a certain date, whether provision will be made to deal with such cases in the coming Land Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This application does not come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, not having been lodged within the period mentioned therein. It will be considered when the estate is being dealt with under the Land Purchase Acts, but the Estates Commissioners have no power to interfere with the present occupier.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Mr. GINNELLasked how the actuary now examining the accounts of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund will deal with the period for which the accounts are said to be not available; and, if the missing accounts are recovered for his purposes, whether an independent actuary appointed by the contributors to that fund will be allowed to examine them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that the account books in connection with the fund from 1866 to the present date have been traced and are now available. I see no necessity for the appointment of another actuary.
  Mr. GINNELL: In view of the expressed desire of the pensioners, whose property this is, will the right hon. Gentleman allow an actuary appointed by them to examine the accounts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I see no necessity for that.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he will produce or render accessible the report made by a county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary on Sergeant Sheridan's reports, and say why the latter was not put on trial; and whether the amount paid to Sheridan out of the Constabulary Force Fund will now be brought into account by the actuary; and (2) whether the accounts of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund show that payments for so-called meritorious services were made out of that fund to all the officers who employed and gave good records to Sheridan and Cullinan, while no such payment was made to any officer who exposed the criminal activity of these men; and whether the amount of all such payments will now be restored to that fund?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, I must decline to reopen in any way the case of Sergeant Sheridan. Cullinan was not a member of the police. No local officer of the police has the power to grant favourable records.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question whether the money paid to these men will be restored to the fund.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  Mr. GINNELLasked what is the total amount of grants, under whatever name, made out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund to officers, with the amount contributed to the fund by all officers, and to men, with the amount contributed to the fund by all men, since
  1878?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the constabulary authorities are busy procuring information required for the actuarial investigation of the position of the fund, and I cannot impose upon them the duty of preparing the further return asked for in the question.
  Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to the profit made by the Treasury by charging persons of all ranks in the Civil Service, including the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan police, on commuting their pensions, 5 per cent. on money which the Treasury obtains at 3½ per cent., whether it is intended to alter the law requiring this before the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if not, into which Treasury will this profit go after the passing of that Bill?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Under the Government of Ireland Bill the provisions of the Pensions Commutation Acts are applicable to compensation allowances payable under the Bill. Any profit due to the fact referred to would accrue to the Irish Government.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether Cullinan, the hired informer who organised the attack on a farmer's house in county Clare, was in the pay and service of Head-Constable Whelehan when the latter lost his life in connection with that attack; how long afterwards Cullinan's services were retained; how much he was paid out of the Constabulary Force Fund; and whether payments to such men will be brought under the notice of the actuary now investigating the accounts of that fund?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The constabulary authorities have no information as to whether Cullinan was in the pay and service of the late Head-Constable Whelehan. Cullinan was a Crown witness in the case referred to, and it is not known what became of him after the trial. He never received any grant from the Constabulary Force Fund.

  Cork University College.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what facilities, if any, have been given to students in the faculty of commerce in the Cork University College to combine a practical commercial training with the theoretical instruction given in the college class rooms; to what extent have students availed themselves of these facilities; and whether it is proposed to extend these facilities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The registrar of the college informs me that a number of business firms in Munster have generously offered facilities to the students in the
  706
  faculty of commerce to obtain in their offices during the summer vacation a practical acquaintance with business methods. Six out of the nine students are availing themselves of the practical training offered them; but the other three for personal reasons are unable to do so. It is expected that these facilities will be extended, and that the number of students will increase.

  Women Teachers (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if there is any rule of the Commissioners of National Education which requires a woman teacher in a school receiving Grants from the Board to resign her position on marriage; and, if not, by what authority the Roman Catholic bishop of Down and Connor requires the resignation of women teachers in such circumstances in schools under Catholic management in his diocese?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down on the 3rd instant.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a resolution from the Cork District Committee of the Irish Land and Labour Association, pointing to the necessity of immediately providing the further loan to finance outstanding improvement schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; whether, as stated in this resolution, some of these schemes have been hung up for the last four years for want of money and thousands of families have been, as a consequence, obliged to live in unsanitary dwellings as well as deprived of the product of the acre allotments which would have helped them to maintain a more tolerable existence; and whether, in view of the hardship which the further postponement of this matter will entail upon the most necessitous of the Irish rural population, he will reconsider the advisability of introducing a non-contentious Labourers Bill before the close of this Session to provide the Grant of the additional million, stipulated for in the Land Purchase Bill, right away?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received several resolutions of the nature indicated in the question including one from the Cork District Committee of the Irish Land and Labour Association. As I have already informed the hon. Member, it would be impossible at this stage of the Session to effect any legislation on the subject by means of a separate Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of Uganda and other loans it was clone by Estimate and afterwards legalised in the Appropriation Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware of that precedent.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether all the labourers' cottages contracted for by the Enniskillen, county Fermanagh, Rural District Council in the year 1910 have yet been finished; and, if so, will the Local Government Board now authorise the district council to proceed with their second scheme as approved by the Board's inspector?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Of the seventy-one cottages in the council's scheme, thirty-seven have been completed, while the remaining thirty-four, although contracted for, are still unfinished. No "second scheme" has been received by the Local Government Board from this rural district council.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the Board not take steps to have these cottages, now three years in hand, finished?
  Mr. BIRRELL: We have to work through the Rural District Council. I will call their attention to it.

  Ballinasloe Asylum.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the amount paid for the last three years to Patrick Fitzpatrick for commodities supplied by him as contractor to the Ballinasloe, county Galway, Asylum, and who is at present contractor for forty-two different commodities; whether he is aware that most, if not all, the paying orders were signed by Patrick Larkin, county councillor, who is a brother-in-law of Fitzpatrick's and a member of the asylum committee, and lodged to the credit of Larkin's own account; that it was shown some of the goods were purchased
  708
  and delivered by Larkin; that some of the same were found by the Local Government Board inspector to be adulterated to the extent of 50 per cent.; and whether he will take steps to have this matter thoroughly investigated by a sworn inquiry, the interest of the ratepayers protected, and the guilty parties punished?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The inspectors of lunatics inform me that during the last three financial years Mr. Patrick Fitzpatrick was paid £2,923 for goods supplied to the Ballinasloe Asylum. The Local Government Board's auditor, in his report on the accounts of the asylum, called attention to the fact that some of the paying orders drawn in favour of Mr. Fitzpatrick had been lodged to the credit of his brother-in-law, Mr. P. Larkin, who is a member of the asylum committee. He also stated that Fitzpatrick supplied oil to the asylum which on analysis proved to be adulterated 50 per cent., and that the Committee had fined the contractor and relieved him of his contract. The committee have referred the auditor's report to their solicitor for advice as to the steps they should take in the matter, and in the meantime no action on my part is called for.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has been informed of an attack made upon a small party of Boy Scouts at Dolphin's Barn, Dublin, on Thursday evening, the 24th instant; whether he is aware that a troop of the city of Dublin scouts are in camp at Kimmage, near Dolphin's Barn; that they are entertaining some English scouts from Manchester in return for hospitality shown to Irish scouts at the late rally of Boy Scouts in that city; whether he is aware that two of these English boys with some of their Irish comrades were attacked by a Nationalist mob at Dolphin's Barn on the evening mentioned and chased back to their camp; that the scouts' tents were torn down and property carried away; whether he is aware that the antipathy of the Nationalist mob of Dublin to the boy scouts arises from the fact that they carry the Union Jack and are affiliated to the British scouts; and whether any arrests have been made or any persons made amenable for this riot and destruction of property?
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to an attack made last Thursday evening by a crowd of men, youths, and boys upon boy scouts at or near their camp at Kimmage, outside Dublin; whether the boys who were attacked included two boys of a party from Manchester on a visit to the camp; whether the crowd threw stones, hooted, jeered, and made use of abusive-epithets, in which the boys were called Foreigners and Saxons; whether, not content with terrorising the boys, the crowd knocked over the tents and carried away all the cooking utensils; and whether any arrests have been made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to this matter, which has been greatly exaggerated. I am informed by the police that some Boy Scouts from Manchester when passing through Dolphin's Barn on their way back to their camp, on the 24th instant, were followed by a number of idlers, who made jeering remarks and threw some stones, but no one was struck. The pole of one of the tents was pulled up, which caused the tent to fall, and a tent pole, one of the scout's kit bag, and a few pans were stolen. This was not the doing of a mob, but of a knot. of corner boys. The Union Jack was not referred to at all. The scouts could not identify any of their assailants, who went away over the fields before the police arrived. Some more scouts arrived from Manchester on the 27th instant, and there has been no further interference with the camp.
  Mr. HORNER: Am I right in saying that the camp has since been under police protection?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, it has not been under police protection, but the police keep an eye upon it.
  Mr. HORNER: Are there two policemen stationed there permanently since?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether they are permanently stationed there, but they are there.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: What distinction does the right hon. Gentleman draw between a mob and a lot of corner boys?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I did not say a "lot." I said a "knot."

  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether he is yet in a position to state that the whole or any portion of She £40,000 Grant promised for Irish intermediate education will be available this forthcoming school year?
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary what steps he proposes to take with regard to the Grant of £40,000 for secondary education in Ireland; and whether, seeing that inconvenience is caused to schools in making their arrangements for the coming year by delay in arriving at a definite decision in this matter, he will comply with the wish of the Irish people by making this Grant immediately available?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As no alternative plan for the distribution of the proposed Grant of £40,000 has been suggested to me from any quarter that fulfils the essential conditions of securing, first, the substantial improvement of the salaries and status of the assistant lay teachers in Irish secondary schools, and, secondly, the distribution of the proposed Grant fairly between the various classes of secondary schools in Ireland, I propose to put the Grant on a Supplementary Estimate and to introduce early next Session any Bill which may be necessary to bring the regulations for the distribution of the Grant contained in my first draft into operation. I shall always be ready to receive and consider any suggestions which may be made to me for alterations in the scheme which do not violate the above-named essential conditions. I hope that by this means the Grant may be made available for the coming school year.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: When will the Supplementary Estimate be set down? Further, as the right hon. Gentleman is taking that course with regard to the £40,000, why does he not propose a Supplementary Estimate in the case of the labourers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I shall do the best I can. The Supplementary Estimate I refer to will be next year, of course.

  Disturbance at Castlecaulfield (Tyrone).
  Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to

  711
  the statement that the attack upon Mr. Conway, the reporter of the "Dungannon Democrat," at the meeting at Castlecaulfield on the 12th July, took place while the Rev. R. T. Simpson was addressing the meeting; 'whether Mr. Conway was attacked while seated on the platform with the other pressmen; whether attempts were made to rush the platform; whether Mr. Conway left the platform and sought the protection of the police; whether the police present were few in number, and were unable to protect him; if he is aware that Mr. Conway was beaten with drumsticks, wooden mallets, and deacon poles carried in the Orange procession; whether he is aware that this all took place while the meeting was actually proceeding; whether he is aware that on his arrival at Dungannon Mr. Conway was medically attended by Surgeon Cordier Marmion, J.P., deputy coroner for county Tyrone; whether he is aware that that gentleman has publicly stated that if he had not applied restoratives Mr. Conway would have succumbed, that his life was in imminent danger for three or four days, that Mr. Conway is still suffering from a stiff knee and walks lame and with pain, and is still under medical treatment; whether, in view of this statement made by a qualified and well-known medical man, he can state on what grounds the police authorities have stated that, on examination by the doctor, Mr. Conway was found not to be seriously injured; and can he state what doctor, if any, gave such information to the police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have done my best to ascertain the real facts of this case. My attention has been called to a newspaper account to the effect stated in the question, and I have also had the advantage of reading a letter from the Rev. R. T. Simpson on the subject. The Member for South Tyrone was the first speaker at the meeting. He left immediately afterwards for another meeting some miles away. Mr. Simpson was the fourth and last speaker. He states that after he had spoken for a time he heard to the left of the platform someone saying, "Come down out of that! You have no right to be there!" Looking in the direction of the sound, he saw a man sitting on the rail of the platform. Thinking it was he that the crowd were calling on to come down, as he was obstructing their view, Mr. Simpson requested him to do as they wished, and continued his speech. The words heard by Mr. Simpson appear to have been addressed
  712
  to Mr. Conway, and the crowd proceeded to try to pull him off the platform. Conway got off the platform, and eight policemen, seeing him leave it, went to his assistance. They and a number of people in the crowd did their best to protect him, but were only partially successful. He was knocked down and kicked and struck with drumsticks, but the police did not see any blows struck with poles or ma ets. All this happened on the road outside the field in which the meeting was being held and while the meeting was still going on. The police inform me that the head constable was informed by Dr. Marmion on the date of the occurrence that Mr. Conway was suffering from shock, but was not seriously injured. On the following day Mr. Conway himself told the head constable that he was not seriously injured. It was on these interviews that the police based their report as to his injuries.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report to which he refers was published in a local Unionist organ, and that it gives facts which have not been disputed by anyone who was present on the scene?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, I think that in all probability—in fact, I am quite sure—the account in the newspapers, whether Unionist or any other, was substantially correct. The real point of the question, as I understand it, was as to how far my information from the police that Mr. Conway was not seriously injured—I am afraid he was undoubtedly injured—was well founded. It was founded on information given to the head constable by Dr. Marmion, and also upon information given next day by Mr. Conway, who, although he had been shockingly badly treated, happily was not seriously injured.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Am I right in concluding from the reply that the meeting had not concluded notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Horner) had not made his usual glorious, pious, and immortal oration?
  Mr. HORNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports in the Nationalist papers bear out the statement, which was presumably supplied by Mr. Conway himself, of the fact we all deplore—[An HON. MEMBER: "First time you have said it."] I have always said so—that this assault took place on the public road and not as stated at the meeting.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is it not a fact that Mr. Conway was pulled off the platform three times in succession?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Really my life is too short to go into all these matters. I know three things—firstly, that everybody deplores the incident; secondly, that the meeting was not over; and, thirdly, that the gentleman was interfered with on the platform.

  South Africa (Strike of Miners).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the most recent occasion previous to the present on which Imperial troops were sent to the Witwatersrand in connection with a labour dispute?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The only other occasion on which troops were sent to the Rand for the preservation of order was in 1907.
  Sir C. R. HUNTER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) did not take a prominent part in that strike in Johannesburg?

  Sub-Postmasters (Pay).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury at what decision the Government has arrived in respect of the fixed remuneration allowed to sub-postmasters for the work they perform under the National Insurance Act?
  Mr. GIBBSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to give any definite information as to what the remuneration of the postmasters and sub-postmasters will be under the National Insurance Act; and, if he can give no information at the moment, whether he will soon be in a position to do so, in view of the fact that the officers concerned have been performing their duties under the Act now for a period exceeding twelve months without knowing what their remuneration is to be?
  Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Postmaster-General in view of the fact that insurance stamps have now been sold by the Post Office officials for over twelve months, if his inquiries are sufficiently advanced to enable him to supersede the present provisional rates and remuneration to sub-postmasters with a permanent and more satisfactory arrangement; and
  714
  if he is unable at the present time to propose a permanent basis of remuneration for the additional work entailed, when does he expect to be in a position to deal with the matter?
  Major HOPEasked the Postmaster-General when he will be able to communicate to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters his proposed scale of remuneration for additional work under the National Insurance Act, as promised to their executive on 13th March; and whether he will be able to state his final decision on the subject to the House before the end of the Session?
  Mr. BENN: In reply to these questions, I would refer to the answer given by the Postmaster-General on Monday last, of which I am sending the hon. Members a copy.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INCREASED LOCAL RATES (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will obtain from the bodies concerned, and present to the House, a statement of the total increase of rates so far adopted in each county and county borough in Ireland, and the total for the whole country, in respect of the working of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the preparation of such a Return as that asked for would involve circularising every local authority in Ireland, and it is questionable whether in many cases the exact information could be obtained. Having regard to the difficulty of obtaining reliable information, I cannot grant this Return.

    CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether be is aware that the partners in a firm in Nottingham during last year were taxed £38 17s. 9d., the employés £51 12s. 8d., and the general taxpayers £25 18s. 6d. under the Insurance Act, while for this total of £116 8s. 11d. the employés received in benefits £7 15s.; and whether the Insurance Act Amendment Bill will be amended so as to afford some redress for such a case; and (2) whether he is aware that, in the business in Nottingham of an employer of forty-two to forty-five employés, insurance tax was paid last year of

    715
    £59 14s. 2d. for which benefits to the extent of £4 3s. 9d. were received by the taxpayers, of which one person received £3 5s.; that the employer paid £31 1s. 7d. on account of employés who were satisfactorily insured and provided for prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act, and the employés themselves, most of whom had signed a protest against the Cushing of the Act through Parliament, were mulcted of £28 12s. 7d.; and whether the Government will revise the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill, in view of the manner in which compulsion works, of which this is an instance?
    Mr. BENN: I have no information as to the payments made to employés of particular employers. As, however, the main benefits of the Act did not come into operation till this year it is obvious that no such figures as the hon. Member gives with regard to benefits received last year are of any value. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

  Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked (1) what was the amount of mileage grant to which the Highlands of Perthshire would have been entitled had they been retained in the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill; and what increased amount will they now be given, seeing that they have been deprived of the benefits of this Bill; and (2) whether the portion of the mileage grant due to Perthshire will be deducted from the the Highlands and Islands Grant where it originally figured, or whether it will be treated as an additional burden on the £16,000 already allocated to other districts in Scotland?
  Mr. BENN: The amount assigned to the part of Perthshire covered by the Special Grant-in-Aid of £10,000 is £800. In addition, this area will participate in the balance of the Grant which has not already been distributed. This scheme of distribution applies only to the present year, and in future years any mileage grant to the area in question will be made out of the mileage fund available for Great Britain generally apart from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to reply to the last part of the second question?
  Mr. BENN: While the old arrangement continues this part of Perthshire will continue in it, but when the old arrangement terminates, Perthshire will come under the new arrangement.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are we to understand that Perthshire has a distinct grievance, and that it will lose money?
  Mr. BENN: The Noble Lord must make his own calculations on the basis of the facts I have given him.

  Road Board.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury why the total cost of the works to which the Road Board made Grants does not appear in this year's Report as in former Reports?
  Mr. BENN: As explained in paragraph 18 of the Report, the omission of Appendix 2 (List of Grants) of the Third Annual Report of the Road Board of the estimated cost of each work is due to the fact that in many cases the amount of the Grant is determined, not by the cost of the proposed work, but by the amount of money which can be allocated to a particular work.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the total cost is paid by the Road Board?
  Mr. BENN: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked why there is no entry of the amounts of the various investments shown in the last Report of the Road Board?
  Mr. BENN: The hon. Member will find in Appendix 16, page 66, of the Third Annual Report of the Road Board a complete statement of the various investments made by the Board in the year ending 31st March, 1913, together with a list of the investments and amounts held by the Board at that date.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked why the amount granted to Welsh counties, whose roads are often hilly and costly to maintain and which are largely used by tourists, has been so small?
  Mr. BENN: I understand that the Grants indicated by the Road Board to highway authorities in administrative counties in Wales, including Monmouthshire, amounted

  717
  to £106,962 up to the 30th June, 1913. The Board do not consider this amount as small, having regard to the funds available. The hon. Member will find, if he refers to the Local Taxation Returns, that the maintenance of roads in Welsh counties is not exceptionally costly.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the Road Board that the roads are largely used by tourists, and that therefore it is not fair that the local authority should pay?
  Mr. BENN: Certainly I will inform the Road Board as to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he will make representations himself.

  Dock Labour (Liverpool).
  Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that those employers of dock labour in Liverpool who are not parties to the Liverpool dock labour scheme have been avoiding payment of their contributions under the National Health Insurance Act at the expense of those who are parties to the scheme; and whether he will cause steps to be taken to prevent this practice by requiring them to stamp the workman's card at the termination of the first period of employment in every week?
  Mr. BENN: The Commissioners have received representations in this sense in regard to one firm only in Liverpool. The matter is now being investigated, and, if the allegations are substantiated, immediate steps will be taken to secure strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations.

  Open-Air Schools.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Government proposes to provide for the development of open-air schools, in order that the physical deficiences of the poorer children in our public elementary schools, to which the tables of heights, weights, and state of nutrition testify, may receive attention without addition to the existing rates and taxes?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): The Board of Education already pay Grants in aid of open-air schools for children suffering from tuberculosis and other ailments for which open-air treatment is specially suitable. The Government are fully alive to the importance of the subject of open-air
  718
  schools, but they are also alive to the difficulty of the problem of developing the national system of education in any direction without further expenditure of public money, which would have to be provided out of either rated or taxes, or both.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to secure decent housing for the children?
  Mr. PEASE: We desire to secure both.

  Education (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to proceed with the Education (No. 2) Bill in the event of there being any strong opposition to its proposals?
  Mr. PEASE: There has been nothing to indicate that there is any widespread opposition to the Bill, and I, therefore, hope there may be no difficulty in passing it this Session.
  Mr. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give building Grants without the Bill?
  Mr. PEASE: There are ways of doing it, but the way the Government has suggested, is the one which they recommend, and they think it is very important that it should be done in that form.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to do under a Bill what his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, did without a Bill?
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he told me a few days ago that he could not give this building Grant without legislation?
  Mr. PEASE: Certainly, not for elementary educational purposes.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are we to understand that the Grant given before, by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman under the Appropriation Bill by Supplementary Estimate, was wrong?
  Mr. PEASE: I think that that is really a subject matter of Debate. There was criticism made in regard to the other and I thought that the House on this occasion would prefer the way which I suggest.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he cannot give this building Grant without a Bill?
  Mr. PEASE: I have already indicated that I cannot give relief to local education authorities in connection with elementary schools, except the matter is regularised in the way we suggest.

  Llansannor Church School.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if the Glamorganshire education authority are still ignoring the directions of the Board as to the payment of the teacher's salary at Llansannor Church school; and if he is aware that this teacher is a duly qualified teacher, and that no teacher with a knowledge of Welsh answered the advertisement of the local authority?
  Mr. PEASE: The managers have stated that they have appointed a head teacher qualified in all respects except in the matter of Welsh, and that no other candidate has applied for the post. The Board are endeavouring to bring about a settlement of the dispute. They do not at present know what action the authority propose to take.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: How long has the Board had under consideration the tyranny of this education authority and the persecution which is being caused to the teacher of the school?
  Mr. PEASE: I am in communication with the local education authority at the present moment. We have not yet got the case stated for our decision, and we are suggesting to the local education authority that they might send the case for our decision at an early date. I am very anxious with the help of the managers and the local education authority to bring the matter to an end as soon as possible.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is five months since this teacher has been appointed?
  Mr. PEASE: My attention was not called to the matter until two or three weeks ago.
  Mr. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the information to the House before the Adjournment?
  Mr. PEASE: In connection with this particular school?
  Mr. HOARE: Yes.
  Mr. PEASE: I cannot really add anything to what I have already said. I am in communication with them, and have
  720
  suggested that they should present the case for our decision, and I really believe that I shall be able to arrange something very shortly.

  Prisons Service.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the officers in the prisons service who were transferred from the local authority in 1878, under the provisions of the Prisons Act of 1877, are entitled to an annuity of two-thirds of their salary; or, if not, if they are entitled as Civil servants to the advantages conferred upon the Civil Service by the Superannuation Act of 1909?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): "Existing" officers transferred under the Prison Act, 1877, are not entitled to an annuity of two-thirds of their salary, but they may be granted a pension calculated on the length of their service and not exceeding the amount of two-thirds of their salary. It has been ruled by the Treasury that, as these officers derive their right to pension from Section 36 of the Prison Act, 1877, they are not Civil servants within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and cannot, therefore, enjoy the advantages given by that Act.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Am I to understand that as Civil servants they are deprived of benefit as prison officers under the Act of 1877, and that as prison officers they are deprived of the benefits conferred upon Civil servants by the Superannuation Act of 1909?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would not put the matter quite in the way in which the Noble Lord does. Their rights depend upon the construction of the Statute, and I. have no power to intervene in the matter.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman no power to include them under the provisions of the Act of 1909?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe not. The provisions of the Act bind me as much as they bind the officers in the service.

  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Mr. HUNTasked whether any man or woman, whether a suffragette or not, would, under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act., be let out of prison, although convicted of purposely

  721
  breaking windows or setting fire to houses, if he or she decided to starve themselves whilst in prison?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member means by "any man or woman" every man or woman, the answer is in the negative. If, however, the ordinary construction is placed upon the words "any man or woman," the answer would depend upon the circumstances of each case.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that any persons who call themselves suffragettes, whether they are of the gender of the goose or the gander, are now under the law given privileges which are not allowed to other people? Would the right hon. Gentleman make that clear?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member means whether in every case such persons would be given privileges, the answer is in the negative. If he means that in a particular case privileges might be given to that particular person, the answer is that it would depend upon the circumstances of the individual case.
  Mr. HUNT: Then we are to understand that suffragettes have got a chance of getting some advantage over all other people under the Home Secretry's late Act?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, on the contrary, I am afraid that the effects of starvation in prison cannot be described as an advantage.
  Mr. HUNT: It is voluntary starvation.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary why he has offered Miss Agnes Lake, who was recently sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the third division for managing the advertisement columns of the "Suffragette," a pardon on condition that she resigns her membership of the Women's Social and Political Union; and what authority he has for attaching conditions as to a prisoner's future politics to any pardon conferred on her?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has been misinformed. I have made no such offer.
  Viscount WOLMER: Would the right hon. Gentleman state he has not offered a conditional pardon to this lady?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not the question which the Noble Lord has put on the Paper.
  Viscount WOLMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman offered this lady a pardon on condition that she refrains from identifying herself with this militant union?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is exactly the question which the Noble Lord has on the Paper, and which I have answered in the negative.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Has there been an offer?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say from memory whether in this particular case I have made any offer at all, but if I did it would be similar to other cases, that if they gave an undertaking that they will not join in any future action to break the law, not to keep out of a particular organisation or not, but if they will not break the law, I will consider whether the case should not be favourably dealt with.

  Dartford Police Court (John Davitt).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Davitt, who was charged at the Dartford Police Court on the 21st July with acting as a pedlar without a licence; whether Davitt was dealt with as being of unsound mind; whether it is only the man's political eccentricities which gave the prison doctor the impression that he was insane; and whether it is his intention to have the man further examined medically?
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Davitt, of Dartford, who has been, or is, in danger of being sent to a lunatic asylum on the recommendation of the prison doctor for expressing views inimical to the present state of society; and, if so, will he have this man's ease inquired into by an independent doctor before he is certified as insane?
  Mr. McKENNA: On this man being charged before the Dartford justices on the 17th of this month, it appeared to them doubtful whether he was of sound mind, and he was accordingly remanded for medical observation. The medical officer of Maidstone Prison (who is not a Civil servant) considered him insane; on the 22nd, another doctor also certified him insane, and an order for his detention as a lunatic was accordingly made by a magistrate specially appointed to act under the Lunacy Acts. The man is

  723
  detained in Barming Heath Asylum, where his mental condition will receive constant attention.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man merely expressed extreme Socialist views, and are the magistrates and doctors of this country going to consider anybody a madman who expresses Socialist opinions?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not know what evidence was before them. My hon. Friend ventures to declare positively that the sole ground on which this man was found to be insane was that he expressed Socialist views. The evidence which I have before me is not of the same kind.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The evidence which I sent to the right hon. Gentleman was of that kind.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: It seems a very curious thing that a man should be sent to an asylum in these circumstances, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give special attention to the matter and ask for a report from the medical officer of the institution to which the man was sent?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly I will.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman have an examination made by an independent official, not by the medical officer of the institution, but by a doctor of the man's own choice?
  Mr. McKENNA: He has already been examined by an officer provided by the prison authorities who is not a Civil servant and by another independent doctor, and both of them found him to be insane.

  Land Taxes.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the taxes on property imposed under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have not yielded the return which was anticipated when that taxation was proposed in 1909; if the Government has in contemplation any fresh proposals for providing new sources of revenue, which shall afford more reliable estimates of probable receipts, to meet deficiencies arising as the result of the miscalculations in regard to the 1909 Land Taxes; and if the failure to provide the necessary ships to maintain the strength of the Navy on the basis which
  724
  the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated to provide the smallest margin of superiority which can safely be admitted is due to the mistaken estimate of the receipts from the Land Taxes, which it was stated at the time would be applied in part towards building up the Navy?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative (so far as concerns certain of the taxes on property imposed under the Act), and to the second and third parts in the negative. I must not be taken as accepting the implication underlying the question.

  Bee Disease Bill.
  Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the disappointment caused by his decision not to proceed with the Bee Disease Bill; and whether he will allow the Bill to be introduced at an early date next Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that in consequence of unexpected opposition, it was found impossible to proceed with the Bee Disease Bill this Session. The Government will consider favourably the introduction of a new Bill dealing with the subject next Session.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the opposition to this measure only comes from a small and rather noisy section of the population, and also that great ravages are being caused among the hives of small holders and others?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry that this Bill has not gone through.

  Written Questions (Answers).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a Report of the Select Committee on the Publications and Debates Reports and the recommendation contained therein that the Answers to Written Questions should no longer be circulated with the Votes as well as in the OFFICIAL REPORT, thereby effecting a saving of not less than £1,000 a Session; and whether he proposes to give effect to this recommendation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The proposal seems to me to deserve support, as it would apparently effect a substantial saving without any real inconvenience to Members. If this opinion represents the

  725
  general sense of the House, I shall be prepared, at the proper time, to support an Amendment to Standing Orders giving effect to it.

  Indian Budget.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked when the Debate on the Indian Budget will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will ask the hon. Member to await the statement on Business.

  Illegitimacy.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to legislation next Session in relation to illegitimacy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to make any statement on this subject at the present moment.

  Tottenham Court Road Shooting Case.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations with regard to the case of Mr. H. C. Bedding, who was awarded the sum of £50 for capturing the mad Armenian who shot several people in Tottenham Court Road in September last; whether he is aware that Bedding has had to undergo several operations as a result of the injuries he received; that he has not yet recovered and has suffered considerable financial loss; and whether, in view of Mr. Justice Phillimore's statement that the country owed Bedding a debt of gratitude, he will consider the possibility of awarding him a sum that will be fair and adequate compensation for what he has undergone?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police reports that he is not aware that Bedding has undergone any operation as a result of injuries received by him on the occasion referred to; or that he has sustained any financial loss whatever in this connection. The reward given at the time appears to have been ample compensation for the services rendered by Mr. Bedding.
  Mr. POINTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the great services which Bedding rendered and the obligation on the Home Office if he has suffered loss to make it up inquire carefully into the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, but it is only fair to say that in view of my hon. Friend's question I went very fully into the whole case this morning and came to the conclusion that there was no ground for making an extra grant.

  Stage Carriages.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Home Secretary what practical advantage, either in regard to design, construction, or operation of stage carriages, has resulted from the inspection of stage carriages which have broken down as the result of an accident or collision; and if it has been found that the knowledge acquired by police officers on the occasion of such breakdowns is, in any way, commensurate with the obstruction, delay, loss of revenue, and inconvenience to passengers which the existing practice of holding up the traffic for the attendance of a particular officer entails?
  Mr. McKENNA: This requirement is made, not primarily for the instruction of police officers or for the improvement in the construction of stage carriages, but in order to further the ends of justice and secure the better protection of the public. The expert inspection is only made in cases of serious accident.

  Forcible Feeding.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary how many patients were forcibly fed in lunatic asylums during 1912; and what was the maximum number of times that any one patient was forcibly fed?
  Mr. MIKENNA: I have not this information. To obtain it would necessitate addressing inquiries to all asylums.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that forcible feeding of lunatics is quite as dangerous as it is to prisoners, and does he not think that it is a matter which should receive the attention of the Home Office?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that until suffragettes were forcibly fed nobody suggested that forcible feeding was not a humane method?
  Mr. MIKENNA: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right.

  Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary how many prisoners have been

  727
  released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act; and how many have been rearrested and sent back to gaol?
  Mr. McKENNA: The total number of prisoners released on temporary discharge under the Act is thirty-one. Twelve of these have been rearrested, some of them more than once, and sent back to prison, and one has returned of her own accord.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked how many detectives are being employed to watch suffragettes who are released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act; and what is the cost to the country of this surveillance?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not in possession of, and it would not be in the public interest to give, the information my hon. Friend desires.

  Mr. George Lansbury (Imprisonment).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether George Lansbury will be kept in prison for three months unless he gives sureties; and of what crime has he been found guilty?
  Mr. McKENNA: Mr. Lansbury has not been found guilty of a crime, but is liable to imprisonment for three months if he fails or refuses to enter into a recognisance and find sureties for his good behaviour. The High Court have found that the magistrate's order to this effect was amply justified.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that Mr. Lansbury, a former Member of this House, is to be kept three months in prison although he has been found guilty of no crime whatever?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but my hon. Friend misunderstands. Mr. Lansbury has been sent to prison under ordinary process of law, because he has failed to find sureties for good behaviour, and there does not appear to be at the present moment any ground for interference.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can you send anybody to prison who refuses to find bail to be of good behaviour?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I cannot send anybody to prison.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can any magistrate send any man, strike leader or anybody
  728
  else, indefinitely to prison in default of giving sureties?
  Mr. McKENNA: If any person is called upon to give sureties for good behaviour after hearing the evidence, and if the magistrate comes to the conclusion that the evidence is such as to require him to call upon the person charged to give such sureties, on his failing to give sureties he can be sent to prison.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Evidence of what—there has been no charge?
  Mr. McKENNA: There was a charge.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that this surety was demanded of Mr. Lansbury some few weeks ago, and will he take that interval into account in the sentence of imprisonment on failing to find sureties?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions should be put down.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked in what prisons Mr. Lansbury and Mr. John Scurr are confined; what privileges, if any, they enjoy as political prisoners; whether they are on hunger-strike; and how long he proposes to allow men who have not been convicted to remain in prison under these circumstances?
  Mr. McKENNA: Mr. Lansbury is in Pentonville Prison. Mr. Scurr's case is still before the Court. As Mr. Lansbury is refusing food he is not receiving the privileges he would otherwise enjoy under Rule 243a. I am not at present aware of any grounds for intervention with regard to the sentence passed on him.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that Mr. Lansbury, a prisoner who has been convicted of no offence, is in the third divison and on hunger strike?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. My hon. Friend in his original question used the expression "convicted of crime." Technically, it is not correct to say that. When a man is called upon to give sureties for good behaviour and refuses to do so, he is technically not guilty of a crime, but he was charged with a certain offence and this offence was proved against him, and

  729
  it was because of that proof he was called upon to give sureties for his good behaviour in the future.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask why Mr. Lansbury is not being treated as a first-class misdemeanant, as he would be under similar circumstances in Ireland according to the state of the Irish law?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, as I endeavoured to explain more than once, the question of the class to which any person is sent does not depend upon me, but depends upon the committing magistrate. In this case, I think, Mr. Lansbury was sent to prison in the second division.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to give notice that at the end of Questions I shall-move the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: In Ireland there is a large number of these cases, and I may say I was in gaol myself under this procedure as a first-class misdemeanant, and why should not the same rule apply in this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: Here we have adopted the practice of late years of giving prisoners in certain circumstances such as these the benefit of Rule 243a, which gives almost all the privilege of a prisoner committed in the first class.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD:I desire to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the continued imprisonment in the third division in Pentonville, and the continued starvation in prison of Mr. George Lansbury, some time a Member of this House, and to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House thereon.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of Standing Order No. 15, Sub-section (9), which says: "On the days appointed for concluding the business of Supply, the consideration of that business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment.…"

  Prisoners' Sentences.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a woman named Queenie Gerald, recently convicted of keeping a brothel, was sentenced to only three months' imprisonment in the second division, whereas a sentence of six months' imprisonment in the third division was passed on Miss Agnes Lake for being concerned with the printing of the "Suffragette" newspaper and the
  730
  management of its advertisement columns; and whether he proposes to mitigate in any way the severity of the latter sentence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no power to increase sentences, and I cannot discuss the question whether the sentence imposed by the Court in the first case mentioned by the Noble Lord was adequate or not. That question can have no bearing on the question whether the prerogative of mercy should be exercised in the case of Miss Lake. All I can say regarding Miss Lake is that she was convicted after full trial of conspiring to commit outrages, that she did not appeal, and that no grounds have yet been shown which would justify me in advising a reduction of her sentence.
  Viscount WOLMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think those two sentences represent equal justice?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I have endeavoured to explain, I have no power to increase sentences.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the prisoner Queenie Gerald is still in prison or has she been let out?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as I know the three months have not expired yet.

  Workmen's Compensation.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on the 10th July the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the judgment given on 9th April last by the judge of the Salford County Court in the case of Howarth v. Knowles, so that the plaintiff and other workmen who relied for protection on a scheme officially certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies as not less favourable to the general body of workmen and their dependants than the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act now find themselves left without compensation or remedy; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 3 of the Act, so as to prevent any such failure of the intention of the Act from occurring in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the Court of Appeal have upheld the decision of the County Court judge. I have been in communication with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies on the subject, and he informs me that a Clause by which the employer undertakes to provide for the continuance of compensation in the event

  731
  of the scheme expiring and the funds becoming exhausted has now been inserted in all the schemes which have been renewed. These include all the existing schemes except one which falls due for renewal later and will be dealt with at the time of renewal. This action will prevent the occurrence of any similar cases under these schemes.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the other scheme will expire—I understand there is only one remaining?
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will ask me afterwards, I will find out for him.

  London Telephone Directory.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the address of Messrs. P. T. George and Son, of 23, Wormwood Street, E.C., was incorrectly entered in the January edition of the London Telephone Directory as 23, Welbeck Street; is he aware that as a result of this error Messrs. George and Son have suffered substantial pecuniary loss; will he say if his Department are responsible for the error and how it arose; and, if so, does he propose to grant Messrs. George any compensation for the losses which they have incurred?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The address of the firm was incorrectly entered in the January Directory owing to the misunderstanding of some verbal instructions given by them. The mistake was corrected in the July edition. The name of the firm and the exchange number were given correctly, and it seems improbable that serious difficulty arose in connection with telephone calls. Their chief complaint was that letters were incorrectly addressed. The insertion of addresses in telephone directories is, however, to assist in the identification of subscribers for telephone calls, and not for other purposes, but in any case I have no power to admit claims for consequential damages. Special steps were taken to ensure that both telephone calls and letters should reach the firm.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the discovery that the Marconi Company has no patent rights in British East Africa,
  732
  he can say whether the company has patent rights covering all its patents in Egypt and India, respectively
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General if he will state what inquiries have been made by him, other than inquiries of the Marconi Company, as to the existence or the validity of patents covering the Marconi inventions in the localities where the proposed Imperial stations are situated; and, if no such inquiries have been made, whether the contract for the payment of royalties will be made before he is satisfied that such patents are in existence?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My inquiries have for the most part been made of the Marconi Company. They state their inventions are fully protected both in Egypt and in India. The hon. Members are under a misapprehension if they suppose that the Government would lose should it prove to be the case that the inventions are not protected in these countries. The contrary would be the case, as under the terms of the contract royalty would then not be payable.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the 10 per cent. royalty was for the use of patents? If there is no patent, what is the 10 per cent. royalty for?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If there is no patent the 10 per cent. royalty will not be paid.
  Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of employing a competent patent agent to search the registers to inform him whether any royalty is payable?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Before any royalty is paid the most careful inquiries will be made.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask who found out that there was no patent rights in East Africa? Was it the Post Office or the Marconi Company?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Marconi Company asked for a special concession on the ground that their patents were not protected in East Africa.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the definition in the new contract the same as in the old?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are some verbal alterations, but it is substantially the same.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Did not the old definition include all the inventions, whether subject to patents or not?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not for the purpose of paying royalty. We have the right to use, without any extra payment, any invention, whether patented or not, which the Marconi Company possess. We do not pay any royalty unless we are using any actually patented invention of which the patent is valid and unexpired.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that it is proposed that the second three wireless stations may be constructed on a system other than the Marconi system, he will defer the construction of four out of the six aerials stated by him to be necessary for a Marconi station in East Africa (that is to say, those aerials required for communicating with South Africa and India), until the system to be used in the second three stations has been selected, particularly in view of the fact that another system might not require such an expenditure on masts and aerials as is required by the Marconi system?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under the proposed agreement with the Marconi Company, the company are to be paid a specified average price per station; and it is therefore obviously in the financial interests of the Government that the East African station, which is designed to be the largest of all, should be completed as designed. The Advisory Committee recognised in paragraph 29 of their Report that the Marconi directive aerial has special advantages, and my advisers do not agree that it will necessarily be more costly than those of other systems. The Marconi aerials at the East African station could be used without disadvantage even though some other system of transmission were adopted for the South African and Indian stations.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that the proposed agreement gives the Government the right to use all patents which the Marconi Company may from time to time be entitled to use without further payment of royalties, whether he will say what is the object of the proposed clause in the contract giving the Marconi Company the right to contract for the installation of any new system which the Government may wish to adopt, since, if the system is one which the Marconi Company
  734
  are in a position to use, it would, under the contract, be part of the Marconi system; and if, on the other hand, the Marconi Company have not the right to use such system, whether it is contemplated that the Government should make use of Section 29 of the Patents Act in respect of such rival system and allow the Marconi Company to contract for its installation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has not rightly apprehended the nature of the provision in the contract to which his question relates. The contract itself is in the printer's hands, and will be laid almost immediately, and perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to refer him to its terms instead of attempting to give a full answer to his question within the limits of a Parliamentary reply.

  Postmen (Non-Postal Parcels).
  Captain WEIGALLasked the Postmaster-General whether postmen will not be allowed to early parcels of newspapers and doctors' medicine after to-day?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No change is contemplated in the arrangement under which certain postmen are allowed to carry parcels of newspapers and light packets of medicine which have not passed through the post, but this arrangement has necessarily always been subject to the condition in the case of parcels of newspapers that it must be withdrawn in any particular instance to which it is found to be detrimental to the postal service. It has recently been found at an office in Lincolnshire that the conveyance of private parcels of newspapers was impairing the efficiency of the postal service, and instructions were therefore given that in this case the arrangement must be discontinued. No similar instructions have been given in regard to light packets of medicine.

  Telephone Service.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Postmaster-General if he will state (1) how many new poles will be required for the extension of the telephone from Pitlochry to Blair Atholl, and what is the average estimated price; and what is the estimated price of the wire and other plant required and the estimated cost of erection; and (2) what is the estimated cost of erection of the extension of the telephone from Pitlochry to Blair Atholl, using existing telegraphic plant?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: About 160 new poles would be required for the proposed telephone line between Pitlochry and Blair Atholl. The cost of the five and a half miles of new pole line would be approximately £430. This includes the cost of poles, arms, and other accessories and the labour charges. The total cost of the junction line and of the exchange equipment at Killiecrankie and Blair Atholl would be about £740. Existing telegraph wires cannot be used for this extension. I am considering whether the extension cannot be carried out on more favourable terms than those lately propesed, which, I understand, have not been accepted. But Treasury sanction would be required.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of using the existing telegraph posts?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like notice of that.

  Motor Mail Service (Displaced Driver).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of John Ells, who, after fifty-three years of continuous service as driver of the mails between Canterbury and Herne Bay, has lost his employment owing to the substitution of motors for horse-drawn vehicles for the carriage of the mails; whether he is aware that this man supported his widowed mother for thirty-two years, besides bringing up a family of fourteen children; and, seeing that after this long life of hard work and exposure in the public service Ells is without pension or recompense of any kind from the Government, whether he will undertake that suitable provision shall be made for this servant of the Government?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Mr. John Ells was not a Government servant but a contractor for the carriage of mails, and I regret that he is therefore not eligible for any grant out of public funds.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Is a man not eligible for any sort of recognition after a long life in the Government service as a contractor of this kind?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Contractors are not pensionable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business is to be taken next week; whether he can tell us what business will be taken after Eleven o'clock on Monday, and whether he intends to ask the House to sit late to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: We do not propose to ask the House to sit after Five o'clock to-morrow. With regard to the business for next week, we shall take on
Monday: Scottish Estimates, the Education Vote being first considered;
Tuesday and Wednesday: The Insurance Bill, Report stage;
Thursday: The India Budget;
Friday: The Wireless Telegraphy Contract.
On each night we shall also take some smaller orders. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what those smaller orders are?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be a convenience if Members could know before they go away what is to be taken on Monday.
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to take to-night: Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill (Second Reading); Telegraph [Money] (Committee); Foreign Jurisdiction Bill (Second Reading); Post Office Bill (Committee). Any of those which are not taken to-night will certainly be taken on Monday.
Mr. WHELER: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Committee stage of the Revenue Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope soon. I cannot say exactly when.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the Report of the Irish Medical Benefits Committee be circulated before the Insurance Bill is taken? Some very important changes with regard to Ireland have been made in the Bill in Committee.
The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that. I am not familiar with the facts.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Education Bill will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: No.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Not after Eleven o'clock?
The PRIME MINISTER: No.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided to publish any part of the correspondence on the Marconi Contract presented to the Committee upstairs?
The PRIME MINISTER: I circulated the answer yesterday.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: It has not reached me.
The PRIME MINISTER: It was circulated with the Votes. I can repeat the substance of it. I put myself in communication with the heads of the various Departments, and I was advised by them that, although in regard to a great part of the correspondence, there would be no objection whatever to publication, there were passages of a confidential character communicated to the Committee which they did not think it would be in the public interest to divulge.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to publish so much of the correspondence as he thinks could be published without detriment to the public interest? It is very difficult for the House to discuss the question without that correspondence.
The PRIME MINISTER: I hesitate to undertake that. But I am very anxious that the House should be in possession of all the material facts. If the Noble Lord will make a communication to me privately of what he thinks could or could not be published, I will consider it.
Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Could not each Department concerned produce such parts of the correspondence as they think could be published without objection
The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather a delicate duty which I do not feel disposed to place upon the Departments concerned.
Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill. When he was announcing the Bills which he proposed to take, and those which he proposed to drop, he included this Bill amongst those which were doubtful, and in regard to which he was anxious if possible to come

759
to some arrangement. I trust that if an arrangement is impossible, the right hon. Gentleman will not force the House to sit up late at night to take a measure which may be controversial.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did express the hope that arrangements would be come to before the Second Reading, because, after all, there are a number of Clauses which are universally accepted.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman another question? Did I gather that he stated that he was going to take the further stages of the Finance Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will take the Revenue Bill first.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: In relation to the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill, the Prime Minister will remember that I asked him a question as to the differences of opinion of the various interests concerned. The Prime Minister held out the hope that if those differences of opinion were not composed before the Second Reading took place, that he would consider proceeding further with the Bill. May I assume that those differences have been composed?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say; but I hope that in the course of Debate we shall have that point made clear, and that we shall learn that at any rate an attempt has been made to compose them so that the Bill may be passed.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  SHARE FISHERMEN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL.
  "To make the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, applicable to Share Fishermen in certain cases." Presented by Mr. GUY WILSON; supported by Sir Edward Beauchamp, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Ferens, Major Guest, Captain Murray, Sir Mark Sykes, and Mr. Wing; to be read a second time upon Monday, 11th August, and to be printed. [Bill 290.]

  LABOUR (MINIMUM CONDITIONS) BILL.
  "To provide for minimum rates of wages and maximum hours of labour, and
  760
  to regulate the conditions of labour." Presented by Mr. BARNES; supported by Mr. Brace, Mr. Gill, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. George Roberts; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th August, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

  EDUCATION (NATIONAL MINIMUM) BILL.
  "To provide for the more effectual treatment and prevention of destitution and sickness among children, and to regulate the hours and conditions of labour among children." Presented by Mr. GOLDSTONE; supported by Mr. Thomas Richardson, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Pointer; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th August, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]
  RIVER NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the improvement of the navigation of Rivers in Ireland." Presented by Mr. O'SHEE; supported by Mr. Condon, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Cullinan; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 294.]
  ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Entail in Scotland." Presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]
  FEUDAL CASUALTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the redemption and extinction of casualties incident to feus in Scotland." Presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 295.]
  BURGH REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the discontinuance of the Burgh Registers of Sasines in Scotland." Presented by the Loan ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 296.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Motion made, and Question put, "That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 132.

Division No. 239.]

AYES.

[3.54 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morison, Hector

Acland, Francis Dyke

France, G. A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Adamson, William

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Muldoon, John

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Gill, A. H.

Munro, Robert

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Agnew, Sir George William

Glanville, Harold James

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Goldstone, Frank

Neilson, Francis

Alden, Percy

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Nolan, Joseph

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

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Arnold, Sydney

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nuttall, Harry

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Hackett, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Hancock, John George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Doherty, Philip

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Hardie, J. Keir

O'Donnell, Thomas

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

O'Dowd, John

Barnes, George N.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Grady, James

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Barton, William

Hayward, Evan

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

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Hazleton, Richard

O'Shee, James John

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Henry, Sir Charles

Outhwaite, R. L.

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

Hewart, Gordon

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Bentham, G. J.

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Hinds, John

Parry, Thomas H.

Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

Hodge, John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Boland, John Pius

Hogge, James Myles

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pointer, Joseph

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brace, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Hughes, Spencer Leogh

Pringle, William M. R.

Brunner, John F. L.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Radford, G. H.

Burke, E. Havlland-

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, Michael

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Kellaway, Frederick George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kelly, Edward

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Kilbride, Denis

Rendall, Athelstan

Chancellor, Henry George

King, Joseph

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Clough, William

Lardner, James C. R.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Leach, Charles

Robinson, Sidney

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Cotton, William Francis

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cowan, W. H.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Rowlands, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lundon, Thomas

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

Crumley, Patrick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cullinan, John

Lynch, A. A.

Scan Ian, Thomas

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

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

McGhee, Richard

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

Maclean, Donald

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

Dawes, J. A.

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

Sheehy, David

De Forest, Baron

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

Shortt, Edward

Delany, William

Macpherson, James Ian

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Devlin, Joseph

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Dickinson, W. H.

McKenna, Rt Hon. Reginald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dillon, John

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Doris, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Sutherland, John E.

Duffy, William J.

Martin, Joseph

Sutton, John E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Meagher, Michael

Tennant, Harold John

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, J. H.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Molloy, Michael

Toulmin, Sir George

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Molteno, Percy Alport

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ffrench, Peter

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Field, William

Mooney, John J.

Verney, Sir Harry

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Morgan, George Hay

Wadsworth, John

Fitzgibbon, John

Morrell, Philip

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Incs)

762

763

Walters, Sir John Tudor

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Wardle, George J.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Waring, Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Webb, H.

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

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Astor, Waldort

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

Baird, John Lawrence

Gibbs, G. A.

Nield, Herbert

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

Gilmour, Captain John

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goldsmith, Frank

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Barnston, Harry

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Peto, Basil Edward

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Grant, J. A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Greene, W. R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Gretton, John

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Blair, Reginald

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Sanderson, Lancelot

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Harris, Henry Percy

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boyton, James

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bridgeman, William Clive

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

Spear, Sir John Ward

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

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

Hills, John Waller

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cassel, Felix

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Horner, Andrew Long

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Tobin, Altred Aspinall

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerry, Earl of

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Keswick, Henry

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Larmor, Sir J.

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

Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Denniss, E. R. B.

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H' mts., Mile End)

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lee, Arthur H.

Wolmer, Viscount

Duke, Henry Edward

Lewisham, Viscount

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Duncannon, Viscount

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Younger, Sir George

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel Hickman and Mr. Kerr-Smiley.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mackinder, H. J.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Supplementary Estimates for new Services and the Civil Services Excess Estimates, 1911–12, may be considered in Committee of Supply this day."—[The Prime Minister.]
Sir F. BANBURY: The effect of this Motion, if passed, would be to do within the allotted days something which ought to be done somewhere else; that is to say, the twenty allotted days for the purposes of practical discussion are diminished by this Motion of the Prime Minister. Those of us who were in the House in 1902, and amongst them was the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), remember the criticism made upon the Rules of Procedure
764
moved by the then Leader of the House (Mr. Balfour), my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London, to the effect that he was not giving sufficient time for the consideration of Supply, and one of the cries raised against the Tory party was that sufficient time was not given to one of the most important functions of Parliament, namely, the granting of Supply, and the late Lord Wolverhampton, Sir Henry Fowler as he then was, made a very strong indictment against the Tory party, on the ground that sums of money were being voted on the last of the twenty days without any proper consideration and without proper Debate. If hon. Members will look at Standing Order 15, they will see that paragraph (3) states:—

765
"Provided that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or Additional Estimates presented by the Government for war expenditure, or for any new Service not included in the ordinary Estimtaes for the year, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid."
To pass this Motion would be to cancel that Order. The Order was put in in order to preserve to the House the right of criticising the Estimates as they were brought forward. I think everybody will admit that twenty days is all too short a time for that criticism, and it was expressly provided in this Order that if Estimates for new Services were brought forward they should be considered separately, and not considered in the twenty days. I have not been able to look up every year back to 1902, and I can only trust to my recollection, and my recollection last year and the year before was that they were the only years in which this rule was broken. It was certainly broken last year, and it was broken, I believe, the year before. Last year when it was broken my Noble Friend, who was then Chief Whip, opposed the Motion, and he made a quotation from a speech of the hon. Member for Mayo at the time when these rules were passed. He quoted from "Hansard" on the 25th April, 1902, and he said that the discussion on this matter extended to three columns of "Hansard," and he pointed out that the Member for Mayo said:—
"that if the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman—"
that is the present senior Member for the City of London—
"were carried, the provision to which he was referring would be rendered unnecessary, because when any new Service or Supplementary Estimates not dealt with or provided for in the Estimates of the year was proposed, it must be taken not within twenty days, but in time provided by the Government.
Mr. Balfour: Any new Service not included in the ordinary Estimates of the year, such as the loan referred to by the hon. Member, would be a new Service, and if the rule is passed in the shape in which it appears on the Paper. and with this Amendment, 'not later than two days before the Committee is closed, it would not come within the purview of the twenty-three days at all.
Mr. Dillon said the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would do away with the difficulty which arose last year, and that being so he thought the concession a very substantial one."
We divided upon this Motion last year, and I see that the sense of the House was so strongly in our favour that the Government
766
only carried their Motion by a majority of three. I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was with us or not, but I hope on this occasion we shall find him in our Lobby. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to my Noble Friend last year, giving the reason for this Motion, said there was an appeal made by the Opposition for more time to discuss these new sources which in the ordinary course would come within the twenty days, and he went on to say that those services had been discussed over and over again, and that he understood that on Monday there would be another discussion upon the same services. That argument does not apply to-day, because these services, whatever they are, and I expect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duchy of Lancaster is to have charge of them, have not been discussed up to now, and the argument that they should come under the guillotine, and not be discussed at all, though possibly it may have been done before, is, I venture to say, in direct contradiction of the spirit of Standing Order 15. Standing Order 15, paragraph (10) says:—
"Any additional Estimate for any new matter not included in the original Estimates for the year shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on some day not later than two days before the Committee is closed."
I believe it is held in some quarters, though I cannot conceive how it could hold water, that merely putting a Supply note upon the Paper means it is to be considered. I think if hon. Members will look up paragraph (3) of the Standing Order they will see that it is provided that the Committee of Supply is to be occupied by the considerations of the Estimates. The very same word is used in paragraph (3) as in paragraph (10), and in the ordinary meaning of the English language, consideration means consideration, and does not mean putting something down upon the Paper which is not considered. Therefore, I submit that the real meaning of paragraph (10) in Standing Order 15 is that the Estimates must be put down before the close of Supply. It has nothing to do with the twenty days, and that these matters ought to be properly considered, and, therefore, the right course for the right hon. Gentleman is to give a day on which these new services could be con-

767
sidered. What would be the effect of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman if carried? The effect would be that these new services will not be considered at all. They will come under the guillotine. There may be one, two, three, four, or five new services. That makes the matter all the worse. My argument is this: That it was never intended by the Supply rule that these new services should be guillotined at 10 o'clock on the last of the twenty days, and the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion is this, that he need not grant any day for the discussion of these new services, and by making this Motion they will be guillotined and will never be considered at all. To my mind, it is perfectly evident that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes is to get behind the rule—I do not say that in any offensive sense—and to avoid giving an extra day for the discussion of the new Estimates, whereas it was the intention of the rule that they should be properly considered. My point is that the number of days given to the consideration of Estimates by the Standing Orders of 1902 are, at any rate, not too much or too many.
There are not too many of these days, and therefore any attempt to get round them and read into the Standing Orders, a meaning which I do not believe it was ever intended they should have, and by that means to obtain by a Motion of this sort the right to take them under the guillotine is a distinct breach of the understanding which was arrived at in 1902, and is really a breach of the Standing Orders. This is a very simple point, but it is also a very important one. I know the right hon. Gentleman can carry his Motion if he puts on the Whips, but on this question I hope the hon. Member for East Mayo will appear with us in our Lobby. But whether that is so or not, I appeal to hon. Members on both sides not to do anything which will take away the power of this House to consider questions of Supply. It is a most important matter, and I hope hon. Members opposite will back me up in appealing to the Government not to press this Motion, but to give us another day. It is only a question of one day, and it might even be half a day. Surely it is worth while to sit for one more day in order to preserve the Supply Rule intact and secure that proper consideration shall be given to Supply. This is all the more important now in view of the fact
768
that we have removed the consideration of Money Bills from the House of Lords. We are now the only people who have to consider the expenditure of the nation, and therefore it is necessary to have an extension of the number of days and not a reduction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will again show that he can rise to the spirit of the occasion.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Let me point out to the hon. Baronet that the provision in the rule to which he has referred was put in upon the assumption that there would be twenty days, and only twenty days, devoted to the consideration of Supply. This Session we have voluntarily given twenty-one days, and that is an extra day. As regards the new services to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, if it had been intimated to us that their discussion at this stage was regarded as a matter of importance we should certainly have considered the matter either as regards to-day or next Monday. No such request was made, and I do not really understand why it was not made. Let me point out that paragraph 10 has been construed as meaning that the Estimates shall be submitted two days before the final date mentioned in the rule. I agree that the House ought to look with great jealousy upon any curtailment of the discussion of new services. It is, however, of great importance to see what these new services are, and whether they have or have not already been discussed. These particular new services are almost all services necessitated by legislation which was not introduced in time to be provided for in the ordinary Estimates. The first item is in regard to the Mental Deficiency Bill. The Resolution upon which that Bill is founded both in Committee and on Report was allowed the greatest possible discussion, which was fully taken advantage of, in order to debate this very matter, therefore, although technically this is a new service it has already been very carefully reviewed by the House both in Committee and on the Report stage, and during the discussion of the Bill upstairs. In regard to the next item it is for education, and that is divided under two heads: £50,000 for medical treatment, as to which there is no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House, and as for the remaining £100,000 it is contingent upon the passing of the Bill.
The third new service is an item of £2,600 for a purpose which nobody I am

769
sure desires to contest. The same applies to the £1,500 for the Superannuation Fund. The next item is for expenses under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, which every year since 1905 have been provided for exactly in this way. The final item is for the Islands and Highlands, and that has been discussed on a Resolution in Committee and on Report as well as on the Bill in Committee upstairs. There has been in regard to every matter which can be regarded in the faintest degree as contentious under these services an opportunity for discussion, which has been taken full advantage of by the House itself. If we were seeking to pass under the guise of a Supplementary Estimate some novel form of expenditure, I agree that the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing it, and pronouncing an opinion upon it, but that is not the case. With regard to the item for education, it is founded upon the Bill, and if the Bill does not pass then the Resolution falls to the ground. If any intimation had been given to us of a desire to discuss these services we should have given it the most careful attention. We have already given an extra day for consideration of Supply, and we have done everything in our power to afford opportunities for discussing. In this matter we are certainly acting in accordance with precedents adopted by the House of Commons over a considerable series of years, and what we are now asking for is a very modest demand upon the time of the House.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman is always extremely reasonable in speech, but it seems to me that he has himself given away his own case in one of the reasons he has given in reference to the Education Bill. The right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that if there is any new Estimate which can be considered contentious it ought not to be passed under the guillotine without the House having some opportunity of discussing it. That is precisely the case with regard to the Education Bill. The Prime Minister said that if the Bill does not pass there will be no Estimate needed, but if it does pass then precisely the position which he says ought not to exist will exist. That new service, I am told, is contentious inasmuch as it repeals part of the Act. to which some of us object, without any possibility of discussion in any shape or form. I quite agree that taking all the other cases the principle is one upon which we are all agreed, because there was some opportunity given for discussion, and therefore the argument of
770
the right hon. Gentleman holds good. But in regard to this particular matter of education there is no possibility of discussion, and on the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has himself laid down some opportunity should be given to enable the House to express its opinion.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): May I point out that the £100,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the subject of a full Debate on Tuesday last when I introduced the Education Bill. A whole day was given to the introduction of the Bill, and this proposal in connection with that Bill is to allow this £100,000 to be distributed.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that on the introduction of a Bill the Debate may turn in quite another channel. The proposal which the President of the Board of Education made was very imperfectly understood at that time so far as this part of it was concerned. As regards the £100,000 nobody was quite clear as to what the money was intended for, or how it was to be spent. I understood that the whole matter was to be postponed until next year.
Mr. PEASE: I said at the outset of my speech that £100,000 would be placed upon the Estimates for this year.
Lord HUGH CECIL: At any rate it is certainly a controversial proposal. There may be a good case for the State using money in this way, but we regard it as open to very grave objection to give to a Board of Education, notoriously so unfair as the present Board is, so large a fund to further their own objects, especially when this is brought forward in a, way which destroys the Supply Rule and breaks the understanding on which that rule was passed, which was that no controversial items should be brought in at the last moment under the guillotine. That really is to outrage the Standing Orders and treat them as a flexible matter and not a fixed rule. The Government ought not to vary this rule whenever it happens to suit their purpose. After all, if we are to maintain any respect for the procedure of this House our Standing Orders must not be lightly set aside. This particular Standing Order was carefully constructed, and it does contain an element of elasticity. There is a provision to allow three extra days, and also an express provision for altering the days on which

771
Supply may be taken and other provisions of that kind, making the rule flexible. It is clear that this Standing Order was meant to be adhered to subject to those flexible elements in it, and above all it was intended that no new Vote was to be put in the Estimates at this stage of the Session merely to suit the views of the Government. The Standing Orders were not made to be set aside to suit the convenience of the Government. And we do not know. We are not told whether the Bill really will or really can pass in the next fortnight. We are not told, therefore, whether this will come into force or not, or whit will happen to it if it does not came into force. The Prime Minister said that if the Bill does not pass the £100,000 will not be used, but I assume it will form part of the Appropriation Bill and will be, or may be, used. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. On previous occasions Votes have appeared in the Appropriation Bill and have been used, but. I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Four years ago there was a Vote put in the Appropriation Bill for building new schools contrary to the provisions of these Sections, and, therefore, it is not quite correct to say that it is not the intention of the Government to act upon it. They would have legislative authority for doing so.
The PRIME MINISTER: I said we should not act upon it. In the case referred to it was expressed avowedly.
Lord HUGH CECIL: But, surely, of all the. slovenly and unbusinesslike ways of doing business and dealing with public money, the most slovenly is to carry a Vote under the guillotine and to found upon that an Appropriation Bill which gives you legislative authority to do a thing which you yourselves think would be improper and unconstitutional! The right hon. Gentleman says, not untruly, that the Grants of medical treatment are not controversial matters. Why not bring up a Vote for that alone, which would pass practically without discussion, and drop this £100,000—at any rate until you have seen whether your Bill passes or not? If it does pass, that will be time to bring up a new Vote and pass it into law. The present procedure indicates that the Government does not care about Parliamentary procedure, and is prepared to treat even in the matter of Supply, on which of all matters the House of Commons is
772
supposed to be most sensitive, all forms as negligible so long as it suits their convenience. I hope the House will reject the Motion of the Prime Minister.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I do not think the President of the Board of Education has taken a fair account of our discussion last night. It is perfectly true that he said he proposed to introduce a Bill to make a Grant, among other things, of £100,000 to assist the education authorities in building loans, but to say we have an opportunity of discussing this Money Resolution on the introduction of the Bill is really not quite a, fair representation of the Debate of last night. It now appears that this Bill really was a Money Bill. It was suggested by my Noble Friend in the course of the Debate that it. was a Money Bill, and also was a Money Resolution. It now appears that the Bill is a Money Bill, because it cannot take effect, if I understand the Prime Minister rightly, unless the Supplemetary Estimate is granted. Supposing the Government drops the Bill, they have got their money under the Resolution they will pass to-night, and they will obtain power, as they did in the year 1907, to expend money on the building of schools contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1870, and I submit that is not a fair way of dealing with this topic, which is really of great importance to those interested in the welfare of both county and voluntary schools.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is another aspect which shows that this is really a slovenly way of doing financial business. Take the Estimate for the Highlands and Islands service. There you have an Estimate of £45,000, the balance of which is not to be surrendered. Now the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct a moment ago when he said there was controversy going on as to the area to which this service is to be applied. There is, I believe, an acute controversy going on now in Committee upstairs. Now, really, is it not a ridiculous thing that, before you know the area to which your money is to be applied, you are solemnly to come down and vote a certain sum of money irrespective of the area and to devote it under the Closure without one single word of discussion, and without knowing what the Committee do, whether they widen the area or narrow it? If the Committee decide to narrow the area under this Estimate you are not to surrender

773
any unexpended balance. One cannot well imagine a more slovenly way of conducting our national finance, and 1 certainly hope the House will not agree to give the Government the authority asked for. At all events, if they do, I hope the right hon. Gentleman if he ever finds himself in similar circumstances again, will not say that this is a precedent which has gone without protest on this side. I believe that on every occasion the Government has brought it forward we have protested. At least, I remember the strong protest last year, and, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think he has fully answered my hon. Friend's point, and it is very unfortunate that we should be asked to vote this money under the guillotine in
the way we are now asked by the Government.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I do not know whether the hon. Member's case is good or not, but I do not think the example he cited is fortunate, because in the case of the Highlands and Islands it perfectly well known that it was because an area had been added that any discussion arose.
Question put, "That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Supplementary Estimates for new Services and the Civil Services Excess Estimate, 1911–12, may be considered in Committee of Supply this day."
The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 129.

Division No. 240.]

AYES.

[4.48 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Crumley, Patrick

Higham, John Sharp

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cullinan, John

Hinds, John

Adamson, William

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

Hodge, John

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hogge, James Myles

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Agnew, Sir George William

Dawes, James Arthur

Holt, Richard Durning

Ainsworth, John Stirling

De Forest, Baron

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Alden, Percy

Delany, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Devlin, Joseph

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Arnold, Sydney

Dickinson, W. H.

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

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dillon, John

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Doris, William

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Kelly, Edward

Barnes, George N.

Elverston, Sir Harold

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Kilbride, Denis

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leads, N.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Barton, William

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lardner, James C. R.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Firench, Peter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Field, William

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

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Leach, Charles

Bentham, G. J.

Fitzgibbon, John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Boland, John Pius

France, Gerald Ashburner

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Lundon, Thomas

Bowerman, Charles W.

Gill, A. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Lynch, A. A.

Brace, William

Glanville, Harold James

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Goldstone, Frank

McGhee, Richard

Brunner, John F. L.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Burke, E. Havlland-

Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Macpherson, James Ian

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Hackett, John

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hancock, John George

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Chancellor, Henry George

Hardle, J. Keir

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

Martin, Joseph

Clancy, John Joseph

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Clough, William

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Meagher, Michael

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayward, Evan

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hazleton, Richard

Molloy, Michael

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cotton, William Francis

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Sir Charles

Mooney, John J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hewart, Gordon

Morgan, George Hay

Morrell, Philip

Radford, G. H.

Sutton, John E.

Morison, Hector

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Muldoon, John

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Tennant, Harold John

Munro, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Thomas, J. H.

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

Reddy, Michael

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Neilson, Francis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Toulmin, Sir George

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nolan, Joseph

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Verney, Sir Harry

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wadsworth, John

Nuttall, Harry

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Walters, Sir John Tudor

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)-

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wardle, George J.

O'Doherty, Philip

Robinson, Sidney

Waring, Walter

O'Donnell, Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Dowd, John

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Webb, H.

O'Grady, James

Roe Sir Thomas

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Rowlands, James

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

O'Malley, William

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

O'Shee, James John

Scanlan, Thomas

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Wiles, Thomas

Outhwaite, R. L.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sheehy, David

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

Parry, Thomas H.

Shortt, Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Wing, Thomas Edward

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Pointer, Joseph

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

Pringle, William M. R.

Sutherland, John E.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Forster, Henry William

Mackinder, H. J.

Astor, Waldorf

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

Baird, J. L.

Gibbs, G. A.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Gilmour, Captain John

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goldsmith, Frank

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

Barnston, Harry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Grant, J. A.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Greene, W. R.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

Peto, Basil Edward

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Bird, Alfred

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Blair, Reginald

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Harris, Henry Percy

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyton, James

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Sanderson, Lancelot

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hickman, Colonel T. E.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hills, John Waller

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Spear, Sir John Ward

Cassel, Felix

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G F. (Preston)

Cautley, H. S.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Horner, Andrew Long

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Hunt, Rowland

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Kerry, Earl of

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Craik, Sir Henry

Keswick, Henry

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Larmor, Sir J.

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

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H' mts., Mile End)

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Lewisham, Viscount

Wolmer, Viscount

Duncannon, Viscount

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Fell, Arthur

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Mason and Mr. Fitzroy.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Lowe, Sir F. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

CIVIL SERVICES.—

  COLONIAL OFFICE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £39,285, 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 Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration." [Note.—£21,000 has been voted on account.]
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It is impossible to approach a debate on Colonial affairs without being deeply conscious of the sad gap left on the opposite bench by the tragic and untimely death of Mr. Lyttelton. I would not attempt to tread the field of appreciation so beautifully traversed by the Prime Minister when he expressed the feeling of the whole House on that event, but I should like to say on fins occasion that not only are the House and also the Colonies poorer by his removal, but that I, personally, have lost a generous critic, a kindly opponent, and a dear and lifelong friend. It is a melancholy satisfaction to me to remember that on the very night that his fatal illness commenced he encouraged me to continue the innovation I initiated last year of an annual review of Colonial affairs at the commencement of these Debates. Although I know hon. Members are anxious to raise various questions, which they will have ample opportunity of doing later, I do not propose to omit the review. I beg the Committee not to be unduly alarmed. I assure them I have no intention of repeating my outrage of last year, or of making anything like that draft upon their self-sacrificing indulgence. First of all, because my experiment met with a rather chilling reception. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !"] At any rate, I remember some Members told me, more in sorrow than in anger, that my speech was more suitable for publication than delivery, and that it might fittingly be interred in a Blue Book, from which no one would contemplate its exhumation. I bear them no ill will; I expect they accurately represented the attitude of my
  778
  audience. But I would frankly confess that that speech was addressed to and intended for a larger audience than I could command in this House; it was directed partially to that small class in the country who understand and are interested in Colonial policy, but still more largely to those in our Colonies who are greatly and rightly interested in their own affairs, and are not displeased if, only once a year, their travails and triumphs, their sorrows and successes, should be brought to the notice of the Imperial Parliament. But there is another reason why I should not attempt to repeat my former speech on the present occasion.
  Last year I gave the Committee a dissertation mainly on the progress of finance, railways, and tropical medicine in our Colonies over a septennial period. It would be otiose and useless to repeat that survey after the lapse of only another twelve months. But I still think it would be a pity if the Colonial Secretary contented himself—as in the past—by waiting merely for criticisms of disjointed details of administration and in replying to them, and to them only, deprived himself and the Colonies of any chance of giving a general conspectus of their advance and well-being. I propose, therefore, for a much shorter time than last year, to inflict myself on the Committee. But this year I should like to take a somewhat different point of view. I will eschew to-day all questions of finance, railways, and medicine, and I will with their permission, give them, so far as it is within my power, a picture of what has been the development—also within the last years—of the export and production of raw material within the Crown Colonies. I shall omit the great output of the self-governing Dominions—not because they are negligible, but because they are so great and notorious. Even the man in the street knows that we get meat, wool, and gold, as well as corn and fruit, from Australia; that New Zealand sends us mutton and wool; that Canada contributes meat, corn, and lumber; and South Africa, maize, hides, ostrich feathers, gold, and diamonds—even Newfoundland weighs in with its fish and provides wood pulp for our paper. I omit also the products of India and Egypt, because they do not come under my Departmental control, and I confine myself to what some people regard as the Cinderellas of the Empire—the Crown Colonies, which are in my opinion to-day producing and providing for you a volume

  779
  and variety of raw material which will bear favourable comparison with that of any other part of the world. With the exclusions and exemptions which I have already mentioned, I propose to give the Committee a survey of what has been the progress in production and export by those Colonies in the last seven years of all or most of the raw materials which are requisite to our Home manufactures and our competitive success. I would ask the Committee to remember that when I am stating progress and increases—which are practically unbroken—they are over a period of the seven years which cover the life of the present Government; but again, I would ask them to believe that I do so with no parti pris, but for the sole purpose of taking a period covered by a single administrative policy.
  I will take, first, the larger and commoner products of the raw materials of the Colonies—and I do so with the greater political confidence, because I understand that, come what may, raw material is, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be exempt from the fiscal experiments which they may attempt upon other requisites of our personal and national existence. Why the raw material of food (and therefore of wages) is to be taxed and the raw material of commerce is to be free, I have never been able to understand. Either the tax is added to the price—in which case most people agree that it should not be applied to food in an island with an insufficient home production—or the tax is no addition to the cost (as some people, I believe, still assert), in which case there is no reason why it should not be applied to raw materials. But this by the way, and I can assure the Committee I have no desire to drag them into an economic discussion which is more suited to a private Members' night or a vote of censure by the Opposition, if and when they were able to settle its terms. I want this evening, if possible, to adhere solely and closely to the commercial and not the fiscal aspect of the increasing yield of our Colonies in raw materials of manufacture.
  Let us take first cotton, a staple of immense value and importance to many millions of our people in the direct spinning and weaving trade and many allied industries. Our main—indeed, for many years almost our only—supply of this came from the middle States of America and a few West Indian islands. India, in time of stress, sent her share, but many Members
  780
  will remember the prayer of the old Lancashire spinner in the cotton famine during the American War: "Oh, Lord, send us more cotton, but no more Surat!" Egypt for many years has contributed comparatively large quantities of a fine quality—almost equal to Sea Island—and the Soudan promises a great increase when she receives that assistance which she is seeking, which goes no further than a guarantee upon an unimpeachable security. But sonic of us have felt for many years that our great cotton manufacturing industry in England was too dependent upon the fluctuations in the United States, both of crops and of prices; we have watched with ill-disguised impatience and aversion the corners in America and the gambles in futures in this country, which have adversely affected our genuine industries and those dependent upon them.
  To deal with and adjust these difficulties, it appeared to the experts in this trade that greater efforts should be made to promote the growth of cotton in our tropical Colonies. Under the auspices of Mr. Newton, of Oldham, and Sir Alfred Jones, there was founded in 1902 the British Cotton Growing Association. It was rather cold-shouldered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it was not till 1910 that His Majesty's present Government made a Grant to this excellent association of £10,000 for three years, and in 1913 renewed a similar Grant of £10,000 for another three years. The results in my opinion have fully justified the expense.
  The British Cotton Growing Association have shown much admirable activity. Working in conjunction with the Colonial Office and the African producers, they have established ginneries, provided seed, proffered advice, organised cultivation, purchased or produced the lint and marketed the bales. Owing to their assistance and our own efforts, we shall in time become more independent of those accidental and deliberate interferences with the cotton markets of the world to which I have already referred. Many of our tropical Colonies are excellently suited to the growth of cotton—sometimes by natives themselves; always by native labour—and the profits of this new industry add not only to the prosperity but to the spending power of those who become at the same time the producers of our raw materials and the purchasers of our manufactures. In Ceylon experiments have been tried for several years but with-

  781
  out much success—perhaps owing to the capacity of that island for more valuable crops. In Cyprus there has been a great advance in cotton production. I must remind the Committee that my years of comparison are 1905 and 1911 or 1912, according as the figures are available, and I do not intend constantly to repeat these dates in making my statement. I shall occasionally vary my figures of comparative progress from quantities to value and vice versâ, but I hope hon. Members will understand that I do so, not for purposes of exaggeration or concealment, but merely in order to eliminate elements which would confuse a true comparison. In Cyprus the export of cotton has grown _from 473,000 lbs. weight in 1905 to 1,546,000 lbs. weight in 1912, or an increase of more than 200 per cent.
  5.0 P.M.
  In the West Indies the history of cotton is a curious and interesting one. Until a few years ago cotton had practically ceased to be cultivated there; in the earlier times they had produced the best cotton in the world, which makes the finer counts and the most delicate materials. Then these islands transferred their activities to sugar and fruit (on which I shall have something to say later on); but recently cotton growing has been taken up again in many of these islands, largely as a result of the activities of the Imperial Department of Agriculture (provided and supported by the Imperial Government), which has given the greatest assistance with scientific advice and information as to soils, manures, and insect pests. Some hon. Members may know that the cotton boll weevil is one of the most noxious pests and that it is kept in check by the Bobwhite quail in the cotton belt of the United States. By the courtesy of the American Zoological Society I have been enabled to obtain some of these birds, which I am hoping to breed at my home in Oxfordshire, and if I am successful I propose to supply them to some of our cotton growing Colonies, where they might be naturalised. It is, however, in Africa that the great advance in production is being made. In West Africa the results have shown great fluctuations, and it is difficult accurately to estimate the success. But the export from the Colonies and Protectorates in this part of the world has increased in the period under review from 1,500,000 lbs. to 4,500,000 lbs. weight. In the East Africa Protectorate the export has risen from 46,000 lbs. to 366,000 lbs.
  782
  weight, and there are great possibilities yet untapped of future production in the valleys of the Tana and Juba rivers. In Uganda the advance is even more remarkable. At first production was limited by want of ginning facilities, but the Government and the British Cotton Growing Association and the Uganda Railway lent a helping hand, with the remarkable result that the export has increased from 96,000 lbs. weight to nearly 12,000,000 lbs. weight in 1911. There is only one other cotton producing tropical Protectorate, namely, Nyasaland. Here early difficulties IN ere encountered. There was a native disinclination to cultivate a non-edible crop; native types of seed were inferior, and better qualities were introduced by the Government and the British Cotton Growing Association. There have been severe fluctuations in prosperity; drought at one time and disease at another have retarded progress, but to-day cotton may be regarded in Nyasaland as the most promising of all its many products. A year ago some native-grown cotton sold at 1s. per lb., which will be an indication to experts of the quality produced. And the export has increased from 776,000 lbs. weight to 2,676,000 lbs. weight, or by nearly 300 per cent. In concluding my review of cotton, I can now give the Committee the figures of the export from our Crown Colonies and Protectorates. In the seven years it works out roughly—I do not pledge myself to its absolute accuracy—at an increase from about 18,000,000 lbs. weight to 35,000,000 lbs. weight, or nearly double. I ought, perhaps, to mention that the export of cotton seed—a matter of great importance in quality of crops—has risen from 24,000 to 154,000 cwts. in that same period.
  Now let us turn to oil—I mean mineral, not vegetable. I direct the attention of the Committee to it not because of the quantity of its production, but because of the necessity of its increase. Of all raw materials, the scarcest within the Empire to-day is petroleum; but I say advisedly to-day. There are, I believe, great possibilities of future production within our own territories, and the essentials in the arrangements for its output are caution, rapidity, and forethought. Both the quantities and value of mineral oil exported from the Straits Settlements have been fairly constant in the last seven years, but these figures cover import and re-export from Borneo and other Dutch possessions, and are not, therefore, trust-

  783
  worthy guides. But in Trinidad (and perhaps some other places, which I will not name lest I should be regarded as a company promoter) the oil exported, which in 1909 was worth £37, had risen in 1911 to £33,000. In earlier years the petroleum deposits of Trinidad and Barbados were being exported only in the primitive or derivative forms of asphalt and manjak. But in later years the American company which works the celebrated pitch lake, and a British company, later in the field, has done some valuable pioneer work. The British company is said to hold the "world's record" for rapid drilling. Two years ago the first shipment of crude oil was made from Trinidad of 3,500 tons. By the end of March last the total production had risen from 202,000 barrels in 1911 to 880,000 barrels, the production for the month of March being 44.500 barrels. At that time seven companies were producing oil, and eight others had been closed down for various reasons. The inadequate production of oil, and the slow development of the industry, have been matters of great anxiety to the Colonial Office and the Admiralty—to the Colonial Office, primarily for the benefit of the Colony; to the Admiralty, for the purposes of the Navy; and to both, for the modern development of oceanic and Imperial trade.
  I have kept steadily in view two objects—not always easily reconcilable—the rapid and economic development of the oil field, both for the Colony and for the Navy; the exclusion, so far as possible, of the great combines, which might either strangle production or inflate prices; the reservation to the Admiralty of full powers to assume possession of the product, even at the risk of a lessened price for the concession; and last, though not least, a security that the companies shall be registered within Great Britain or her Possessions, that their business center shall be similarly situated, that a majority of their directors shall at all times be British subjects, and that they shall not at any time fall directly or indirectly under foreign control. If at any time these conditions fail to apply, the Governor may cancel the lease. For many years Trinidad may be said to have muddled on, fumbling for oil which it did not find, or at least did not produce. The requirements of modern naval development are such that oil was required, and preferably—indeed, almost essentially—within the Empire. In its development I have worked
  784
  closely in consultation with the Admiralty, and have taken from them the provisions which they thought necessary to secure Imperial and naval control. I have aimed at giving no more monopoly to the new companies than was necessary to secure exploitation and production. Part of the oil field is freehold property, and therefore out of my control. In dealing with the Crown Lands, I have limited the area to be held under any one lease. Where a pipe-line agreement has been asked for, I have limited the grant of exclusive rights to pipe-lines in respect of which tile concessionnaires, by becoming common carriers, are compelled to provide facilities for those who might otherwise be unable to provide for themselves. Those who have failed to obtain concessions or the special facilities they desired will no doubt blame me for granting to their competitors or prior applicants leases which they themselves would have liked to obtain, but in every commercial competition it is difficult to arrange that the last shall be first.
  The thanks of this House are due to the Legislature of Trinidad for the ready cooperation they have shown in putting us in the most favourable position to obtain oil fuel for the Imperial Navy and to eliminate the dangers of a foreign monopoly. It is unnecessary for me to explain all the steps which have been taken to this end, but I may mention that no pipe-line can be laid without the Governor's assent; that in time of war or national emergency, His Majesty's Government have the right of pre-emption of all oil produced, at a price to be fixed by arbitration; and that in emergency, to be notified by Gazette, the export of crude oil and its products is forbidden without its being first offered to the Government. The oil refineries must be up to a standard specified by the Admiralty, and the plant must be worked to its full extent when ordered by the Governor in case of emergency. What the Navy require is a large, a constant, and a dependable production. This I hope in consultation with the Admiralty we have been able to secure. We have lately made an agreement on the terms I have described with a group representing several important interests in the oil industry. It is called the British West Indies Petroleum Syndicate. Several important British companies, including the Burman Oil Company and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are interested in this syndicate, and only one-fourth of the capital is held by the British

  785
  Company which is controlled by the Shell. The Standard Oil Trust have no interest in it; nor have Messrs. Pearson. I am on the point of making an agreement with another important group, representing different, but still British interests. They will take over several properties in the island, including one large area on which work has been Closed down. I am satisfied that they will have at their disposal ample means to develop all they acquire. Both these corporations will be subject to all the conditions I just now specified as to British control and naval pre-emption, with special clauses as to continuous and active development. I believe that under circumstances of some difficulty, and much pressure of necessity, we have made on good terms a greatly needed provision for the further security both of our Navy and our mercantile marine—the latter in peace and the former in war.
  From mineral oils one moves naturally, though not scientifically, to those vegetable oils derived from either the ground nut or the oil palm which constitute so considerable and growing a product of our West African Possessions. In the last seven years their export from these West African Colonies alone have grown from a value of £2,400,000 to that of £5,300,000, and in quantity from 198,000 tons to 312,000 tons. It is an industry of great importance to these regions, for it is, and I hope will largely remain, in the hands, and for the profit, of the natives. The whole industry is capable of great expansion, but it is threatened with severe competition from other and non-British parts of West Africa. A large part of the natural production of nuts is now wasted and much of the oil from the pericarp is not collected or is damaged. For the advantage of this native industry I believe that modern methods of machinery are required for its immediate and ultimate development. It is only by a recent discovery that the oil palm is proving amenable to scientific treatment. Recent proposals for the extension of this industry have occupied some space, and for some time, upon the Question Paper of this House.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by recent discoveries?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Recent mechanical discoveries. I do not know whether the implied reproach or insinuation which was thought by some to be conveyed in those questions is to be emphasised or justified to-day. If it is, I shall be prepared and
  786
  happy to deal with and to dispatch it. But with a rare and unnecessary indiscretion, I am prepared to give my accusers, if any, my answer in advance to their charge. But to do so I must take them for a few minutes through the history of the industry and its chemical incidents. The Committee is perhaps aware (or perhaps it is not) that the soap boilers of the world—irrespective of their politics—are tumbling over one another to acquire the raw material of their industry. They find that they can do this on a far larger and more advantageous scale in Liberia, the Cameroons, and the Congo than they can in British Possessions. But I am the officially-constituted protector of the natives in our own Colonies, and it is my duty to see that they are not—so far as I can prevent it—unduly damaged by this foreign competition, a sentiment which I am sure will commend itself to many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. For this purpose it appeared necessary to develop the use and treatment of the native-owned product of the oil palm, so as to avoid the very uneconomic waste which is taking place under present conditions. The nut of the oil palm is a diminutive kernel (here it is), surrounded by a pericarp containing also much valuable oil. The nut can be easily and economically and without damage exported to Europe for crushing, but the pericarp if similarly treated undergoes a chemical change.
  The pericarp is bulky in proportion to its oil-yielding capacity, which renders its freight costly in comparison with its value but it possesses another quality which renders its treatment on the spot specially desirable. Like some classes of coal, its by-product is more valuable than its immediate material. If you attempt to transport the pericarp in ships to this country a process of fermentation takes place on the voyage and on delivery much of the oil has become slightly rancid and in the process has destroyed or reduced the percentage of glycerine which alone makes it commercially remunerative to, treat this pericarp. Scientific treatment upon the spot therefore becomes an essential to commercial success and to the conditions which alone permit of a full payment of the value of the fruit. If the natives of our West African Colonies were, by foreign competition, to be deprived of a market for the products which grow on the lands which they occupy, they would suffer a deprivation which would be disastrous in moral and material effect.

  787
  Some three or more years ago—before I was at the Colonial Office—a great mercantile firm, Messrs. Lever, with a high reputation for its treatment of natives in our Colonies and Protectorates, came forward with a proposal to develop this trade, for the advantage of the natives as well as itself, if it could be assured within a limited area, and a limited time, against the competition of others who might endeavour to profit by its commercial and mechanical enterprise. Looking to the danger to which our own Colonies were exposed by the competition of the Congo and other foreign possessions, and realising the disaster which would result to our own natives under such circumstances, I gave to Messrs. Lever—but not to them alone—such terms for the erection of costly machinery as would enable them for a few years to treat on the spot the pericarp of the oil nut in order to secure the glycerine as well as the oil, and to make the industry both living and remunerative, which, under the old conditions, it could not be.
  Mr. GWYNNE: For a few years?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, for a few years. But, mark what the conditions were: Messrs. Lever were to acquire for and by themselves the site for their factory and machinery; all that the local Government give them by way of a concession is a prohibition to anyone else to erect similar machinery—of a very special type—within a radius of 10 miles from their centre for a limited number of years. But Messrs. Lever have no monopoly of the fruit or the labour within that area. The fruit belongs to the native, and he can sell it to whom he pleases. If at, the edge of that 10-mile circle someone, say the hon. Member himself, puts down a mill of his own he can draw on the native products of at least 5 miles of the circle of Messrs. Lever's concession with equal economic ease, and, beyond it, by the expenditure of a moderate competitive price. Messrs. Lever have no ownership of the land, of the products, or of the natives. So long as Lever's buy, they render a service to the inhabitants; if they cease to buy, Levers suffer. But the natives can sell elsewhere, or they need not sell atall; in any case there is free trade in oil nuts, and the market will be regulated by the competitive price of the product I cannot conceive conditions which, milder present circumstances, are more
  788
  conducive to the advantage of the native population. But I gather from the questions which for many months have been put to me that there is in the minds of the questioners some suggestion—not, I think, of personal corruption—but of undue advantage to a particular firm. If that is the case I would ask those who harbour these suspicions to answer me these three questions, and I shall be prepared to deal with them all.
  First, is it suggested that the concession made to Messrs. Lever is bad in itself because it is detrimental to the natives or the Colony? Second, is the concession proper in itself, but improper to Messrs. Lever, because in the opinion and knowledge of hon. Members opposite, Messrs. Lever are by experience a firm which are not to be trusted with the treatment of subject races? Third, is it contended that a commercial firm, making a new proposal which is regarded by the Colonial Office as of service to the Colony, is to be deprived of the facilities for which it asks, because its principal was once a Member of Parliament and sat on this side of the House? I await an honest answer to those three questions, and I am prepared to deal with all and any of them, but I think T have suffered in silence and expectation long enough the innuendoes with which some hon. Members have enlivened their leisure. I fear I have been momentarily deflected from my commercial survey by a natural, or at least excusable resentment at an unfounded and unwarrantable suggestion. I will now return to my statistical muttons. In passing from this subject I may say that the export of palm oil and kernels (mainly from Nigeria) has grown in value in six years from £2,400,000 to £5,600,000 sterling.
  We may now look at another vegetable oleaginous product—the nut of the Cocos palm, which has nothing to do with the cocoa of the breakfast, but is the familiar object of the village fair and the cocoshy. It has, however, more economic uses; the fibre outside the nut is used in making many familiar mats; the flesh is largely used—owing to scientific success in eliminating its essential flavour—in the production of a wholesome and excellent table butter, which many hon. Members have eaten without realising its country or material of origin. The oil derived from it is, however, of even greater commercial value, and the exports of these nuts, and of the dried kernel known as Copra has largely increased in recent years. The

  789
  West Indies are specially active in this trade; the value of their export has constantly risen. The Imperial Department of Agriculture in those islands is now devoting special attention to the cultivation and extension of the palm, and its introduction to islands in which it has hitherto been a stranger. In Jamaica the export of nuts has risen in number from seven to twenty millions, and in value from £28,000 to £98,000 sterling. In Trinidad the increase has been almost equally great, and the export is considerable from British Honduras, British Guiana, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, and Federated Malay States. The increase in value in the seven years has been from £400,000 to £790,000, or nearly double. Copra, or the dried flesh of the coconut, is also a staple industry and export in many of our Colonies. In the Federated Malay States its export has grown from 46,000 cwts. to 160,000 cwts. In the Seychelles from 5,000 cwts. to 50,000 cwts., and in value from £3,000 to 257,000; and in these Islands it seems to afford a permanent promise of prosperity.
  From the East Africa Protectorate, in the period of comparison, the export has doubled in quantity and trebled in price—from 16,000 cwts. to 32,000 cwts, and, in value, from £9,000 to £28,000. The abolition of slavery deprived the Arabs of the coast of the labour they had previously employed in this industry, but a commercial demand and economic conditions have restored its cultivation, to the advantage of the labourer, the owner, and the merchant. The export of Copra from our tropical Colonies has grown in value from £1,300,000 to £3,300,000. There is a subsidiary by product of the coconut, called Poonac—an oil cake and food for cattle, made from the refuse of the coconut and other oil-bearing nuts and seeds after the oil has been extracted, which accounts for an export to the value of £60,000 from Ceylon. But there are other nuts that ought to be mentioned in this connection—the ground nut of the Gambia, almost its sole export, which has risen in value from £170,000 to more than £500,000, and which constitutes a large part of the so-called olive oil of commerce and the salad bowl. The coconut with an "o" seems phonetically, but illogically, to lead us to the cocoa bean with an "a," though, of course, they have no sort of botanic or domestic relation to one another.
  790
  In some Colonies—though I am happy to say not our own—the cultivation of this "grateful and comforting" beverage has been associated with conditions of labour of which the force of the condemnation has been tempered only by the necessities of international courtesy. In our own Possessions the development of this industry has, I believe, been an unmixed advantage to the merchant and blessing to the native labourer. Whether from advertisement, medical advice, or natural inclination, our population has tended more and more to the consumption of a beverage which is at the same time a food, and, when undoctored, produces neither stimulation nor inebriation. But those who wish to avail themselves of its nutritive qualities undefiled will do well to avoid those hyphened mixtures which are credibly believed to be reinforced and invigorated with Kola and other nuts of medicinal properties or adulterated with inferior materials. In the product and export of the cocoa bean our Colonies have experienced considerable fluctuation; in Ceylon there has been a decline—possibly as a result of the development of rubber alongside of tea. In the Gold Coast and Nigeria the export has risen from 111,000 cwts. to 882,000 cwts., and it is extremely satisfactory to note in passing that this cultivation and its increase is almost entirely due to native industry and energy, and that the great bulk of the plantations are native-owned and worked. I only wish that I could say that their precautions against disease, which is very rife, were as satisfactory as could be desired. There is an unhappy tendency—which requires correction—for the native cultivator, when faced with disease or exhaustion of soil, to shift to pastures new and to leave his former holding infected and derelict. In the West Indies the export is increasing slowly—from 597,000 cwts. to 628,000 cwts., though the conditions of growth and of quality are improving, as shown by the price realised, which has risen from £1,405,000 to £1,716,000. The total export of cocoa from our tropical Colonies has in: the seven years under review grown from 790,000 cwts. to 1,595,000 cwts., or more than double.
  The transition from cocoa to fruit seems not unnatural, and I will deal next with product, which has, to their great profit, become of increasing importance to the West Indies. The fluctuations of sugar—with which I will deal presently—long since rendered it prudent and desirable that the West Indies should have other

  791
  eggs in their basket, and they commenced to lay them in the form of fruit, much assisted in the earlier stages by the activity and generosity of the late Sir Alfred Jones and the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It is probably no small service to the poor of this country to have made the banana the common object of the coster's barrow. It is essentially a food, as well as a minor luxury, with perhaps an unrivalled combination of starch and sugar, of fat, proteid, and carbo-hydrates. It has become more nutritive to the cockney infant than the early Victorian bloater. There is, of course, a wide difference—as even the gourmet of the pavement knows—between the banana and the plantain. Though eaten indiscriminately here, the plantain is best suited to cookery and the banana to raw consumption. I wish that more people realised that it is not ripe until, like the medlar, it is apparently rotten. But I must not become a West Indian Mr. Glasse! Jamaica has made great advances in the production of this fruit. In 1905 she exported £843,000 worth, in 1911 it had reached a value of £1,457,000 or not far short of double in only seven years. The Committee will realise that Jamaica and some of the other islands are subject to climatic dangers; they are in the hurricane belt, and Jamaica itself suffered from one of these visitations at the end of last year, which will for this year, and perhaps for some years to come, constrict her production, but for which she has been able to provide compensation and alleviation by the wise provision of an insurance fund against these recurrent calamities. Jamaica and British Honduras still claim and utilise the United States as their principal market, but Trinidad and Barbados chiefly affect the United Kingdom. Arrangements are in process of being made in transport facilities, which I hope will give an easier entry for these products of the West Indies to Canada. The export of bananas from the West Indies has risen in the last seven years from £880,000 to £1,500,000, and shows even now a capacity and expectation of expansion. There are, however, other fruits which should not be neglected in the consideration of West Indian prosperity. Limes, pineapples, oranges, and grape-fruit constitute no small part of their fruit export. Cyprus in the last seven years has doubled the
  792
  value of her exports of fruit such as oranges, pomegranates, and raisins from £31,000 to £62,000; and the total value of fruit exports from our tropical Colonies, in addition to the large figures I have already given as to bananas, has risen in those seven years from £611,000 to £689,000.
  Sugar has caused much anxiety, both to our West Indian Colonies and the world at large. The permutations and combinations of beet and conventions have agitated markets and controlled prices. But production has progressed in spite of rainfall and politics. Those who thought at one time they would be ruined by conventions, have come to the conclusion that they will be saved by Intercolonial preference. We have just concluded negotiations by which, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, Canada and the West Indies have made arrangements of mutual advantage which afford a market for the commodities of each. The result, if not the intent, of this agreement has been a lowering of tariffs on both sides with some approach to freer trade by each party to the convention. Sugar is still the staple crop in several and a large crop in most of the West Indies, but the introduction and development of other crops, such as fruit, has deprived it of its pre-eminence in some islands, and by distribution has given a greater stability to the gross export of these Colonies. The Imperial Department of Agriculture has rendered great service to the cultivation of cane, and it is estimated that the improved varieties and methods are yielding from 10 to 25 per cent. more than the earlier crops. Improved machinery has been introduced and the centralisation of factories has contributed to the economy of production. But in Trinidad, where six years ago sugar formed 56 per cent. of the total production of the island, it is to-day less in value and importance than cocoa. Fiji has enormously developed the industry of sugar and now exports—mainly to Australia—a crop of the value of £800,000, as compared with £540,000 six years ago. From our Eastern Colonies—Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States, and Mauritius—the value of the export is fairly stationary, though the quantity has increased. But conversely from the West Indies the bulk is somewhat less and the value rather more—it has risen from £2,500,000 to £2,800,000 sterling. But we must take in connection with this the by-product of molasses, which may be

  793
  converted either into a feeding stuff for cattle or a stimulant for sailors in the shape of rum. The profits and product of this commodity have also been growing, and to-day it represents a value of export from our Crown Colonies of £430,000 sterling, as against a previous export of £246,000, or an increase of £184,000.
  From the minor luxury of sugar I pass to the minor vice of tobacco, which is a steadily expanding crop in our tropics. Ceylon and the Straits Settlements have increased their export from £380,000 to £780,000 in value, and in Nyasaland it is becoming, and has become, the second in importance of its products and exports. The amount exported has increased more than tenfold in the last seven years, from 199,000 lbs. weight to 2,147,000 lbs. weight, and in value from £3,300 to £53,700. At one time the bulk of this tobacco was exported to the Transvaal, but to-day a large portion of it finds its way to the United Kingdom. The exporters have still something to learn in their methods of baling and marketing whereby they could easily obtain even better prices. And it is unfortunate that the occasional showers of rain and sleet to which the Protectorate is subject produce a spotting of the leaf which deprives it of the extravagant price paid by manufacturers for those leaves which are suitable for the outer wrapper of the best cigar. On the whole, the export by our Crown Colonies of tobacco has grown from a value of £414,000 to one of £764,000.
  If tobacco, as I am inclined to think, has passed from the stage of a vice to a luxury, and to some has seemingly become almost a necessity, rubber has acquired the elements of all three. From early youth to utmost age it accompanies and alleviates our progress through life. The later demands of traction have enhanced both its value and cultivation. The intelligent anticipations of financial experts as to its possibilities and production have, I believe, produced marked variations in the price of the commodity and of the shares which are supposed to represent its prospective value. In goods which are subject to the fluctuations of market gambles we shall be prudent if we test the progress of our Colonies in this industry rather by quantity than by price. Though an increased production, which lowers competitive prices and comparative profits, may not be satisfactory to the investor or speculator who has bought shares at the top of the market—perhaps in an estate
  794
  which can only pay a dividend upon boom prices—it is the production and export which makes for the prosperity of the Colony and the remuneration of the cultivating native. From this point of view the progress of our rubber-producing regions has been abundantly satisfactory. The West Indies, British Guiana, and Honduras seem well suited to the production of rubber, and with the increasing demand they are likely to claim their share of the market, but the greater cost of labour there, as compared with the East, may affect their ultimate success. Their export in pounds avoirdupois has grown from 27,000 to 29,300, but this is no true test of their future, as there has been in the last few years a large experimental planting of trees, none of which have yet reached the tap-able age. In West Africa the production is subject to somewhat sharp fluctuations in quantity and price, but over a series of years maintains a fair average in both. Uganda has been somewhat of a disappointment in this respect. I cannot give the figures of quantity, but the value of its export is no more than it was seven years ago, though in the intervening years it was higher than it is to-day. There are, however, many reasons which account for and have affected this state of affairs. The rubber production of Uganda has been mainly from the wild tree. (Funtumia elastica). As this became exhausted systematic planting of Para and other varieties had to be resorted to, and these have not yet come into bearing. And, in addition, the principal rubber areas, up to now, have been near the shores of Lake Victoria, and when this was discovered to be and was proclaimed as a "fly area" for sleeping sickness prevention, the commercial assets of that region were gravely impaired. Nyasaland is much more promising in this respect. Its export is pounds avoirdupois has arisen from 18,000 to 48,000, and this by no means represents its future capacities. Wild rubber—principally of the landolphia species—is diminishing by exhaustion, but plantation rubber, though extensive in area, is not yet sufficiently mature for mercantile production. The cultivated variety is mainly Ceara, though a good deal of Para is being grown near Lake Nyasa, and both afford much promise of future yield. The East Africa Protectorate has suffered similar fluctuations owing to the exhaustion of the wild and the immaturity of the plantation rubber, but has managed to maintain a fair average of exportation. It is, how-

  795
  ever, in Ceylon and the Malay Peninsula that the great development of this production has taken place. The price—varying as it does from market conditions—would be no true test. Quantities are not wholly reliable, because the statistics of the Straits Settlements do not distinguish between rubber locally produced and in transit, but I give the figures of weight of export as far as ascertainable and for what they are worth from Ceylon, and the Malay. Peninsula. In 1905 they were 6,500,000 1bs. weight; in 1912 they were 51,000,000 lbs.—a marvellous result of science applied to forestry, and this does not even include the rubber exported from the Malay States in that year. If the Committee care to know what this means in export price—though it is a wholly fallacious figure for statistical purposes—the value was in 1905, £665,000, and in 1912, £13,700,000. With rubber should be included guttapercha from the Malay Peninsula, where the export has grown in value by 50 per cent., and Balata from British Guiana, a substitute for guttapercha obtained from the sap of Mimusops globosa. The export of this material has grown in value from £40,000 to £140,000 in six years.
  We may glance for a few minutes at the minerals of the Crown Colonies where their working is only in its infancy, but with much promise of maturing development. It seems idle to refer to gold in a statement which omits the Dominions of Australia and South Africa, but even the Crown Colonies contribute to that production which has so uncomfortably resulted in the depreciation of value of the one material which has no standard of price for comparison except itself or the rising cost of other commodities. The Gold Coast in the last seven years has increased its export of gold from (roughly) £600,000 to £1,500,000, and will probably exceed that figure this year. British Guiana continues to be a diminishing field. The fabled city of Manoa or Eldorado was its capital; it was the cynosure of mediaeval eyes and rapacious buccaneers. The whole of it (with Venezuela thrown in) was granted to a Harcourt ancestor of mine by James I., and he went out to take possession in a shallop of fifteen tons, but he returned home and surrendered his grant because the beer in his barrels had gone bad. It is a melancholy thought that but for the carelessness of a Jacobean brewer I might have been President of the Republic of Venezuela to-day. The
  796
  legends of the mythical Eldorado led to repeated expeditions in the succeeding centuries, but with continuous ill-success. Gold was first worked there in 1886 and twenty years ago reached its maximum export of £500,000 which to-day has fallen to £180,000. The gold fever has now passed from the Western hemisphere to Africa and Australia, which flood our markets with an output which makes the metal less precious than of old. In the baser metals tin has shown a buoyancy of production; the Malay Peninsula has increased the value of its export from £15,000,000 to nearly £21,000,000 sterling, and Northern Nigeria—only just being adequately developed for these purposes by the new Bauchi Railway—has grown in five years from a production of a value of £25,000 to one of £336,000, and of tonnage from 154 to 2,800. Iron in small and almost stationary quantities comes from the Straits Settlements; and copper and lead from the same Colony but in decreasing amounts. But some of the rarer minerals are interesting in their importance, if small in quantity. A deposit of mica has been discovered in the East Africa Protectorate, and from Nyasaland it has already been exported to the value of nearly £7,000. It is used for boiler packing and in electrical machinery, and where, as in Nyasaland, the mica plates are of large size and considerable thickness, it is of special value for those inspection holes of furnaces, for which it supplies the only material which is at the same time transparent and fireproof. Plumbago continues to come to us from Ceylon, but in rather diminishing quantities, probably due to its decrease in price. It is commonly known as black-lead (I suppose because no lead enters into its composition), and is in much demand for crucibles, lead pencils, and grate polishes. It is said to be useful as a lubricant in place of tallow for rifle bullets, and an earlier discovery of its qualities might have saved us the Indian Mutiny. An exceedingly rare and (if the term were permissible) new mineral called thorianite is discovered in and exported from Ceylon. It is a mixture of thorium and uranium, containing about 75 per cent. of thorium oxide. Its commercial value is something like £1,500 per ton, and it forms an essential element in incandescent gas mantles. Radio-active substances are nearly always associated with these oxides which come from the gemgravels of Ceylon, but I regret to say that

  797
  we have not so far made any discovery of that great curative mineral, radium. Scheelite and wolfram are two also rare ores which now come to us in increasing quantities from the Malay Peninsula. Their export has increased in value in the last four years from £378 to £79,000. They are ores of allied minerals and occur together. Wolfram is technically an iron-manganese tungstate, which is alloyed with steel to gain an added hardness, and is also used with sodium tungstate and starch for the fire-proofing of textile fabrics. Wolfram or tungsten is also the essential base of the new metal filament lamps which have revolutioned electric lighting.
  Turning from the mine to the breakfast and the dinner table we can show great progress in quantities of products which are of the highest importance, both as necessaries and minor luxuries. The tea of Ceylon is famous the world over, and its export has increased in weight from 170,000,000 lbs. to 186,000,000 lbs., and the Straits Settlements have an export which has grown from 3,500,000 lbs. to 5,500,000 lbs., though this may—and, indeed, does include some of the product of China. Nyasaland is a new and interesting contributor to the teapot, with an export of 44,000 lbs. in weight; this only represents a small part of its production, the bulk of which is consumed locally, but from personal experience I can guarantee its quality and recommend its consumption here. This industry is only four years' old, and promises much future profit, but it must be remembered that tea planting requires the sinking of capital without return or dividend for five or six years—a form of investment not over popular with pioneer planters. Coffee is an even more interesting and progressive product of the Colonial Empire. I believe it is true to say that the uplands of Somaliland were the original home of the later, and more famous coffee of Mocha. From this Protectorate the figures of the export bear the appearance of a fever chart. The trade has been naturally affected by the condition of the country, but still more by the diversion of trade routes to and from the Djibouti Railway or Zeyla, according to the imposition or remission of transit duties, but, on the whole, the export trade is tending strongly upwards. In Ceylon and the Malay Peninsula coffee is being driven out by the upstart rubber. In the West Indies the quantity is small but increasing, and quality high—
  798
  especially in the choice brand of Blue Mountain coffee of Jamaica. From this island alone the export has increased n value by £20,000 in seven years, and British Guiana is entering the market as a new competitor. But other and newer African fields are challenging the old monopoly of Arabia.
  East Africa exported no coffee till 1910; to-day her export is of a value of nearly £6,000, though she consumes most of her available product. Uganda, with a smaller present export, promises an even larger future trade. At present she also consumes a large part of her crop; the native, as well as the European, has begun to realise the excellence of the home-grown commodity. There is a great future for this crop in the two contiguous Protectorates, subject always to the fear of, and the actual damage wrought by, the dread coffee-leaf disease, which has unhappily appeared in each of them. The most stringent measures of prevention and eradication are being pursued, and I have recently sent out a trained mycologist to deal specifically with what, if neglected, might become a disaster. In Nyasaland coffee is a successful but a fluctuating crop, owing mainly to climatic conditions. In some districts it is being ousted by cotton and tobacco, which are less risky and speculative. From 1905 to 1909 there was little increase or variation in the export, but, from the fact that the export of 1911 exceeded by more than 100 per cent. that of 1910, we may safely assume that this industry is again upon the up-grade, and the activities of Central Africa are likely to produce a considerable influence on the coffee markets of the world. Tapioca from the Malay Peninsula is steadily decreasing in quantity owing to, its displacement by rubber, but sago from the Straits Settlements has nearly doubled in value and amounted to an export of close on £600,000 in 1912. Arrowroot, one of the principal products of St. Vincent, in the West Indies, has also doubled the value of its export—from £20,000 to £40,000. Spices represent a considerable trade from many of our tropical Possessions, amounting in 1911 to a value of over £1,500,000.
  Vanilla from the Seychelles varies greatly in yield owing to seasonal conditions, and in the recent past, owing to the triumphs of synthetic chemistry, which, having destroyed indigo, tried to do the same to vanilla with the chemical product called vanillin, but I hope and believe without success. Cinnamon, cloves, and

  799
  nutmegs also come from the Seychelles, where they were introduced from Mauritius by the French in the eighteenth century. Great secrecy was observed as to their cultivation in these islands, the object being to destroy the spice monopoly of the Dutch at that time. On rumours of war between England and France in 1778 the French Governor of Mauritius gave instructions that, in the event of attack, the spice plantations should be at once destroyed. Shortly afterwards a French ship arrived off Mahe, but, fearing that the English might be in possession, hoisted the English flag. The spice trees, which had been surrounded by inflammable material, were at once destroyed by fire. In West Africa spice exports have risen from a value of £10,000 to £50,000 in six years, nearly the whole being accounted for by ginger, which has grown from £8,000 to £45,000 in value. Honey from the West Indies, mainly Jamaica, has more than doubled in value, and in 1911 stood at £26,000. Grains, apart from wheat, which comes almost entirely from the Dominions, represent a great trade of the tropical Colonies. They include rice, maize, carob beans, simsim, millet, and many other seeds.
  6.0 P.M.
  In the Straits Settlements—again with the warning that a part of this is in transmit from Siam and Burma—the export of rice has grown from £2,900,000 sterling to £6,000,000 sterling' in 1912. British Guiana is now developing rice growing; seven years ago she exported none, but in recent years her export has averaged a value of £50,000. This promising industry is mainly the product of the East Indian peasant proprietors; there is a great area of the Colony suitable for rice growing, and great scope for further export to others of the West Indian Islands. The quality of the "Creole" rice is extremely good, but the Board of Agriculture has imported 100 varieties of rice for trial in order that their product shall be second to none in the world. Carob beans—chiefly used in cattle foods and cakes—come from Cyprus, and the export, mainly to the United Kingdom, has in six years doubled in quantity and more than doubled in price. In 1911 it stood at 1,000,000 cwts. and £183,000 in value. The export of maize from the East Africa Protectorate is increasing by leaps and bounds, its value which was only £6,000 in 1910 was over £43,000 in 1912. The last food I will mention is
  800
  fish of which a value of nearly £1,200,000 is exported from our Eastern Colonies, principally the Straits Settlements. I want to say a few words about a new Colonial industry—the production of whale oil—which is carried., on in the Islands of the Southern Atlantic, the Falklands, South Georgia, South Orkney, South Shetlands, and Graham Land. No export of whale oil is known to have taken place before 1906, but since that date it has rapidly increased, and by 1911–12 the output had reached no less than 60,000 tons or approximately half the world's production, and of a value when brought
  to market of over £1,000,000. To this must be added the whalebone and guano worth at least £60,000. There are at the present time in these islands 32 floating factories and 30 steam whalers operating under licences from the Colonial Office. In South Georgia alone in 1911–12 about 6,500 whales were killed, and nearly 6,000 in the other Dependencies. These figures are rather alarming in amount. Very little is known about the life history of whales, their period of gestation is doubtful, but certainly long; they have only one "cub" at a birth; their migrations are uncertain, but it is thought by some that those which frequent the Falklands in summer, winter off the coasts of Australia. I was not greatly surprised therefore when, in the autumn of 1911, I received representations from the authorities of the British Museum, and from the International Fur Seal Conference at Washington, that whales were in danger of extinction and that some protective measures should be enforced. After careful consideration I came to the conclusion that the only safe course was immediately to suspend the issue of any fresh licences, whilst not cancelling those which already existed, and to endeavour, if possible, to assemble an International Conference of all the Powers having whaling stations or waters, to lay down conditions which should be observed by all. These licences are annual. Of course the refusal of new licences has naturally given much dissatisfaction to those who have just awakened to the great profits and possibilities of this pursuit—but find themselves too late in the field. The only consolation I can offer to them is that my action is intended not to hamper whaling, but to preserve whales, and so in the future to ensure the stability of the industry.

  801
  I feel that out of compassion I must now bring my review to an end; not because I have covered all the ground I should wish, but because there are limits to human patience and House of Commons endurance. There are many other commercial products of our tropical Empire, which are well worthy of better knowledge at home, such as hides, fibre, drugs, dyes, mineral fertilisers, ostrich feathers, sponges, and timber; but they must wait for some other occasion, and those I have already dealt with at such undue length are sufficient to show how great and growing is our capacity of production. The Committee, I hope, will realise that this wonderful growth, both in quantity, value, and quality, is largely The result of the patient, painstaking work of those many men in and out of the Colonial Service, whose special duty it is to supervise and to improve the circumstances of their production. Arid one word in conclusion, and in this connection I would wish to say on the chemical and commercial work of the Imperial Institute. Great changes have taken place in its organisation and activities in the last few years. It used to be regarded by the public as nothing but the home of show cases of varying interest or dullness. It is known to-day, at least by mercantile men, to be a busy hive of scientific inquiries into new or promising products from all our Possessions. The greatest Dominions, as well as the smallest islands, stock its laboratories and suck its brains. It is ready at any moment to test and report upon coal from Nigeria, fibre from Mombasa, cotton or coffee from Uganda. Oils and dyes, tanning and perfumes are objects both of its inquiry and invention. Many new materials for old commodities—paper for instance—owe their discovery to the experimental work of its scientific staff. Great as its services have been in the past, I believe it has an assured future of even greater utility, and I warmly commend its work and its capacity to the appreciation of the public at home and throughout the Empire.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to move, "That the Vote be reduced by £100."
  I do not think it necessary to apologise to the House for taking this opportunity of bringing before it the very grave events which have taken place on the Rand and the circumstances now existing there. In the final dispatch from Lord Gladstone, published in the White
  802
  Paper issued last Tuesday, the following occurred:—
  "I intend formally to draw the serious attention of Ministers to the lessons of the last week. I am sure they realise, as you do, that Imperial troops are not retained in South Africa to do the work which, since 30th June they have had to perform."
  I am going to ask the House in this Debate to support Lord Gladstone in the action that he is taking or has taken in drawing the attention of Ministers to the work which British troops have been called upon to perform in the Rand. What is that work? To maintain an industrial system which is brutal, inhuman, and could not be maintained if it were not for the presence of British troops in South Africa. You will see in these dispatches one from General Smuts to Lord Gladstone, which justifies the use of British troops, and states that they are necessary for the reason that the Colonial forces are so mixed up with the strikers that it would be impossible to use them. That is actually the case. They could get no large body of men among the troops in South Africa to do the work which British troops have to perform, because their sympathies are so largely with the men, and it is by Imperial forces only that this system can be maintained. What is the underlying character of this system which has caused this strike, this what I might almost call a revolution You will find it in the cable sent by Lord Gladstone on 13th July. He says:—
  "Too soon to enter exhaustively on causes and merits of dispute, allowance must be made for miners, who only in recent times have realised the sacrifices which phthisis exacts. I believe this to be the main root of the trouble, but the strikers precipated danger incidental to strikes and far more formidable than the strike itself."
  There Lord Gladstone has put his finger on the root cause of all this trouble, the terrible ghastly conditions imposed on the men. The "Daily Mail" correspondent cables from Johannesburg at the time of the outbreak that at the bottom of the apparently reckless attitude of the men is the deadly nature of their employment. Many of them say openly that they will die an early death under present conditions, and that it is better to be shot in attempting to secure better conditions; this problem is not so much one of wages as an improvement in their general position, so that they may have a longer life than is possible in their present surroundings. From my own knowledge I do believe that that is in their minds. I know these men. I know that their one thought is of their wives and children, whom they are going to leave behind, and their endeavour is to get enough of the £34,000,000 produced every year in the

  803
  mines to keep them from going into the workhouse when the inevitable doom has fallen upon them. To show what these conditions are I intend, in the first place, to refer to the death rate which has taken place among the natives employed in these mines. So far back as 1906, Sir Lionel Phillips in the Johannesburg Chamber of Mining referred to the wrong of bringing men to their death from Central Africa. They not only brought them to their death from Central Africa, but they falsified the official returns so that the true death-rate was not disclosed. The way in which they falsified the official returns was not to include in them the deaths which took place in the detention compounds in which the natives are put before they are distributed to the mines. In the Union Parliament this matter has been discussed, and I want to refer to what Mr. Sauer said on this question, because it is absolutely relevant.
  He pointed out that the death-rate among tropical natives in the mines was 71 per thousand and that that was a general rate. And then he went on to show that in the Witwatersrand native labour compound the death rate of natives in March was at the rate of 229 per thousand per annum, and in April it was 214. He asked whether the figures supplied by the Native Affairs Department included this, and he was told that they did not include it. He went on to review the death rate by including all these figures and he found that they added to the general death rate of 1910 by 22 per 1,000, of 1911 by 22.3, and of 1912 by 23 per 1,000 per annum, so that they brought the total mortality rate up to 97 per annum for 1910, 87 per annum for 1911, and 70 for 1912. Then he went on to give these figures, and I ask to House to pay special attention to them. For the last three months the general death rate with these figures included was January 115, February 117, March 118, and it dropped in April to 73 per thousand per annum. This House I hope will take the same view of it as the Union Parliament took when these figures were announced. The Parliamentary correspondent of the Rand "Daily Mail" refers to the statement made by Mr. Sauer, and says that after having considered the figures the Government have come to the conclusion that they could no longer permit the recruiting of these natives and that in. their opinion recruiting should be stopped on the ground that if it continued it would be little less than murder. I do not think
  804
  that it was anything less than murder. The Parliamentary correspondent says that Mr. Sauer's reading of the appalling figures made a deep impression on the House, and that the state of members' faces reflected their horror at the wholesale clearing off of natives in compounds. That was stopped, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary will not allow again recruiting in Nyasaland or any of the tropical territories under his control at the present time. In contrast to that death rate of 115 per 1,000 I will take the death rate of the natives in the employment of the Johannesburg Municipal Council, who are engaged in the unhealthy work of the sanitary department.
  Sir C. HUNTER: What about the Chinese?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I will deal with the Chinese before I have finished. They would not submit to these conditions, and that was why they had to flog them and to treat them as they did. But because they would not stand these conditions the death rate among the Chinese was far less than among the natives. But the death rate among the natives employed by the Johannesburg Municipal Council at this unhealthy work was only seven per thousand per annum, while they are murdering these other men at the rate of 115 per thousand per. annum. What is the cause? They are sent down below and they are driven to their work forcibly, very often with the jambok, when the mines are still full of the gas after the blasting operations, and with bad ventilation and a great deal of dust. So much dust is there and so much gas that you can sometimes scarcely see the men at work, and if you look at the report of the engineers you will find cases of men dropping down from suffocation owing to the gas, and being dragged out and put under the tap of water to recover. That is how they murder, because they will not properly ventilate their mines. I point to those conditions amongst the Kaffirs, and I am sure hon. Members, or many hon. Members, if they would only put party out of this, would all agree to revolt against those conditions as inhuman and murderous. Terrible though as the death rate is amongst the Kaffirs, the subtropical and tropical Kaffirs, the death rate amongst British miners on machine drill is actually greater still. Details of the mortality among British miners on the Rand have been published by a well-known authority, whose statements have not been controverted, and he says: The total under-

  805
  ground working population is about 12,000 white working men. If the tropical death rate of seventy per 1,000 existed amongst those it would produce 840 deaths per annum. Those who have studied the question, and the Miners' Phthisis Board, state that the deaths among the underground workers would probably be from 1,000 to 1,200, and everybody who has followed the matter knows that their estimate has been enormously exceeded. It is common knowledge that in the last three months alone nearly 1,000 applications have been made to the board, and it is highly improbable that any great percentage of those are accumulated cases. Those figures correspond to a rate among the men at work of about 160 per 1,000. It is necessary to point out you have to allocate these to the machine men, because they are the worst and suffer most. If you allocate their proportion, undoubtedly the death rate amongst them is at least 300 per 1,000 per annum. That means and bears out the view held by the minors themselves, that it is absolutely almost certain death to work on machine drills in a Rand mine for three years. A prominent medical man in Johannesburg lately wrote to a local paper and stated that to go to work underground on the Reef is simply another way of committing suicide. Terrible though the death rate, called murder by the Minister of Native Affairs in the Union Parliament, among the Kaffirs, the death rate among the machine men is actually double that number. What is the reason? The machine man works the drills, and is put into a rise where the dust falls upon him. It may be said to be almost certain death. He generally will put a Kaffir to handle the drill while he stands more out of danger, but with the dust falling down and drawn into the lungs, the lungs become gradually coated with dust, and they virtually turn into stone. The secretary of the Miners' Association whom I saw there, a North of England man, a steady, reasonable man, used to carry round with him something that looked like a small pebble. It was a piece of the lung of a mate of his who died. When the inquest was held he got a piece of the lung and carried it around with him to remind him of the fate that was in store for himself. He was fatalistic about it, and died shortly afterwards. Owing to the ill ventilation of the mines, the miners are affected. Their condition is depressed owing to the lack of ventilation. That is one of the causes—
  The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that he must connect his remarks with something in the power of the Secretary of State to remedy, and not measures which lie with the Union Government of South Africa.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I quite realise that. Lord Gladstone has pointed out to his Ministers that British troops cannot be maintained to do the work they have done since then. I am trying to prove that the work they have done since 30th June is to force men to accept these conditions, and I am going to ask the Colonial Secretary to notify that under those conditions British troops will be withdrawn. I will go on to show that it was those conditions that led to the strike, and I now take the dispatches of Lord Gladstone to show how the strike started, and the conditions, and the real underlying grounds for the blucdshed that has taken place. On the 26th July, in Lord Gladstone's dispatch, we are told that the strike originated upon New Kleinfontein Mine, and what the men demanded was reinstatement of all men concerned, abolition of Saturday afternoon work, and certain working hours, not a very unreasonable demand, but it is not for us to discuss them. I come now to what I think is a most material point, owing to the use of British troops. Whilst negotiations were going on, and before any violence, at any rate of an extraordinary nature, had occurred, Lord Gladstone shows that the South African Government empowered the acting resident magistrate of Boksburg to promulgate the old Law No. 6 of the Transvaal. That law was first introduced in the clays of the Jamieson Raid to meet the conditions which arose from the seditious agitation of the mine owners, who are now demanding that it should be put in force against the workmen. This law prohibits the assembly of more than six persons. It was put into force as regards the district of Benoni. This law was promulgated before the strike had reached any dimensions. What did it mean? It meant, as all the land around Benoni municipality is mining property, an absolute denial to the miners to hold a meeting to discuss their own grievances and questions relating to the strike. They determined to hold their meeting, and statements have been made in the dispatch that a handbill was circulated amongst the miners urging them to come armed so as to resist unlawful action on the part of the authorities.

  807
  They determined to maintain the right of public meeting, and the Government gave way and permitted them to hold their meeting and withdrew the embargo. The British troops were not then there. That meeting passed the following resolution:—
  "That this meeting of workers demands the recognition of the right of free speech and public meeting, and that it condemns the action of the Government in attempting to curtail or interfere with the liberties of the people. Further, that this meeting is in favour of calling a general strike in the interests of the workers, so that a general betterment of working conditions can be secured throughout South Africa."
  The organ of the Labour party draws special attention to the fact that inflammatory speeches were not made. The dangers and disabilities they would suffer under from a general strike were pointed out, but it was not in inflammatory or seditious meeting, and I could take any day from the newspapers more inflammatory speeches made by Privy Councillors opposite. What happened next? This is a significant thing. We come to 30th June, and we have a telegram from General Smuts to Lord Gladstone:—
  "Very urgent. Owing to sudden and very serious development of strike on East Rand, I have found it necessary to ask General Hart to send 500 Infantry to Benoni to-night to protect mine properties and power stations, and to request hint to hold another 500 in readiness if required. Trust Your Excellency will confirm action."
  I think it is worth the attention of the House to know that those troops were already being entrained and on their way to Johannesburg before the sanction of Lord Gladstone was asked. Lord Gladstone on 30th June telegraphed, in reply to General Smuts:—
  "Assume you have taken every precaution to avoid collisions between military and civilians unless absolutely necessary. Our troops under control of civilians."
  In his dispatch of 26th July Lord Gladstone stated:—
  "The Kleinfontein mine strike and subsequent developments up till recently did not suggest the likelihood of any very serious trouble. No representations were made to me by my Ministers, nor, so far as I know, was any warning given to them either by employers or employed. On the evening of 30th ult., while at King's House, Durban, I received the telegram from General Smuts and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, which I have already communicated to you by cable with my replies. Because of sudden and unexpected developments Ministers bad felt compelled to ask for military assistance. In the circumstances Sir Reginald Hart felt it to be his duty at once to comply with the request, and consequently at the very time I received the telegrams 500 Infantry were being entrained for duty on the East Rand. I was as yet unacquainted with the details of the situation."
  It has been suggested in this House, in the replies of the Colonial Secretary to me, that these troops were only permitted to go after Lord Gladstone being seized of the facts and recognising the danger that
  808
  existed there. Lord Gladstone himself states that they were being sent, before he knew anything about the details of the situation, without his sanction. He states in a dispatch:—
  "I was convinced, however, that neither my Ministers nor the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief would have anticipated my approval even to this extent without the gravest reasons."
  And he also stated, further, that there was no serious disturbance up to this time. His words were that—
  "Good humour had prevailed, but still the troops were sent forward."
  Lord Gladstone emphasised again and again the fact that the troops were only to be used for the purpose of defending property. He says again and again that they must not be brought into conflict with civilians. He says:—
  "As the troops were on the spot I felt bound to accede to the requisition of the Government. But from the first I have said plainly to Ministers tint the troops should be used for the defence of milling and other property and that every effort should be made to avoid any actual collision with the striker. Having come to the conclusion that the circumstances justified the use of Imperial troops. I felt that it was better to err on the side of sending too many than too few."
  On 2nd July Lord Gladstone again gets a pledge from the Ministers. He says:—
  "I sanctioned the dispatch of the second contingent of 500 Infantry. Ministers gave me the assurance that His Majesty's troops will be utilised primarily for the purpose of protecting mine properties. which owing to the sudden spread of the strike to a large and scattered area, are without sufficient protection."
  In his dispatch of 2nd July Lord Gladstone says:—
  "No serious disturbances as yet.
  On 3rd July Lord Gladstone says:—
  "The strike is extending gradually all along the Reef. On the whole, up to now, good temper prevails."
  On 3rd July a thousand more troops are sent forward. Now we come to the fatal day, Friday, 4th July. Lord Gladstone says in his dispatch:—
  "On the following day, Friday, the 4th July, a mass meeting had been called in the Market Square in Johannesburg. At least 10000 men were expected to be present. My Ministers decided that it would be unwise to allow this demonstration to be held. They accordingly made it known that they had issued instructions to magistrates on the Reef that, as local authorities under Law No. 6 of 1894, they were to prohibit assemblies in terms of Section 9."
  When did they take that action prohibiting the meeting? To find that we must refer to Reuter's cable, which says:—
  "Following a Cabinet meeting, the Government issued instructions to the magistrates at Johannesburg, Boksburg, Germiston and Krugersdorp, to forbid assemblies of more than six persons, and to close all premises licensed to sell liquor."
  Apparently in ignorance of the official warning, large crowds began to collect. Large numbers of strikers congregated in the Market Square. Cavalry were drawn up; foot and mounted police were present.

  809
  The meeting being prohibited, numbers went away from what would probably have been quite an ordinary gathering of men, and burnt the office of the "Star." The fact of their burning the "Star" office is significant, because the "Star" was the organ that had been attacking these men again and again, and had not given anything like fair play.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have asked the hon. Member to connect what he has to say in this discussion with some matter for which the Colonial Secretary is responsible. It is for that purpose we are here. We really must not discuss matters for which the remedy lies with the Ministers of our Colonies. The hon. Member will recollect that in connection with Canada and other Colonies the question has come up before. We are here to criticise our own Ministers for actions which lie within their power.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Were we not promised by the Prime Minister that this would be the opportunity for discussing the disturbances at Johannesburg?
  Mr. DILLON: Were we not told that it would be competent on this Vote to discuss the action of Lord Gladstone, who is responsible to the Colonial Office, and, through the Colonial Office, to this House? As far as I have been able to follow the hon. Member, what he is discussing is the responsibility of Lord Gladstone, in employing the Imperial troops, for the action which the Imperial troops took.
  The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members will recollect, no doubt, that the point was raised several times with Mr. Speaker, who affirmed the old rule that censure of the Governor-General must be made upon a direct Motion. It is true that in this Debate criticisms can be levelled in regard to matters arising out of the presence of Imperial troops in South Africa. For that, no doubt, the Colonial Minister is responsible. At any rate he is the medium of the sanction given to the Government of South Africa that Imperial troops should be retained there for a period since self-government was given.
  Mr. DILLON: Following on what you have laid down, does not the whole point turn on the question whether necessity arose for the use of Imperial troops, and on the nature of the circumstances which are given as the justification for the use of those troops?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the fact that the presence of the troops there may have
  810
  led them to be used in a way that was not anticipated when the sanction was given is relevant. If hon. Members follow that line they will be in order, and, without going into too much detail of local actions, they will be able to bring what they desired before the Committee.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it not in order to discuss the causes which led to the employment of the troops, in order to see whether Lord Gladstone was justified in authorising their transmission from their ordinary barracks to the scene of the disturbances?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is perfectly justifiable in making out a case to state broadly the facts of the situation. The only thing I deprecate is going into details which it is clearly not within the power of the Secretary of State to remedy. I have allowed the hon. Member for Hanley considerable latitude in which to describe the situation as he understands it.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I bow to your ruling, though I confess I do not quite understand it. In the first place, I do not think that I have suggested any censure of Lord Gladstone. When I desired to move the Adjournment of the House Mr. Speaker said that I could not do so because it would involve criticism of Lord Gladstone. The Prime Minister said later on that this question could be raised on the Colonial Estimates. I am proceeding on the principle that it is competent for the Colonial Secretary to do anything which it is competent for the Governor of the Transvaal to do in the matter of advising the Government of the Transvaal. As I have pointed out, Lord Gladstone said:—
  "I intend formally to draw the serious attention of Ministers to the lessons of the last week. I am sure they realise, as you do, that Imperial troops are not retained in South Africa to do the work which since 30th June they have had to perform."
  I am asking the House to suggest that the Colonial Secretary should have inquired into the circumstances in which these troops were used, as Lord Gladstone is doing, and that we have a right, as they are our troops, paid for by us, to see that they are put to proper uses. I am supporting the action of Lord Gladstone in the contention that I am putting forward. This meeting in Johannesburg Market Square was broken up by the police under Law No. 6. Then the troops were called in to take up the work. The men went away, rioting took place, the "Star" office was burnt. Then the men returned in their thousands to hold their meeting.

  811
  Again the meeting was broken up. Again the men dispersed, they became a mob, more rioting took place, the police fired, and many men were killed. The statement of the Johannesburg correspondent of a Conservative paper points out another danger of using British troops. It tends to inflame feeling when you use British troops employed in a town where there is a large Dutch population, which has just such grievances as I have indicated, because many of the young Dutch seven years' ago were induced to go to the mines to take the places of men on strike. When you have a considerable Dutch population in Johannesburg, naturally the employment of British troops in conditions such as these would tend to inflame their minds. It would in any Colony under the Crown. On the 5th July the worst of the rioting took place. It is very difficult indeed from the dispatches to get any very concise or clear picture of what took place. I do not believe that any man in the town had in his mind a clear picture of what occurred on that occasion. What seems to be the fact is that general and indiscriminate shooting went on. Perhaps I may take the statement made by the Special correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," in order that I may base my remarks on what is said on the other side. I will read one extract:—
  "On seeing the rabble approach, and making in the direction of the entrance to the Rand Club, it at once became evident to those in command that the crucial moment had arrived for the enforcement of lawful authority. A police-officer harangued the crowd and advised them to go a way quietly. Thee declined. They began to hatter the door of the club, evidently bent on enforcing an entrance. Bottles were thrown at the club windows, and appearances boded no good to the club and its inmates. Seeing this, an order quickly rang out to the Dragcons: 'So many men dismount, front rank kneeling, rear rank standing; ready, present. fire!' No one fell, for the obvious reason that 'Blank' had been discharged as a warning to desist, but the crowd never halted, and impelled by shouting and numbers, and the goading of women, they came on to their doom and solemn lesson. Front the windows and tops of the Rand Club came a volley which acted like magic. Taken aback, the crowds halted, paralysed. Numbers of them had been stuck down, some dead, others badly wounded. Before they could realise rightly what was happening, or whether to advance or retire, the Dragoons had reloaded, substituting ball for blank, and mercifully aiming low, they poured in it volley which had the effect of scattering like so many startled sheep those who did not fall. They sought cover in every conceivable place, mostly in the nearest side streets. Those of the crowd who were mere curiosity seekers were sullen and angry, at times expressing their strong disapproval of the action of the military at what they termed 'shooting citizens down like dogs.' Whenever the people ventured too far from their places of safety a sharp volley would ring out reminding me of the rattle if the musketry at the final assault on Hart's Hill, when the Boers emptied their magazines and then fled."
  812
  There, taking these two days' rioting, we can see the causes, as stated in the report. The cause was the proclamation at a late hour, and after it had been advertised to be held, of this meeting in Johannesburg, and its dispersal by the police; then, later, the dispersal by the troops, out of which arose the rioting, following which was the shooting. There arose out of the shooting the conditions which led to the virtual slaughter of the next day. I say that these conditions and this miners' strike arose out of the labour system which is sought to be imposed upon the people there: they were at the bottom it. I want hon. Members opposite who call themselves imperialists to give me their attention for a moment. What is at the bottom of this labour system? What is the cause of these events? It is this: That the men who own the gold mines of the Transvaal arc men who, in the first place, made money in Kimberley. They introduced there a certain labour system which is known as the Kimberley system. The natives were gathered into close compounds, and nobody was allowed to trade with them except, I suppose, the company. They had over them well-paid workers; but all independence was crushed out of that class. Nobody could live there except under the conditions imposed by the virtual owners of Kimberley. There were no trade unions and no political agitation of a democratic nature in Kimberley. The owners of the Rand determined to introduce the same labour system as in Johannesburg. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) went to the Rand—
  Sir G. PARKER: I rise to a point of Order. May I ask whether we who are to follow in this Debate will be allowed to travel over this ground of the conditions of labour in the Transvaal, which are governed by laws passed by a Government over which we have no control?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is the very reason why I twice endeavoured to interfere. The hon. Member will see that if other hon. Members were to follow the same avenue which he has opened out the whole day would be used, and very likely the point which he really wishes to reach would not be dealt with. I hope that all hon. Members who are going to deal with this particular matter will keep as much as possible to the issue which is within the cognisance of the

  813
  Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which the hon. Member is asking the Secretary of State to do something in. Of course, if I allow one hon. Member so much latitude I must allow all.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: What I wish to suggest is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should withdraw the troops from the Transvaal, as they are being used there simply and solely for the maintenance of a system imposed which we cannot support. I am endeavouring to show a reason why I think they could very properly be withdrawn. I trust that is what the Secretary of State will do. I am coming to a conclusion, and if you, Mr Chairman, will permit me just a little longer to go on the lines I have traversed, I shall be glad. Otherwise, I cannot prove my point. I say they desire in the Transvaal to introduce a_system of virtual slave labour so far as the mines are concerned, with a few skilled men over the general body; they are determined to have no trade unionism and no political agitation on the Rand. I think I will bring myself into order by pointing out that these conditions are not things of the past. They are things of to-day. British troops are still there. A condition of crisis is still there. Why are they there? Because the miners during this truce have asked for a recognition of their trade unions, as the only way possible for them to compel a betterment of these murderous conditions to which they are subject. The mine owners have refused, definitely refused, to permit trade unionism to exist except on condition that the trade unionists do not enter into political agitation, and that it will be such trade unionism as they can assent to. I say that these conditions would not be imposed but for the presence of British troops. As General Smuts has shown, the presence of British troops is to prevent the rise of a democratic party in that country. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was on the Rand, we saw this attitude that I am pointing out, by the engineers presenting him with a memorandum, in which this appeared—it was, I believe, afterwards withdrawn:—
  "There is no room for the trail of the serpent of
  Trade Unionism on the Rand."
  Later a great mining engineer, the general manager of the East Rand Mines, said, "The introduction of the Chinese would cut up trade unionism by the roots." A great development took place, but Mr. Cress, wells employment of whites was cut short
  814
  by the order of Eckstein and Company. The conditions in existence led to a well-known man, the consulting engineer of the Consolidated Gold Fields Company, leaving his great appointment as a Commissioner of Mines to join the Labour party. Why did Mr. Cresswell join the Labour party? Why did Mr. Monypenny leave his position as editor of the "Star?" This is a great Imperial question. If you allow the British worker to be crushed out of the Transvaal and off the Rand in the interests of cosmopolitan finance, you may as well withdraw the British flag out of the Transvaal. It is not for us, the taxpayers of Britain, to maintain Imperial forces in the Transvaal to enforce upon the workers these inhuman and intolerable conditions, to deny them liberty, and to destroy the hope of their country ever becoming, in anything more than name a British Colony.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment. After the very elaborate and moving description by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley of the origin and cause of the dispute on the Rand, and the unhappy developments of it, I will not waste the time of the Committee by again traversing the same ground. There has been growing up for years past on the Rand a feeling of annoyance and dissatisfaction at the methods of oppression which have obtained in the mines. Victimisation, the constant attempt to lower wages, the refusal to redress legitimate grievances, the penalties attached to trade unionism, and so on—all these things seem to have come to a sudden head in a dispute which is now happily ended. I propose to indict the Colonial Office, not for what it has done in connection with the dispute, but for duties undone. I will also ask for a full and impartial inquiry, not by the South Africa Government, which is already implicated, and is therefore in a position to require to find justification for its own action, but by the Imperial authorities, directed from the Colonial Office. I will suggest meanwhile, pending the decision to withdraw the troops from South Africa, that a memorandum or order shall be issued for their withdrawal from the neighbourhood of the Rand. One excuse and justification put forward for the sudden sending of the troops into the Rand district has been that the strike development there was sudden and unexpected. As has been pointed out, Lord Gladstone, the Governor-General, was not

  815
  even consulted as to whether troops should or should not be sent. It was taken for granted, either from his lack of character or from an easy-going disposition, that his assent might be assumed. So General Hart, on his own prerogative, and at the request of General Smuts, had the troops on the way to the Rand before the Governor-General was made aware of the fact. The justification put forward for that is that this sudden development of the strike was unexpected. The Governor-General himself makes that excuse on more than one occasion. But if the Government and the Governor-General were taken by surprise at the sudden development of the strike, and the labour dispute it only shows how badly in touch they were with what was going on. In the "Times" of 2nd July, under the heading, "Views of the Mining Houses" (in South Africa), this sentence Occurs:—
  "We are dealing with labour troubles, and the possibilities of their spreading."
  The writer of that paragraph, evidently inspired, makes this statement:—
  "Always provided, therefore, that the Government gives protection, it is thought that little damage will be done. Buildings may be affected, but some weeks ago"—
  This is the important phrase in the quotation
  "Some companies took precautions to insure in London against this risk."
  Then there is a particularly sardonic touch—
  "The gold will remain in the mines."
  Further, there is this—and it has a bearing on what I am going to say, and that is why I quote it—a very significant sentence:—
  "One point that is important is that there is plenty of non-union labour available [to break the strike], provided that the Government gives the necessary protection."
  7.0 P.M.
  I submit that those two sentences throw a whole flood of light on the reasons for the British soldiers being sent into the Rand. The strike at Bloemfontein had been going on, and it was obvious that developments
  were probable, and the Government and the mine owners hoped to repeat their victory of 1907, when on that occasion the British troops also broke the back of the strike, and they took their steps accordingly, and so the British troops were sent, as we see from the dispatches before us. The Governor-General makes
  816
  it clear that the troops were not to be used except for the protection of property in the mines or of persons employed in the mines. That was the primary object Lord Gladstone had in view in regard to the troops. They were sent to provide proper protection for the property of the mine owners and for the blackleg labour being employed to break down the strike. I could quote sentence after sentence from the Governor-General's own cablegrams if that is disputed. I suggest that the primary reason why the mine owners demanded the troops was that they might be able to break the back of the strike by giving protection to blackleg labour. Presumably the mine owners applied to the Government at Pretoria, which appears to have accepted their demand without challenge and to have requisitioned the troops from General Hart, who, in turn, responded without challenge and without any information sent to the Governor-General, and without investigation, and, as the Governor-General himself admits, without knowledge, he sanctioned the use of the troops to proceed to their destination. It so happened that they expected rioting and the destruction of property fifty miles round about Johannesburg. The Governor-General in his dispatch is most unfair to the miners in insinuating that the reason the miners came out was that they were coerced to do so. But, as he admits, when the miners were brought out of the mines they at once joined the procession and marched towards the next mine, the procession becoming a great snowball as it moved along, which disproved the assertion that these men were brought out by force against their will, and it is not gracious on the part of the Governor-General to try and make the men's case appear worse than it actually was. Subsequently I know he makes the excuse that the need for the troops was to protect the community against the native danger, and to justify what was done by the troops sent to protect the mines and the blackleg labour.
  As has been pointed out, the real trouble rose from the prohibition to hold public meetings, first at Benoni and then at Johannesburg itself. The prohibition was to the effect that any person attending an assembly of more than six persons was to be liable to be fined up to and anyone speaking at such a gathering was to be liable to a penalty of £200. Why did not the Governor-General insist that if British troops were to be used to protect

  817
  property the right of free public meeting should be secured to the men on strike? It was not alleged that any disorder had arisen from these meetings. Where the men were allowed to hold them they passed off peaceably and orderly, and all the official information goes to show that if it had not been for the prohibition of the meetings there would have been no disturbance of any kind, and the presence of the troops there would have become ridiculous. Now the rioting at Johannesburg, as has been pointed out, took place after the public meeting had been prohibited. I do not propose to read all the correspondence as to the alleged provocation of the rioters. It has been said that they smashed windows, looted shops, and so on. I believe it is admitted they smashed certain shops where arms could be found—gunsmith's shops, and so on. But they did that for a purpose, and a very obvious purpose. They were about to be shot down because they wanted the right to hold a perfectly lawful meeting, which was prohibited two hours before. They were told if they attempted to hold a meeting they would be shot down. Many of these men are old soldiers who fought in the Transvaal War, and they were not going to allow themselves to be shot down like dogs without giving as good as they got. But that does not make them rioters or looters. There are miles of shops, and except in one case, where the owner is alleged to have fired on the people in the street, few shops were touched. I do not know of any except one case of a gunsmith's shop, and, therefore, it is most unfair to state that these men were rioters or looters, acting without a purpose, and purely for their own personal aggrandisement. There is this further word to be said, and then I pass on.
  The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) has told us of the behaviour of the troops upon the streets. The instructions they received from Lord Gladstone were that they were only to use their rifles when the situation was serious. The orders he forwarded for the guidance of the military specifically laid down that no more force was to be used than was required for the suppression of disorder. But not only from the reports which appeared in the papers from which a few extracts were given in the White Paper, but also from private correspondence which are accumulating, it is shown conclusively that after all fear of disorder was over potshots were taken at individuals. Perhaps I may in this connection read a passage
  818
  from a letter received from an English gentleman recently gone to Johannesburg who happened to be in the Rand Club at the time the disturbances took place. He is a mining engineer, but for obvious. reasons I withhold his name, though if the quotation is challenged I will show it to any hon. or right hon. Gentleman, and this is what he said:—
  "Saturday afternoon from 2.30 to 4.30, crowd came into town and a formal demand at the Rand Club for all titled men. This led to a little fiasco. Troops at the time were at hand, and were called upon. Orders were given to lie down and fire to clear streets, and this was done not where the trouble took place, but amongst innocent and defenceless people who were shot down by the dozen. There was no warning. I heard none, neither did anyone by me. We heard or saw no Proclamation from anyone until it was over. At the time a lot of us heard volley after volley and did not know where they were coming from, until I went ten yards further looking towards the club at right angles, and so this dreadful murder went on. I was then in the midst of all, and no matter what street you attempted to cross down you would go. At my back one was shot dead, across the road two, within forty hours, fourteen. It really was too awful to describe and it was nothing but brutal warder."
  That is a description of what took place by a man on the spot. Other correspondence shows that men walking across the streets, going home or going to their business places, were deliberately fired at and shot down. Now I am sure that no one in any part of the House will contend that that kind of thing is justifiable. It may be said it is not true. If it is not true let us free British troops from the imputation by having a full and impartial inquiry into all that took place. My reading of the situation is this: The troops were brought up by the mine owners at their request for their own specific purpose of breaking down the strike. They expected riots on the Rand, round the mines generally, and, therefore, some plan had to be devised to incite the people to disorder. That plan was found in prohibiting the meeting in the Market Square, in Johannesburg, and thereafter shooting was indulged in, in circumstances of the most trivial character. It may be said that the burning of the station and the burning of the "Star" office were not trivial incidents, but these were matters for the police to deal with. The strike leaders had offered to supply a force of 250 strikers to assist in maintaining order. The Governor-General himself admits that the strike leaders all through did their best to preserve order. When the mine owners were given authority to enroll their servants, clerks, and officials, and others, as mine guards the strike leaders offered 250 strikers and more if required to maintain order, and to put down hooliganism. But that was

  819
  refused. They were strikers, and ipso facto rioters and dangerous fellows, because they were strikers, and so I say what took place was a matter for the police, and there were police and South African Rifles to the number of 2,660 present with an additional 1,681.
  Mr. J. WARD: At Johannesburg?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In and about Johannesburg. I submit that the use of the British troops and the way in which they were used was not justifiable, and that the Governor-General in having permitted them to be used in that way without ascertaining the necessity for their presence, is deserving of censure. Here is a telegram addressed to the Member for Leicester, as follows:—
  "Meeting of the delegates of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers representing Pretoria, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg. Durban, East London, Uitenhage, Saltriever and Capetown repudiates the statement made by Lord Gladstone anent the recent situation on the Rand, and requests the Imperial Government to give the organised workers an opportunity to lay a statement before them rebutting his (Lord Gladstone's) statements."
  It is very significant that we of the Labour party felt that that was the only proper course to take. We want a fair and impartial inquiry. The last speaker pointed out that action of this kind will go far to break down any belief in the impartiality of British rule. British troops are kept in South Africa and no one knows why. Various excuses have been put forward, but if it goes abroad that the real reason for them being there is to back up the mine owners and the millionaires of the Rand in their struggles with the workers, then it will not tend to the loyalty of those who are there. I admit that the Colonial Office cannot be accused of any direct responsibility, and the Colonial Secretary in his very negative attitude has protected both himself and his office from any charge of culpability in connection with what was taken place. I submit, however, that now the occurrence is over it is incumbent upon the Colonial Office to have a full and searching inquiry made by the Imperial authorities into all the facts of the case. Further, we call for the immediate recall of the troops from the recent disturbed area, a disturbance which all the evidence goes to show was carefully manufactured by those in whose interests the troops were sent, and finally, to consider whether at the earliest possible moment the Imperial troops can be drawn from South Africa instead of being kept there to support
  820
  mine owners in perpetuating a system of things in the mines which is a disgrace to our civilisation.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think it will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I state very shortly at once what is my position in this matter. I should deprecate a long Debate on this subject, especially if it is likely to become an acrimonious one, on the ground that grave conditions still exist at Johannesburg. To put myself within your ruling, it has been suggested that there are two courses I might have taken. I might have recalled the troops or I might have recalled Lord Gladstone or censured him. I shall hope to convince the Committee that neither of those courses was open to nit, General Botha has completely exonerated Lord Gladstone and assumed the full responsibility for the Union Government. No one would imagine that Lord Gladstone would wish to shelter himself behind the fully responsible Ministers with whom he has to deal. I do not propose to discuss or to criticise the action or the judgment of the Union Government in a matter of internal administration, by which I mean their dealing with the strike in its earlier stages. A situation arose suddenly and unexpectedly in which they were convinced that there was great and grave danger of disorder which might, and which indeed did, entail arson and destruction of life and property. In the exercise of their full discretion they called upon the only troops which were at that time available to assist the civil power.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Was any life destroyed by the strikers?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think if the hon. Member reads the papers carefully he will see suggestions as to people having been killed by gunshot wounds which could not have been inflicted by the police or military.
  Mr. J. WARD: Were not shots fired from inside the clubs? It has been stated that women and children were seen to be shot from the club windows.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Under the common law of England, and I believe under the Roman-Dutch law of South Africa, the civil authority has the right and power to call upon civilians and soldiers also to come to their aid in an emergency, and that is what the Union Government did in the

  821
  exercise of their own judgment, and in a perfectly proper and constitutional way. Lord Gladstone concurred in the use of the troops on being informed as to the seriousness of the situation. But he telegraphed, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, to General Smuts, pressing that every precaution should be taken to avoid a collision between the military anal the civilians unless absolutely necessary, and he pointed out that under the circumstances the troops must be under the control of civilians. General Hertzog telegraphed that the troops would be accompanied by the necessary number of magistrates. Intervention had bean offered by independent people between the managers and the miners, but it had been unfortunately rejected by both parties. The situation got rapidly worse. Efforts were made to bring about a general railway strike. I telegraphed on 3rd July, as the House already knows, before there had been any conflict, to tell Lord Gladstone that I was assured his Ministers would bear in mind that it was very desirable to employ local South African forces in all matters connected with strike disturbances, rather than Imperial troops, which are primarily there for other purposes. Lord Gladstone assured me, in reply, that the Ministers were fully alive to this necessity, and he added that the attitude of the Government was one of strict neutrality, and Ministers would do their utmost to avoid any serious collision. It is not the fact, as was at one time stated, that the Union Ministers relied entirely or mainly upon the Imperial troops. At the very commencement of the serious trouble there were 1,500 police on the Witwatersrand, and that number was 500 in excess of the normal. There were 1,400 more police drawn from all over the Union, and a large number of special constables were sworn in. These disturbances unfortunately occurred—we do not know whether by accident or design—at the exact moment when, under the new South African Defence Act, the old voluntary force had been disbanded, and the new force was in process of formation throughout the Union. It was impossible to mobilise or collect this force with any rapidity, but in order to show the bona fides of the Union Ministers in their desire to use local forces, they did issue a proclamation for the mobilisation of the force in Natal and the Cape, though it was countermanded when the strike was believed
  822
  to be settled and the disturbances had ceased. The Union Government have always contemplated the use of their own forces in quelling riot and disturbance. This was very clearly shown in a memorandum issued explanatory of the South African Defence Bill. They said:—
  "The force must be constituted of 2,500 South African Mounted Rifles."
  And they added:—
  "A small paid force is required to provide a highly efficient and easily mobilised body of troops which can be rapidly moved to any spot where violence or disorder is apprehended."
  These new forces were only in the process of formation at that moment. The Union Government, in a grave emergency, felt that they had no alternative but to call for the aid of the troops which were available. The Committee must remember that the Rand extends over an area of somewhere between 50 to 70 miles in length, and this greatly adds to the difficulty of guarding property against explosion and arson. From an Imperial point of view it was the more serious because that area contained 250,000 natives in compounds with nothing to do except to watch the conflict between the white miners and the white police, and, if the railway strike had become a reality, within three or four days there would have been starvation from the failure of supplies and communications. With such terrible possibilities in view, the preservation of order may well have seemed to the authorities to have been not only of local, but of Imperial concern. It is not necessary to revive or review the unfortunate incidents which are always inevitable in any conflict between rioters and the civil Power when supported by armed forces, whether police or military, and both were employed on this occasion, and there is some reason for thinking that a greater part of the firing was done by the police. The whole matter which led up to these disorders, and even the conduct of the Union Government, is to be the subject of an immediate inquiry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who by?"] By a Commission appointed by the Governor-General in Council, consisting of two distinguished and respected judges of the High Court, Sir Johannes Wessels and the Hon. Charles Ward. The terms of reference are to be extremely wide. First, they cover the steps taken to compose the differences between the miners and employers before the strike; secondly, whether the circumstances rendered it necessary for the Government

  823
  to take special precautions for the preservation of law and order and the protection of life and property; thirdly, whether it was necessary for the Government to use Imperial troops; fourthly, whether the conduct of the rioters was such as to justify the military and police taking forcible measures, including the use of firearms; and lastly, whether the forces used were greater than were necessary in order to preserve and restore order, and to protect life and property.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are trade unionists to be represented on the Commission?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is not a Royal Commission. Two judges will conduct the inquiry, and the trade unionists and other people will no doubt tender themselves as witnesses.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware of the recent decision given by these judges in the Federal High Court?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it a fact that the workers have refused to give evidence before them?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I know nothing of that, and I never heard it suggested. In the meantime, I shall repudiate the suggestion that these distinguished Gentlemen are not to be regarded with every confidence. It is obvious that the Union Ministers will naturally wish to explain to this Commission their action and the grounds for the course which they took. And I think that we may be well content to await the decision of that tribunal before deciding on insufficient knowledge. But I am authorised by Lord Gladstone to say that Ministers wish it clearly to be understood that they did not ask for the military in order to coerce the miners on strike.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: To enforce Law 6.
  Mr. HARCOURT: There seems to be some misunderstanding in the minds of my two hon. Friends as to the reason for the retention of the Imperial troops in South Africa on the scale and in the numbers in which they are retained. There has been a great and progressive reduction in the number in South Africa throughout the last ten years. The Committee may not be aware how steadily this policy has been pursued by both parties in
  824
  this country, because, of course, it is not a party question. There is not a man of those troops in South Africa for the purpose of dealing with labour troubles in any way. In 1903 the military establishment retained in South Africa was 29,300. Under the direction of the late Conservative Government it was reduced to 20,000 by October, 1905. Since that time we have assumed the responsibility for desirable further reductions which we have reason to know were also contemplated by our predecessors. In 1908 the numbers stood at 15,000; in 1911, at 11,400; and to-day they stand at 6,900. In my opinion a finality has not yet been reached, and further and proper reductions may be possible in the early future. But let me at once dispose of the silly and ludicrous supposition, which is always cropping up, that these Imperial troops are now or have at any time been retained in South Africa for the benefit of shopkeepers. General Botha, equally with the Army Council, would repudiate that suggestion. But the Committee must not forget that the Governor-General of the Union of South Africa has a dual capacity. He is also the High Commissioner of Rhodesia, and he is responsible also for all the native Protectorates with which at present the Union Government have nothing to do. The High Commissioner is responsible to me and through me to Parliament for order and safety in all those great territories. It is essential for some years to come that lie should have some sufficient force at his disposal to deal with native troubles and to preserve peace, law, and order in these districts. We also maintain a garrison for the protection of Simon's Town, the harbour and coaling station of which is of vital importance to our Cape route to India, and to our Eastern and Southern Possessions. I hope I have shown the Committee that no British troops are being kept in South Africa for the purpose of dealing with these local disturbances, and that the troops now there cannot possibly be removed immediately. A progressive reduction has been going on, and certainly any total removal of the troops would be out of the question at the present time.
  I would like to reply to some of the criticisms as to the recent use of troops in the Rand at the request of and in the discretion of the responsible Ministers of the Union. The Committee have now in their possession all Lord Gladstone's three dispatches, and the reasons which he gives for his assent to the demand which was

  825
  made upon him. I think most hon. Members will be satisfied that they are clear, full, and decisive. He sets out the circumstances which rendered necessary the intervention of the Imperial troops. He admits that it is the generally accepted view that the Union Government must deal with internal trouble with their own forces. He shows that, this being a period of transition, the local forces were not yet organised or available for duties which no doubt they will eventually be ample to fulfil. In reference to the Witwatersrand strike, it was not until the last moment that there was any suggestion or likelihood of serious trouble. Neither Ministers, nor employers, nor employed gave any warning of danger whatever. Suddenly, on the 30th June, the situation became so serious that Ministers appealed for assistance to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Sir Reginald Hart, who complied with that request. Lord Gladstone, being at Durban, left there for Pretoria the same night, and on realising what the Johannesburg situation was he confirmed the action already taken. He said definitely in his dispatches that in the light of the subsequent events he believes that any delay in sending the troops would have been disastrous, and that but for the presence of the troops the loss of life would have been much more extensive. Lord Gladstone fully associates himself with the action of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. He says that if he had been on the spot and conversant with the facts he would have taken the responsibility of sanctioning the immediate use of these troops. As to the situation which then existed, I would specially refer this Committee to Lord Gladstone's telegram to me of 26th July, No. 40 on the first Blue Book. That telegram is no doubt familiar to the Committee by this time. He states that the Commission had before them evidence that on the 29th June the strikers were asked to come armed to a meeting in order to resist any force which they might encounter.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Was not that hand-bill issued after the proclamation of the meeting?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not sure. At all events it was a handbill calling the meeting. There is also evidence of the suggested use of explosives by the rioters. I have been asked to-day what precedent there is for the use of Imperial troops for this purpose in a
  826
  self-governing Colony? There was a precedent, to which I drew attention, in the same district in 1907, when 1,400 Imperial troops were sent to the Rand to deal with an anticipated disturbance as the result of a strike. Happily they did not have to fire, but they were there to carry out any orders that they might receive from the civil authorities. I would put it to the Committee that in a question of this sort it is really not a matter of precedent, but a matter of fact. Could the Union Government deal with these serious riots, arson, and attempted murder with the local forces at their disposal? They could not. They drafted in additional police, and they swore in special constables, but to call out the new military forces would have taken a week, and it would have been too late. The whole of the fifty miles of the Rand as well as Johannesburg had to be patrolled, whilst the rioters could concentrate without notice on any spot, either by railway, tram, motors, or motor bicycles. The criminal and disorderly classes in Johannesburg, as we know, are formidable in numbers, and over all this hung the menace of a quarter of a million natives already idle, and who might soon be hungry.
  Lord Gladstone believes that the Imperial troops saved the situation, which might have been infinitely worse, and which in his opinion would have resulted in far greater destruction of life and property. In my opinion, Lord Gladstone, in circumstances of great difficulty, acted properly; but I would ask those who think that he erred in judgment what do they suggest he should have done? If he had refused his Ministers the assistance of the troops he would have stood alone, unable by his own decision to use the Imperial troops, and with no one able to provide him with a sufficiency of local forces or police. He would have, by his own act, created that anarchy which it is his first duty to avoid. Probably there is no man in the House of Commons who more than myself hates and detests a too ready use of military forces in civil disturbance; but I have lived too long in affairs not to realise that there are rare occasions when it is not only permissible, but obligatory, and I believe that this was one of those occasions. I have been asked what, if any, action I intend to take, and whether I shall give any instructions for the present or for the immediate future. I think myself and South Africa fortunate in

  827
  having in Lord Gladstone a Governor-General who has behind him five years' experience in this country as Home Secretary, in which capacity it was his duty to deal with civil disturbances. He has the advantage of the advice of the responsible Ministers of a self-governing Dominion. I have complete confidence in Lord Gladstone's judgment. He and his Ministers are aware of the views expressed in my telegram of 3rd July, and I do not propose, with incomplete knowledge, to interfere with his discretion or any action he may deem it necessary to take on the advice he receives.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Before saying all that I think it is necessary to say on the subject which has last engaged the attention of the Committee—and it will be very little—I feel it would not be courteous to the right hon. Gentleman not to make some reference, though it will be a very brief one, to the statement with which he opened the Debate this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman rather implied that in making a new departure last year, and giving a very long statement in regard to the position of the Crown Colonies over which he presides, he had been told that it would have been better in a Blue Book. I do not think that was the view expressed even by the critics. Their view was that they would have liked to have had the statement in advance, so that they could have given an effective reply to the speech the right hon. Gentleman made, and I confess if I had had any desire to make any reply, that is a privilege I myself would greatly have appreciated. The experience of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect is inevitable from the nature of the speech which he made to-day. There were no fireworks in it, but there was an occasional and very pardonable attempt to make it a little lighter, in which he greatly succeeded. It was in the nature of the case something to have available for future consideration, rather than to attract attention and reply in Supply; and I am sure the interest which was taken in it by those who heard it, and will be taken by all who read it. will be a complete satisfaction to him, and a complete justification for the course which he has taken, a course which this year, I think, is more praiseworthy than it was last year, for, so far as I can judge, there is no one in this House, at all events no one who has any official position, who
  828
  would deliberately go to the trouble of making a prepared speech for his own pleasure. Therefore we may assume that it was a sense of duty which impelled him on this occasion. I thought, as he was speaking, of a great many points which interested me, but I am not going to go over the ground again, for after all it would be a very perfunctory way of dealing with these matters. There are only one or two things to which I would refer. The right hon. Gentleman quite unintentionally, as I thought, though he had notes on the subject, introduced what was regarded by hon. Friends behind me, as a controversial matter. He brought in the fiscal question. I do not share the feeling of my hon. Friends behind me. It is, I think, one of the follies, not only of the right hon. Gentleman, but of the whole lot of them, that they imagine when they are repeating one of the copy-book headings about the foreigner paying the taxes, they are repeating something so self-evident that no one can take the smallest exception to it. If it were possible I would really like to impress upon them—I think it is hardly possible to do so—what we all know of these things. As far as I am concerned, if I am ignorant of them, it is not from want of capacity, because there is no subject to which I have given more study. We all know that line of argument, and, if we disagree with it, it is not from ignorance but because we think there is another side to it. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is a view which is taken by the best economists all over the world. I am not going further into this, but since he mentioned it, I will take the liberty of saying this. He pointed out that in these Crown Colonies, which he described as the Cinderellas of the Empire—and it is well to remember that Cinderella had the best of it later on, and perhaps that may prove to be true of some of these Colonies at the finish—we have a great heritage. I am sure it is the wish of everyone that we should use that heritage to the best advantage, not only for the people who live in those Colonies, for it has always been the glory of British rule that we have thought of them first, not only for them, but if possible, if it can be done without injuring them, for the advantage of the people of this country also. I would throw out this suggestion, although I know hon. Gentlemen opposite will not agree with me, that on this whole fiscal question the difference between us is not so fundamental as they think. We think, at least

  829
  I do, that every case must be regarded on its merits, and cannot be decided by any theory or any principle. I say that if we can imagine the development of all these Colonies, and if we can have in contemplation that they and the United Kingdom, leaving out the self-governing Colonies for the moment, could be one vast area of Free Trade, would not that be something which would be the best way of developing these Colonies, and the best way also of securing for our people that they should get the greatest share in the development that takes place in regard to these Colonies? That, at all events, is my view.
  There is only one other subject to which I shall refer, and it is rather disagreeable, but I feel bound to do it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contract he had made with Messrs. Lever Brothers. I do not profess to have examined that closely, but I did look over the correspondence, and without expressing any opinion which binds anyone else, I saw nothing in it objectionable. So far as I can judge, it was an honest effort to develop the Colony and in the best interests of the Colony. But the right hon. Gentleman went on—and we have heard too much of that sort of thing lately—to speak about insinuations and inuendoes. I think we have a right to be a little tired of that sort of thing on this side of the House. It may be quite true that party capital has been made out of it, but when we have an exhibition such as occurred in this House last week—the right hon. Gentleman is very mild in comparison—I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, and especially those who sit on that bench, to remember that the making of political capital will never succeed unless there is some foundation upon which it can rest, and it is not for them to taunt us as they do about a triumph for them after the speeches which we listened to on the subject and the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman and by Gentlemen opposite when that subject was raised. All I mean by that is this—I have no desire to dwell upon it—that we treated them fairly, and the least we can ask is that it should not be used as if it had been a great triumph for them and something of which the party opposite can boast.
  Let me now say a word or two on another matter which is most interesting to the House. I have listened with great care to the speeches of the two hon. Members opposite, the Member for Hanley and the Member for Merthyr Tydvil in regard to
  830
  the trouble on the Rand. The hon. Member for Hanley appealed to us on this side of the House on the ground that if we had any real Imperial feeling we should take his view in connection with what is happening on the Rand. I am ready to say this—and I am sure that anyone who sits on that bench or on this would take the same view—there is nothing one hates more than these labour disputes, to begin, with, and, far above that, there is nothing one hates more than introducing the military to deal with civil disturbances. We should dislike it in this country, and we would not resort to it except in the last extremity, and I think we have a right to say that we dislike it still more when that force is used at the direction of a Government over which we have no control and the way in which it is used we cannot direct from this country. Therefore, the whole question is whether the situation was such as necessitated in the first place the maintenance of order in the interests of the whole people of South Africa. That is the whole question. If it cannot be shown that it was necessary, then I think the action, even of Lord Gladstone, was not justified. Was it necessary? I think we have got the answer in the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen themselves. With regard to the Member for Merthyr I am occasionally amazed to think that a countryman of mine who, when you talk to him on any ordinary subject seems to have a full share of common sense, should take such an extraordinary view as he took this afternoon. He told us that it was a conspiracy on the part of the mine owners; that they wanted these disturbances; that when the strike did not occur they conspired and arranged to have the meeting prohibited, and get the men to riot, and when that failed, the conspiracy went further, and they shot them down. It really requires an imagination greater than is possible to see what object the mine owners could have in taking a course such as that, and still more, to believe that any people, however bad they were, would deliberately embark on a course of that sort. The hon. Member for Hanley said all the trouble arose because this meeting on the 3rd July was prohibited, and that if the meeting had been allowed to go on there would have been no disturbance and nothing would have happened. How does he know? How can he tell?. Lord Gladstone takes exactly the opposite view, and he holds that if it.

  831
  had not been for the troops, there would have been a disaster far more terrible than anything that has happened. If it is a question of assertion on one side and the other, let me point out two facts, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, that long before this meeting on the 3rd July, there was a meeting, I think, on the 29th June, and the men were invited to come to that meeting armed. If they come to a meeting armed, what are the arms for? Does anyone suggest that with arms in their hands, people excited by excitable speakers, does anyone suggest that if there was no force opposed to them, the arms would not be used?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: This meeting was forbidden in Benoni under Law 6, and the men were asked to come to protest against that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is nothing in the dispatches about that. So far as I know, that may be correct. At all events, that is not the point. The hon. Member's contention was that if the meeting on 3rd July had not been prohibited there would have been no trouble. The men had been asked to come armed, therefore, whatever the rights or wrongs were, that was a body which could not be trusted to keep order unless there was a force sufficient to maintain order.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: There was no disturbance.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I see that the hon. Member feels very strongly about it, and I do not blame him for that. That is his view. My view is different. I do not think that either the mine owners or the miners are angels, and I think what anyone in the position of Lord Gladstone, who is responsible to this Government had to consider at the moment was not what the rights or the wrongs were but whether or not it really was a fact that if these forces were not available, some terrible disaster might occur. The hon. Member for Merthyr blamed Lord Gladstone, because his instructions were that the soldiers were to be used to protect the property of the mine owners, and the men who were working in the mines. That is a crime in the eyes of the hon. Member. What else could any force be used for except to protect property, and the lives of people who are working? Is his view really that because
  832
  a strike is going on, that the strikers are to be at liberty to deal as they please with property of other people, and with men who are willing to work and not willing to strike. Is that his view? It seems to be, but it is not mine. In my view, it is the duty of any Government, the South African Government, or this Government, if a disturbance takes place of such a character as to make the employment of troops necessary, to go to the bottom of the cause most certainly; but the first duty is to see that life and property are protected for the time being, and to see also that if men really want to work in spite of the majority of their fellows taking an opposite view, that they shall be allowed to do so so far as the power of the Government can secure it. I wonder what these hon. Gentlemen would have had Lord Gladstone do? Here is a responsible Government. It is a Government which was set up, curiously enough, with all the good wishes of the very people who are now condemning it. I wonder what in the world their language would have been if it had happened to be a British Government in power instead of a Dutch Government. The hon. Member for Hanley said there were Dutch people among these miners, and if they were shot down by British troops what an effect it would have; but the hon. Member knows that the majority were English. Suppose they had not been British troops, but the general Boer population called out as special constables, and they were brought in and the Dutch men were shooting down the English men who were in the great majority, would the position have been better then? The real fact is our Government has no right whatever to interfere with the internal arrangements of the Union Government of South Africa, but if our troops are used, they have a right to demand that the circumstances in which they are used are such as to make it essential in the best interest of everyone there that order shall be preserved, and that there is no other way in which it can be preserved. I think those conditions existed. We did it at home two years ago, and we agreed to do it. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty, and was then Home Secretary, pointed out that the complete railway strike which was threatened, and which would have the effect of bringing starvation to large districts in England was a calamity which no Government could allow to go on.

  833
  8.0 P.M.
  For that purpose he would use the troops, not only to preserve order, but, if necessary, to run the railways. He considered that it was a case where the supreme necessity of the State should come before everything else. Generally, the same condition existed in South Africa as existed in this country at that time. There were in South Africa 250,000 natives; they had no food to keep them going more than a week if the railways stopped. If this calamity had taken place, and the strikers had got control, can anyone picture to themselves what the position would have been in South Africa with these 250,000 desperate men, determined at all costs to get food, spreading all over the country? What these people against whom these soldiers were sent were trying to do was practically the same thing as in this country—that is, to bring the whole movement of society and of supply to a standstill. There was no suggestion in South Africa that the troops should be used to run the railways, but surely hon. Members would agree all the Government responsible in South Africa could do, if the troops were called for, was to allow the troops there to be used, as Lord Gladstone declared that they were used, in the best possible way—that is to say, that their presence in strength was used not to shoot down, but to prevent the necessity of using more violence than could possibly be helped.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: In this Debate we have listened to speeches from the other side of the House attacking a Government and attacking a Governor. At this moment I am not going to attempt to enter into that question further than to say this, that I could scarcely believe my ears when I remembered that the Government that hon. Members were attacking was the Government which hon. Members, such as he who spoke first this afternoon, welcomed when it was set up. Well, Sir, the Debates of 1903–4 were rancorous enough and severe enough in condemnation of my late right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary of that Government. I do not think that any condemnation of them was greater than the condemnation passed by the hon. Member who spoke first this afternoon on the present Government of South Africa. I would have intervened very early during the speech of the hon. Member if I had not thought that it would seem, as I had taken rather a prominent part in
  834
  the Debates of 1903–4, that I was wilfully trying to prevent the hon. Member from expressing his view. But I consider this Debate this afternoon an extremely dangerous one. I thought frankly that it was one that ought not to be permitted. Hon. Members, like the hon. Member who opened the Debate, undoubtedly thought very strongly, and only very great considerations could possibly have prevented us from strongly protesting against the nature of the Debate. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil suggested that a Commission of Inquiry should be instituted by this Government into the social conditions in South Africa, and into the action of a Government over which we had no control.
  Mr. MORRELL: I think what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said was that a Commission should be instituted to inquire as to the use of British troops.
  Sir G. PARKER: I am in the recollection of the House. The inquiry was into the conditions which led up to the use of the troops in South Africa, the social and industrial conditions there, and the application of Law No. 6. The hon. Member who opened the Debate this afternoon seemed to think that this House was entitled to pass judgment upon the use of Law No. 6. I do not think so. That is a law made by a Government which my right hon. Friend opposite, the Secretary of State for War, ushered in with very great satisfaction, and I think that Government has justified itself. That Government has passed this law, or has preserved laws which previously existed, according to its judgment. The place for the hon. Member, as it seems to me, is not in this House, but among his former friends in South Africa, where I have no doubt he would be welcome at this moment. He could then make his accusations in the presence of the Government, which would know how to reply to him if necessary. They are there on the spot, and no representative of that Government is in this House. I think that the defence which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary made this afternoon of the South African Government was truly justified. Both hon. Gentlemen this afternoon said that the troops were employed, and that the proclamation of Law No. 6 was made before any disorder occurred, and that it is because of that violence took place. The House is a very thin one, I have no doubt that the interest of the Debate has declined, but I feel bound to

  835
  meet the statement of the hon. Member. It will be noted that in Telegram No. 40, the Governor-General says that the handbill inviting attendance at the Benoni meeting on 29th June contains the following passage:—
  "The strike committee again asks' you to come and to come armed, if you can, in order to resist any unlawful force which may be used against you. If unlawful force is used we are ready to meet such unlawful force with lawful force."
  It is the case that the proclamation was not made until 3rd July for the meeting of 4th July.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: It was proclaimed on the 20th.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Gravesend is in possession of the Committee, and the hon. Member for Hanley must not so interrupt his remarks. The practice of the House and in Committee is that when a speech is made, we allow a speech to be made in reply without undue interruption.
  Sir G. PARKER: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member in any particular. I beg the Committee to take note of this, that on 2nd July Lord Gladstone used these words:—
  "With regard to the mass meeting on 4th July, at least 10,000 men were expected to be present. My Ministers decided that it would be unwise to allow this demonstration to be held, they accordingly let it be known that they issued instructions to the magistrates, that is the lawful authority under Law 6."
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is that not the second meeting you are referring to?
  Sir G. PARKER: It is the meeting of the 4th of July I was referring to. The hon. Member said there was no disturbance before the 4th of July meeting. Lord Gladstone in his communication to the Government says, on the other hand, that several acts of violence were reported, that numerous arrests had been made, and that in many cases the accused were in gaol awaiting trial. I have read these communications of Lord Gladstone very carefully indeed, and I must point out that although in this House I have found occasion to criticise Lord Gladstone when he was Home Secretary, and when he was in previous offices, I consider that these dispatches of his show him to have acted with the very greatest consideration and gravity of judgment, worthy of the highest traditions of the Colonel Service. Much
  836
  has been made by the hon. Member about the last statement of Lord Gladstone, that he pointed out to the present Government of South Africa that British troops were not there to be employed for that particular purpose. Throughout the dispatches Lord Gladstone has pointed out, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, that the use of the troops was absolutely necessary for the protection of life and property and for the prevention of great perils and dangers which might have arisen if this large native population on the Rand was reduced to starvation. The Government in South Africa is responsible for the welfare, not only of the natives, but for general Imperial interests, and could not do otherwise than what they did. Lord Gladstone acted on the advice of the responsible Ministers of the Crown, just as responsible as the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench in front of us. The Debate has brought out very clearly that whatever may have been the conditions in South Africa, the representatives of the British Government acted with discretion, and the troops there were used only in the last resort. The hon. Member knows perfectly welt that although the new Militia is being formed, the forces of the Union Government of South Africa are wholly inadequate to meet any immediate need. As my right hon. Friend said, would the hon. Member have left the condition of affairs as it was when the meeting of 4th July took place, without adequate protection for the inhabitants, for property, and for the lives of the people generally? I do not think so, even excited as he is against the conditions of labour in the Transvaal, justified as he is in that.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I do not agree that there was danger, if you ask me.
  Sir G. PARKER: Of course, I have no, reply to make to that at all. The Committee has had an opportunity to read the communication of Lord Gladstone, and that one communication which above all other strikes me as a most clear resumé of the whole position. In his telegram No. 32 he said:—
  "Close investigation shows me that on 3rd July the total available forces of the Union were at least 5,000 men short of requirements for it situation rapidly developing in danger. You will note that from then first I laid it down that duties of troops should be limited to protective purposes except in absolute necessity.ߪStrike-breakers not under adequate protection were seriously assaulted. Detachments of

  837
  strikers sent to collieries, Pretoria, Durban, and other labour centres. Native attitude full of peril. Had authority not been maintained no hold on mine boys could have been retained. Reduced to idleness, massed in compounds, and brought to starvation by railway stoppage only too probable, with electric light cables cut, they would have broken loose, and the horror of the situation can hardly he exaggerated, and then every kraal in South Africa would have heard of the white man's impotence."
  Those who have been in this House longer than the hon. Member for Hanley know perfectly well the attitude that I have taken up on these questions, and know, also, that on Colonial affairs and on Foreign Office affairs those of us who have interested ourselves on this side of the House in this class of questions have tried to keep ourselves free from partisan feeling. To me it is extraordinarily painful to listen to a Debate such as we have listened to this afternoon, or a portion of the Debate such as we have listened to, in which rancorous and violent statements have been made against a Government that is not here to protect itself, using the conditions to which the hon. Member objects as a reason for blaming the present Government for not preventing the troops from being used when a position of peril and crisis occurred. There was nothing else to do than what was done. It may not have met the views of the hon. Member, but I am absolutely certain that the people of this country, whether they have faith in the Government of South Africa or not, while regretting the use of our troops, will say that, in the circumstances, the use of those troops was justified and justifiable. I do not want to say anything more on this particular question, because I believe that the Committee has satisfied itself, and that the Parliament of this country will take no further action except to approve of General Hart and of Lord Gladstone in the disposition which they made of the troops in time of peril.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies will perhaps regret to know that though I strongly approved of the review of Colonial affairs which he introduced last year, I cannot share to the full the encomium passed upon him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It is my misfortune not to be able to say that the right hon. Gentleman has fulfilled my hopes and expectations. Will the right hon. Gentleman think me merely hypercritical when I say I believe that he is not exactly on the right lines in that review? I think a review of that sort which is, in his hands so intensely interesting to me, was much better adapted to the Imperial Institute, the Royal Colonial
  838
  Institute, the Society of Arts, or some such institution. If the right hon. Gentleman will note my criticism, he will see that I am not making a criticism without offering an alternative. I feel that this review which the right hon. Gentleman has very wisely established can be made infinitely more useful than it has been made the last two years. I really do not think that all those statistics, all that information regarding production, agricultural and commercial production, of the Oversea Crown Colonies, is very useful to this House. A few of us appreciate it, and a few will read it. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he would make that review much more effective if he took, as he did on one occasion this afternoon, a matter which is largely a matter of principle, and probably an interesting problem for the Colonies to solve, namely, the question of concessions? That I think to be the kind of problem which could be well reviewed—the problem of railways and railway management, which involves always administration either on the part of the local Government or on the part of this Government, and the problems of concessions which raise a very big political question indeed. The problems which beset these Crown Colony Governments are matters which not only interest them, but should interest us. I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving us so much information on oil, cotton, and sugar, is exactly on the right lines. I think, if he will allow me to say so, he would get on the right lines if he showed how the problems of the development of cotton, sugar, and oil, etc., and how the financial and revenue problems, and the commercial and industrial problems, can be solved. I really do not think that to enlarge upon this information in the way of a scientific exponent of these developmets, agricultural or otherwise, for the purpose of instruction, are really best suited to this Assembly.
  May I say, regarding the concessions, again, that I am not quite with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I think the right hon. Gentleman should have gone a little further and made it clear to the Committee that the agreement was not open to the criticisms which have been levelled at it in the Press. I have read a great many, but I have never suspected for an instant that he or the Government were affected by political considerations in making the agreement with

  839
  Sir William Lever. I have yet to discover a Colonial Secretary, particularly a Colonial Secretary who has to administer territories outside his own immediate country who would sell himself or his office in order to give some reward to a political supporter. I do not believe that, but I believe that the agreement ought to be criticised in the light of the criticism which has been made outside. I would only repeat them in order to secure the right hon. Gentleman's reply to them, because I consider them very serious. One of the criticisms which have been made is that in the Gold Coast Colony, the agreement did not receive the full support of the Legislative Council. Indeed, the position was one which would arouse suspicion in the minds of those who carefully watch constitutional development, because the five official members supported the agreement and the four unofficial members opposed it. This has been stated in the Press, and it has also been stated that local opinion was against the agreement. I am not making the charge. I am putting the charges as they have been put in the Press, to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to reply.
  Secondly, there were powerful associations which strongly criticised the agreement. There was the company of African merchants and the African Oil Company. It has been stated in the Press that the Company of African merchants had developed this extraction of the oil nut through machinery which was effective and it is unfair to grant to Sir William Lever and his company a monopoly over a vast area ten miles in circumference with a right to them exclusively to extract this oil with this machinery. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, too, I believe, criticised the agreement strongly. The West African section of the London Chamber of Commerce also criticised it, and in reply to the criticism of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, concerning the exclusion of natives from the right to use whatever crude machinery they might have within the area of monopoly, the right hon. Gentleman replied that to allow the natives to operate machinery within the area would destroy the whole effect of the concession. The right hon. Gentleman must see that those who, like myself, have only that correspondence to read and the Report which is before us, must feel anxious, not about the motive winch prompted the making of the agreement, for of that we
  840
  have no doubt, but of the conditions of the agreement itself, and it is a question that this Committee ought very carefully to consider whether the conditions of the agreement are such as ought to be approved by this House. I think it serious that only the nominated members of the Legislative Council approved of the agreement, and that the unofficial members disapproved and that strong criticisms were made upon the agreement from the standpoint of the exclusive monopoly to Messrs. Lever and Company for the use of the machinery for a period of twenty-one years.
  The right hon. Gentleman will naturally realise that we must feel some anxiety concerning such an agreement as that. Twenty-one years is a very long time. I agree that for any company of that sort to develop a Colony like Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast is a work which, though done for commercial purposes on the part of those who promote the enterprise, still is a good Imperial work. I do not share the opinion of so many modern critics of the dangers of granting concessions to great companies. The Hudson Bay Company is an example of a company which for several hundred years has held and developed territory, kept the natives in a condition of contentment, and finally given to a great Dominion a vast territory where law and order existed, and had existed since the time of Charles II. The East India Company is another example of territory and interests which would not have developed to the same extent as when private enterprise stakes its all. The Government does not stake its all. A Government comes and goes. If it makes a mistake to-day it leaves the next Government to rectify it to-morrow. In the same way with the Chartered Company of Rhodesia. I only refer to these statements because I want to defend the right hon. Gentleman against the attacks which have been made in regard to granting this concession at all. I believe throughout our Overseas Dominions, if there were more careful concessions made to private companies who stake their all to develop territory, happier results would be achieved than are achieved by the efforts of Governments themselves to develop railways and local industries. I do not believe in Governments developing local industries and railways. You have an example in Canada. The Inter-Colonial Railway has always been a failure, because it is run by the

  841
  Government. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a great success. It would not have succeeded, and did not succeed at first, because it was run by the Government. An hon. Member opposite laughs.
  Mr. POINTER: I laughed at the cause given by the hon. Gentleman, that it was run by the Government.
  Sir G. PARKER: It is true. The Government acknowledged it, and said, "We have failed." Now we call in people who have far more at stake than we have, because they have their capital at stake, and if they fail they are out. We may go out of office, but we come in and reinstate ourselves. I put these things to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think it would do much, instead of making generalisations, however interesting and effective, as they were, to clear up criticism that is being made outside the House on these concessions, if lie would make quite clear what the conditions of the agreement are, and how the interests of the Colony and the interests of the natives are protected. I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of answering on that subject. Does he think the interests of the natives are being injured by this arrangement? I assume that he does not. But in view of the fact that the natives have in their crude way extracted the oi1, is it a fair thing to prevent them in this monopolised area from doing what they have done in the past? Does he recognise any force or validity in the criticism that this will go far to prevent the native development of native industries? He will not confer a favour on myself by answering these questions, because I would put in the way of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government every difficulty I could, but I am too much interested in the development of our Colonies to put one stone in the right hon. Gentleman's path, or to put one bit of grit in the wheels. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that. In regard to this concession I hope he will find it possible to say, quite apart from his indignant rebuttal of indirect corruption, that there is criticism which he must recognise as made by responsible men who regard the agreement as one which is unwise as to the length of the lease, the smallness of the amount paid by the company—I believe it is £15,000—and the fact that no royalty at all is to be exacted from the company. I
  842
  have not made a particular study of this matter, and I do not know whether it would be wise to insist upon a royalty, but if a royalty could be got, and if the company could make the enterprise pay, I am all for getting a royalty. It would be infinitely better to get revenue of that kind than in the way I have deplored again and again. I think the West Coast of Africa should not be always a black spot in that respect. I have insisted at all costs that that was the only policy to pursue, and if he could have got in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast, revenue from such a source, it might have relieved the Government from the unhappy necessity of running local machinery and securing revenue from whisky supplied to the natives. The right hon. Gentleman may say that I might apply that policy to this country. My reply is that the native population is an undeveloped population, and that the vices which we introduce are not natural to the natives. The drink we introduce is not the natural drink for them, and, therefore, it has a very much more injurious effect upon them. I should like also to say that the right hon. Gentleman might have referred this afternoon to the complaints made in a letter addressed to him by the Aborigines' Protection Association in regard to flogging and punitive expeditions.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I understood that question was going to be raised.
  Sir G. PARKER: I will not develop that point. I will only say that I read carefully the representations made to the right hon. Gentleman, and that I do not agree with the suggestion that a punitive expedition should be made on the authority alone of the officer himself. We send an officer, whether a subaltern or a general, to perform his duty, and to do it on the responsibility of his life. Before we had Marconigrams we used to send an officer to some distant part to take responsibility there for his country, but to suggest that an officer ought on his own judgment and on his own responsibility alone to undertake a punitive expedition is a monstrous theory to which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman would not assent. The case put by the Aborigines' Association is one that requires an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, considering the number of lives lost. I think he ought to be able to assure the Committee that these expeditions, so far

  843
  as his own experience goes, are only undertaken in times of real crisis. As to flogging, I am not going to say that that form of punishment ought never to be administered. I have myself seen a case in the Soudan, soon after the war, in which you could not have got carried out the services for which natives were employed except by half-a-dozen lashes. You could not take these people before a magistrate. You could not take them 400 or 500 miles to be dealt with in that way. I am only speaking of what I have seen. I have seen the result, and it was a very salutary result. There are hon. Members who have never got a licking in their lives, and they have shown the results of that. It is a very good thing, and there is no reason why we should be too sentimental about black men any more than we are about whites. I began my speech with criticism, and I hope that the hints I have thrown out will not be regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as entirely worthless. I believe the course which he has followed is in many respects a wise one, and I think it will give great satisfaction to the Crown Colonies of the Empire.
  Sir W. BYLES: I am glad that the hon. Member (Sir G. Parker) made reference to the native question in the Crown Colonies and the Protectorates. It is on the subject of flogging I desire to make a few observations. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a brilliant résumé of the prosperity and of the increase in strength of our Crown Colonies, and I refrain from any comments upon his lucid and extremely interesting statement. He said very little, however about the treatment of the black people. The Committee cannot be too often reminded that the Empire of which we hear so many boasts from the other side of the House is a black Empire. We hear, too, of a great deal of flogging in the Colonies in the Southern Seas, but I think it is time to ask that the British flag should stand for British traditions and the principles of government which have made England renowned among the nations of the earth. I never had the privilege of travelling in these parts of the world, where I understand that the working classes are all black and the employers are all white. Therefore, I am not speaking from personal knowledge, but I read and I am a member of the committee of the Anti-Slavery and the Aborigine Protection
  844
  Societies, and I am supplied by them with many disquieting stories. What I always feel is that what England once did in freeing the slaves she must not undo by adopting other methods now. I would like to know a great deal about indentured labour. It always seems to me that the indentured labourer is the first cousin of the slave, and that the forced labourer is perhaps a still nearer relation. I confess that I am suspicious at the way in which our black Colonies and Protectorates are governed, and at the exploitation by traders and trading companies of the black population, and to some extent also at the quality and temper of some of the Governors and magistrates and agents, whom we send out dressed in a little brief authority. It is from my right hon. Friend that we must hope for some explanation of these things.
  The first about which I would refer is the house system which obtains in Nigeria, and I daresay in many other places. It is a system which is established and continued by our authority and for which we are directly responsible. It is a method of domestic slavery. The slave is the possession of the master. He is a slave by birth, and has no freedom to enter into contracts without reference to his master, and no liberty of marriage outside the master's immediate dependents or slaves, and the machinery of His Majesty's Government is still used to recapture, arrest, and take part in restoring runaway domestic slaves. That is one point on which I would like a few words of reply from the Minister in charge of the Colonial Office. Another matter is an article which has been published referring to Southern Nigeria, and speaking of a number of improvements and far-reaching reforms in administration. Among these reforms are some great administrative changes in regard to the administration of justice in bringing the Native Courts into greater use. One of the most important innovations in this so-called reform is the greatly increased power which it is intended to confer upon district commissioners, and which is to extend to the power of life and death. This change we are told is intended and expected to help greatly in speeding up the civilisation of the country. It does seem to me that is a very dangerous thing, to endeavour to speed up the civilisation of the country by giving the power of life and death over these natives to some assistant commissioner or district commissioner.

  845
  These people are to be deprived of the right to a jury and the right to a trial by a judge of assize which they hitherto enjoyed.
  I notice that already the death sentences in Southern Nigeria are appallingly large, larger, I think, in proportion to the population, than in any other of the Crown Colonies. In the last year for which I have figures, there were no fewer than seventy-four executions out of a population of less than 8,000,000. That is one to every 106,000. It was in this Colony that we had the public floggings which were referred to, I believe, last year. I do not think that the Report of the Colonial Office has ever been published. These were public floggings of clerks, native clerks no doubt, who were playing football in the market place. They were stripped naked and publicly flogged in sight of the residents, and it was generally stated there that this was because they refused to prostrate themselves before the magistrate. Whatever the opinion as to the efficacy of flogging as a punishment may be, the flogging of grown men, stripped naked, in a public place, is the sort of thing which we should be careful to refrain from encouraging. The only other matter to which I desire to refer is punitive expeditions, especially the one which was undertaken to avenge the death of the unfortunate Mr. Campbell, who met his death after conduct which, I am afraid, was provocative. At any rate, the result of that expedition was that 179 people were killed or wounded. I think it is carrying punitive measures much too far to make a murderous raid on the native population in order to assert the dignity of the white man, the white official. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that these officials should not have power to undertake punitive expeditions on their own responsibility, save where human life is absolutely in danger. If that is not the case, then they ought to refer to superior authority before they get power to do so, and no authority ought to be able to order a punitive expedition, if they are able to communicate directly with my right hon. Friend, without the consent of the Colonial Office.
  I make no apology for referring to these matters, because we have under the control of this country a vast black population. It is a very serious problem, and a very serious responsibility how we treat those people. I have a letter here from one who has resided long in those parts
  846
  and knows well the natives, and which finishes with this sentence, "The feeling against us is growing, in volume and in intensity, and we are sowing seeds that will bring a terrible harvest some day." I do not like to hear those things about my country, and about the Government of my country. As well as vast increases in rubber and cocoa and various other products which we get from those black populations, I would like to hear that we are growing also in the respect of the black people, and that we are becoming beloved by them and respected by them more and more as the days go by.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think that the Committee as a whole will agree with me when I venture to observe to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a matter of regret that the time allowed for this Vote is under the circumstances so short. I am quite well aware that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault. Circumstances have been against him I recognise. It was impossible, of course, for the question of South African affairs to be raised before the arrival of the dispatches. At the same time I think it is very unfortunate, and I hope that in future years Colonial affairs will be allowed to have a somewhat larger place in the Debates of this House than they have had in the last few years. Under those circumstances the remarks which I wish to make will not be ora rotundo, but rather in telegraphic style, and I will pick out a few points to deal with. The right hon. Gentleman began with an excursion of a somewhat provocative character into a matter of party controversy. Cabinet Ministers rush in where back benchers dare not tread. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into that except to say that I should not wonder but that it was really designed for his own party and intended to show that evil communications have not corrupted his good manners in regard to pure theories on the fiscal system, and that, in point of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was rather concerned with the position in which he finds himself as the representative in this House of the administration of a vast number of Dominions and Dependencies all up and down the globe, all owing allegiance to the British flag and all alike in this that they condemn with universal voice the fiscal system which obtains here. With that I leave that portion of the night hon. Gentleman's speech and I come to consider one or two of the details.

  847
  9.0 P.M.
  With regard to the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there are three observations which occur to me. The first is this, that while the right hon Gentleman showed a great deal of pride, justifiable pride, at the enormous growth and expansion of productivity all throughout the Empire and its Crown Colonies and Dependencies, and while lie paid tribute, as we all do, to the commercial foresight and prudence of those who have risked their capital to develop those enterprises, at the same time those people have had their virtue very largely rewarded in a pecuniary sense in many cases, but there are others without whose work the success of this matter would have been impossible. The foundations of this great and successful commercial enterprise lie in the work of those men of whom the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, spoke, I think, too lightly. It is to the patient, devoted, and unremitting toil of the servants of the Colonial Office, toil too often at the sacrifice of their health and too often quite inadequately rewarded so far as mere money goes, it is to the work of those men in the Colonial service this country owes a great debt of gratitude, and it is to them the enormous amount of commercial prosperity, in which the right hon. Gentleman gloried, is so largely due. In the second place, I should like to enter one little word of caution to some of those who may read that speech. After all it does not do to be too optimistic in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman spoke quite rightly of successful experiments in growing many different commodities all up and down the Empire. There is no doubt that things like rubber and cotton can be grown in a great many of our tropical dependencies, but it does not always follow that it is a practical commercial proposition to grow them, because, while the climate may be favourable and is favourable in many cases, rubber and cotton are things which are entirely dependent for successful commercial development on the presence of an adequate labour supply. You cannot grow them without labour. It is no use trying to imagine or leading people to imagine that a climate may be favourable for the development of industries if a labour supply is not forthcoming.
  The third observation of a general character which occurs to me is when one considers all this productivity, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, has not
  848
  the time come when we ought to do a little more than we do at the present moment towards encouraging that on a really scientific basis. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the work of the Imperial Institute. He alluded to the work, the great work, of the Imperial Department of Agriculture in the West Indies, and no one knows better than I do the great work it has performed there. The time, I suggest, has come when we ought to put this question of tropical agriculture on something of the same footing as, fortunately, owing to the generosity of individuals and with the help of the Government, the question of tropical medicines has been placed. I think the time has come when we ought to do something towards developing a college of tropical agriculture for the purpose not only of studying and training men for the best methods of production in tropical countries, but also a college which would act as a tropical research department with some British institutions like the Imperial institute and the Tropical School of Medicine. I believe the Imperial Department of Agriculture in the West Indies is a sort of example which might be a very suitable nucleus for a college of the kind. If you had research in botany, micrology and other things, and men being trained in scientific methods of agricultural development, you would be doing a great and very useful work. I certainly hope the idea will not be scouted by the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will be disposed to lend a kindly ear to the suggestion I am making to him. In regard to whaling, the right hon. Gentleman has, I think rightly, decided not to issue any more licences; but I think he will fail in his object unless he is at the same time taking steps to limit the number of whales that may be killed under any one of the existing licences. Otherwise it is merely a temptation to those who, by the accident of circumstances, find themselves in the position of monopolists, to kill the largest possible number of whales, or at any rate a larger number than they do at present. Therefore, I suggest it would be well, if possible, to impose sonic limitation on existing licensees as to the number of whales they are allowed to kill.
  The right hon. Gentleman said nothing with regard to railway development in the different Crown Colonies. It is true he made a full statement on that subject last year. There are, however, one or two

  849
  directions in which this work of development is actively going on at the present time, and about which it would be very interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some information. For instance, in Northern Nigeria there is a railway and a new extension. The Nigeria report is late this year, and the ordinary Colonial Office Report does not contain a great deal of information about railway development. Railway development, however, is a very good test of how a Colony is getting on, and it would be very interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information on this subject. There is also a projected railway development in Southern Nigeria, I understand. Last year the right hon. Gentleman told us that a new railway scheme was being undertaken in Nyasaland. I shall be glad if he can tell us something about that also. Possibly this information could be circulated in the form of a Paper. I will say nothing about Nigerian administration, except that I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the decentralisation of justice is a thing to be avoided at all costs—on the contrary, it is a great advantage in many ways that in dealing with a population of that kind your justice should be speedy, following quickly upon the offence. Natives understand that form of justice, and respect it very much more than the protracted forms to which we in this country have become accustomed by long association. In the article quoted just now it was stated that there was a scheme for altering the administrative areas in Nigeria. If the right hon. Gentleman could conveniently tell us something about that it would be of interest. I understand that it is proposed to make three Lieutenant-Governorships and to extend considerably the areas of the District Commissioners. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say something about sleeping sickness, and whether any fresh development in the research work of the Commission has taken place. It is too much to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with all these matters, but that is another subject on which, if the right hon. Gentleman could accelerate the production of Papers, the Committee would be glad to have further information.
  In regard to oil, both palm and mineral, in the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman has granted, he has laid himself open to the reproach that agreements
  850
  have been negotiated against which all the unofficial members of the Legislative Council have protested, and which have been supported in each case by the votes of the nominated members only. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman. I am not saying that he was not forced, by the position which the Admiralty rightly took up, to the conclusion of an agreement of that kind; but it is a little unfortunate that the Colonial Office should be driven into the position of having to rely solely on its nominated members in the Legislative Council. In the case of Trinidad there has been a great deal of local irritation because they were not consulted at all before the agreement was negotiated. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the prospect of dealing with a long standing difficulty and agitation in regard to the Municipality of Port of Spain. I am advised that the elective principle may possibly be gradually brought into operation in the near future. There is one other point upon which I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to say word, and which possibly the Committee may regard as something like King Charles's head. That is the question of cable rates to the West Indies. For, I think, eight years I have persistently made speeches on the Colonial Office Vote, asking the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors to do something towards reducing the excessive cable rates between this country and the West Indies. I do not Know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any comfort to give me to-night, but if after all these years he can promise some amelioration, these Colonies on whose behalf I have been speaking, will be grateful.
  Mr. POINTER: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) must have been very fortunate in the past. He has just told us that for eight consecutive years he has raised certain questions on the Colonial Office Vote. His experience is rather different from mine. It is two years since I had an opportunity of speaking on this Vote, and even now I have the opportunity only by promising to limit my remarks as nearly to ten minutes as possible. That in a Debate which ranges from making oil from nuts to the catching of whales is not a long time over which to spread oneself. With regard to the Municipality of Port of Spain, I have had many conversations with the right hon. Gentleman. A little while ago he cast upon the Legislative Council of Trinidad:

  851
  the responsibility, if not exactly of deciding, certainly of advising as to whether the Municipality of Port of Spain should be restored or not. The Legislative Council, after discussing the matter, have come to the unanimous decision that a step ought to be taken in that direction, and they have recommended that an elective council should be set up on the instalment plan; that is to say, the nominative members drop out each year, in 1917, the whole council will be of an elective character. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, having cast upon the Legislative Council the onus of giving advice, will act upon that advice without any unnecessary delay. There is the wider question of the franchise of the island. So far as I am personally concerned, I think it is time a step in that direction was taken. At the present time, the council is a partly nominated one, coupled, of course, with the official representatives. These do not in any sense represent the people of Trinidad. It may be, of course, that in the days when the council was first constituted that it was of a far more representative character than now. When you come to look around on the Government of the Island of Trinidad, I think many very sore spots will be found. The national character of the Government leaves very much to be desired, and this also applies to what may be termed the local government—or the substitute for it—in the island. There you have a number of local Road Boards whose activities are confined merely to making, or rather to the up-keep, of the roads that have been made by the central authority. Each of these districts is under the control of wardens.
  Anyone who reads the report will come to the conclusion that a serious alteration is required. Report after report makes the statement that the roads cannot be kept up from the money available, and dysentery, diarrhœa, typhoid, and many other diseases, are rife—are, indeed, rampant—in every one of these particular districts. All of this arises from the bad or impure character, or both, of the water supply. In the few minutes that I have at my disposal I cannot deal at length with any of these matters I am touching upon, but I do hope that so far as the Island of Trinidad is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will not lose sight of the fact that representative Government must
  852
  be something more than a sham and a mockery. If you turn, for instance, to the question of the Government in Jamaica, it will be found that you have a hybrid Legislative Council, composed partly of elective members and partly of officials of the local Government. It is true that the elective members are in a majority, but it is also true that the Governor has the power at any time to increase the official element and make the members superior in number to the elective members. That, after all, is not a very good way, it seems to me, to govern a country like Jamaica. I want also to press this further point. Sir Sidney Olivier, the late Governor, when he was giving evidence before the Royal Commission which sat quite recently upon indentured labour, made a very prominent point of this fact that there were in the island 127,000 small cultivators out of a total population of about 860,000. I began to think that Jamaica was going along when I found that 127,000 persons were interested in the tilling of the soil. Imagine my surprise when I found that out of that number, and even going outside and taking in the general population, only 27,000 persons are included in the franchise of the island which elects the elective representatives to the Legislative Council. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this hybrid arrangement in Jamaica may be all right as an experiment, but it ought not to be final, or even very much longer be continued. It ought to be looked upon as strictly a temporary measure, and we ought to advance beyond it as quickly as possible. The other point I want to raise is the question of indentured immigration. I ventured in this House three years ago to speak upon that matter shortly after the publication of the Report of the last Commission.
  Mr. MORRELL: Indentured immigration where?
  Mr. POINTER: In all the Colonies under the British Crown where it is in vogue. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Commission was composed of those either wholly representing the planters' interests or the official interest. It was so constituted that it could not by any stretch of the imagination come to any other decision than it did. Everyone who knew the composition of that Commission knew before hand the type of Report which would come. Labour was not represented, and

  853
  with the exception of men sent by the Trinidad Working Men's Association and by the East Indian community of that island no representative of labour even gave evidence before the Commission, or put before that Commission the views of the working men. How under these circumstances can you expect any other result than the one you have got? We have had seventy-five years in the West Indies of indentured immigrant labour. This to me is the supreme test: Here you have an expedient which was to be temporary. It was to help the planters out of the difficulty in which they were involved owing to the abolition of slavery, when this country of ours coupled with its good intentions and its good action as to the emancipation of the slave a total lack of guidance to the emancipated slaves, thereby causing friction between the old time planter and the old time slave, now converted into employer and employed. At least that was the relationship that was sought. For reasons which it is too long to explain to-night, the labourer would not work as a free man for the man he had to work for as a slave. There was a dearth of labour. We had the introduction of indentured labour with the set object of curing this. This to me, I say, is the supreme test: that after seventy-five years of this system of labour the planter is as much dependent upon it to-day as he was at the beginning.
  I could, if time permitted, give other aspects as showing the working of the system, and other things that need putting right. You will find that the indentured labourers spend a great proportion of their lives during the first few years of their period either in prison, because they refuse to work, Or in a hospital because they are sick, or being fetched back because they played truant, and want to get away. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned as a tremendous grievance, as he thought, the death-rate in Southern Nigeria, or, rather the number of murder cases there. He said, I think, that they numbered one murder case to every 136,000 of the population. What would he think of the state of affairs amongst the indentured labourers of Trinidad, where there is, as the last Return (1910–11) shows, thirty-three murders in the island, twenty-six of which were amongst the East Indian population. This means twenty-six for every 110,000 of the East Indian population. My hon. Friend deplored, and rightly deplored,
  854
  one murder amongst 136,000. If he has just cause for complaint what about those who take up the cudgels for the East Indian labourer, the man who was wrenched away from his native soil and put down upon foreign ground, where everything is strange to him, where the conditions of labour are strange, and where very often he is working amongst conditions different from those that were represented to him would be the case when he signed his contract and became an immigrant. Many of these points but for want of time could be brought out. I have no doubt that those concerned do their very best in difficult work under very difficult conditions; but I submit when you take people away from the environment which is surrounding them at home, and put them on a foreign soil, there are bound to be complications. Just let me take one point as an illustration. If you look at the Returns you will see that the number of illegitimate children, or the percentage of them, amongst the East Indians, is put at 87 per cent. Eighty-seven out of every hundred children born in Trinidad are put down as illegitimate. That, in my view, is not the proper way to speak of the matter at all. These people have their own peculiar customs and manners, and if they do not conform to our European ideas of marriage, they are to be regarded as producers of illegitimate children. I submit that that fact is eloquent of much more when the officials come to brand children as illegitimate, born in circumstances which according to the native idea is equivalent to our marriage system, and produces anomalies in various directions at which we cannot be very much surprised. These facts ought to be taken into very serious consideration.
  Let me make this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Trinidad and Jamaica are agricultural communities. So far as I can see notwithstanding the introduction of oil and pitch, they are likely to remain so. Agriculture must be their first charge, and I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman who suggested the establishment of a college for tropical agriculture. I go further, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take into his serious consideration whether the time has not now come in these islands in the West Indies, to settle once and for all, whether the tendency of the time has not proved that the concentration of a number of labourers upon one central estate should

  855
  be replaced by a system of peasant cultivation, and whether such a system is not much more suited to these islands. If that is so, I suggest he must also take into consideration the question of whether emigration should not in the near future cease, and the desirability of advising the responsible authorities to at once begin a reduction in the number of emigrants, and in Trinidad to reduce them, say by 200 per year, so that in twelve years the whole of the emigration shall have ceased, and in the meantime to prepare those responsible for agricultural industries there to accommodate themselves to a change whereby they will do away with immigrant labour in their agricultural system.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: I understand the Colonial Secretary Wants to answer the various points raised at half-past nine, and, therefore, I have only one minute in which to speak. I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House do really feel very much the way in which we are treated year after year upon the Colonial Office Vote. We have always attempted in every way to assist the Government on foreign questions and on Colonial matters, and not to embarrass them in any shape or form, but we are treated no better, and year after year there is no time given to us to raise important questions. To-day we have had a Debate which in itself is short enough. It only began half an hour after the usual time, owing to circumstances, I admit, over which the Colonial Secretary had no control. It concludes at ten o'clock, again owing to circumstances over which he has no control. But the fact remains that the Government do nothing to give us adequate time. Those of us who study these things with considerable assiduity wish to bring many matters of the Crown Colony Government and others before the Committee, but there is no time to do so. I venture to say it is not treating the House of Commons with respect that year after year this should happen. If it occurred only one year it would not be so bad, but ever since I have been a Member of the House, though that is not a long time, the same thing has occurred, and on no occasion does the Government seem inclined to give us fair treatment. This is not treating the Crown Colonies and the people working there in the interests of this country with that respect with which they should be treated. I have many questions to raise with regard to the conditions
  856
  in Africa, and in other Colonies, but there is no time. There are people in East Africa looking forward with interest to these questions being raised, but because the Government are pressed for time I have only one minute left to me. I venture to protest against that state of things, and I ask the Colonial Secretary that owing to this gross treatment and scandalous treatment he should grant us a further day, or a portion of a day, for the adequate discussion of these matters. This is not the first time it has happened, and I venture to suggest it would be only meeting us on fair ground to give us another few hours to bring forward the matters we have for discussion.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think it is better to intervene now to answer some of the questions raised. I feel, in courtesy, I must try to deal with many of the topics raised. I should like to say at once as to the question of time, of course I do not control these things at all. This year it was impossible to take the Colonial Office Vote earlier owing to the troubles in South Africa, because it was obvious we had to wait for the arrival of Lord Gladstone's dispatches. We took this Vote at the earliest possible time, but it undoubtedly coincides with the twentieth day of Supply on which we have to close our Debate at ten o'clock.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: I quite understand the Colonial Secretary is not responsible personally for what occurred, but will he ask the Government to see that a few hours more are given another day?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am afraid than would be very difficult, but I will mention what the hon. Gentleman has said. The fixing of the day for any particular Vote lies with the Opposition and quite rightly. If they asked for the Colonial Office Vote earlier in the year I should regret it, because it would not allow so wide a field for discussion. At any time of the year, and on any day they require, they can have the Colonial Office Vote.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is always in July.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I shall endeavour to reply to some of the very numerous questions put to me, although I do not think I can hope to cover them all. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) thought I might have done

  857
  more in the restriction of the liquor traffic on the West Coast of Africa. I do not think I need answer his observations on the subject of the Lever Palm Oil Concessions, for he admitted himself he was not familiar with the circumstances, and it would be very easy for anyone who understands the facts to realise that from the speech he made. But I should like to say I have within the last year increased the spirit duties in many of our West African Colonies, and, what is more, I have extended the area of prohibition, which I believe will be of great. advantage to the natives. The hon. Member and also my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) both spoke of punitive expeditions, and especially of the punitive expedition in Northern Nigeria in connection with the death of Mr. Campbell. That was not originally a punitive expedition, but was a search and rescue expedition, because it was not until after it, started that it became known that Mr. Campbell was dead. When the mutilated body was found, in my opinion the villagers responsible were rightly punished. Of course it is true they offered a very severe resistance. We must all regret the number of the casualties, but there is some reason for believing that those casualties have been exaggerated. Our force consisted of only ninety men. There were few casualties among them, and 1 believe not more than 2,000 rounds were fired, but nobody can be limited by rules when there is a collision between natives and troops. It is essential for the safety of others that the murderer of an Englishman should be swiftly punished. It is impossible when such collisions occur that troops should be halted until someone gets to a telegraph, perhaps hundreds of miles away, and consults me. The officer in charge must act upon his judgment and discretion. In reference to what my hon. Friend said as to Mr. Campbell's conduct it is not true that his conduct was provocative. There was some superstitious misunderstanding from the fact that he was marking the boundaries with flags, and he was quite unaware of the suspicion which this gave rise to, and had he marked them with stones I do not believe there would have been any trouble. However, as this unhappy chapter has been closed, I do not want to say anything more on this matter, and I cannot blame the discretion of those who were acting under such very difficult circumstances. It is well known that I am most anxious that
  858
  punitive patrols should be few and far between.
  With regard to the flogging incident, the story has been told before. Two native clerks had been kicking a football through the stalls of the market place where they had created much disturbance and done much damage. The head men of the natives complained to the Governors, who issued a notice warning the people against these disorderly proceedings, and gave special notice that if the rules were broken again the disorderly people would be arrested and dealt with by the native Court. These two persons chose to disobey these orders and they were arrested. It is true that they were both under notice to leave their employment on the railway. They were tried by the native Courts, and were sentenced to receive ten strokes in the market place as a public warning to others not to break these rules. There is no truth in the story which has been constantly repeated that a Resident struck them over the shoulders with a cane nor in the suggestion that any of these natives had been ordered to practice prostration before the local officers. With regard to Southern Nigeria, I have stated in this House on more than one occasion that I was convinced that the House Rule Ordinance originally passed in 1901 had led to certain abuses, and was in urgent need of amendment. Amendments which did deal with what I believe were the most serious objections to the law were made by me last year or the year before; but I recognised that the whole question of the retention of the law in any shape requires early consideration, and this was one of the important matters which T remitted to the Governor of the two Nigerias, and I asked him to make a special report to me upon it. Sir Frederick Lugard has furnished me with a full report, together with his recommendations on this subject. I have not yet had time to come to a final decision on the details. Whatever steps I take will be calculated to remove the objectionable features of the old law without interfering unduly with the legitimate tribal authority of the native chiefs, which it is important to preserve. The hon. Member for North Down has bespoken rev friendship for a college for tropical agriculture. It is indeed a most interesting proposal, and may tell him at once that it has my sympathy, but that must not be assumed to carry with it any financial support which I may not find myself able to afford.

  859
  All these scientific inquiries have added greatly to the prosperity and the future development of tropical lands. There has been much discussion as to the location of the college, and as to whether it should be established in the West Indies, or whether it should be in Ceylon.
  In regard to whales, I am afraid the suggestion to limit the number caught by each whaler would be difficult, but there is a practical limitation by the number of factories which can deal with only a certain number of whales at a time and we know pretty well what is the utmost catch that can possibly be dealt with. I have been asked questions about railway extensions in East and West Africa. I dealt fully with that question last year, and I did not intend this afternoon to touch it again. I will say, however, with reference to the Bauchi Railway I am happy to say that I have been able to extend it for another fifty miles, and I am taking it up the Bauchi Escarpment, where I hope it will be of further service to the tin mines, and possibly lead to the establishment of a sanatorium for West Africa. With regard to Nyasaland most important extensions of the railway are being made down the Zambesi. The contract has already been signed. This is more important in view of the fact that the Shiré river is becoming less and less navigable every year, and Nyasaland is becoming more and more productive every year. I think the arrangement made with a Portuguese Company for an extension from the Zambesi to Beira, and the arrangement of our own as to repurchase of the lands granted in former times to the Shire Highlands Railway, have been a real advantage to Nyasaland, of which the full fruits cannot be gathered until the railway is finally completed. I know there are other railway projects in the air, but they have not gone further than that, and I am not in a position to speak about them with any confidence at this moment.
  Sleeping sickness has also been mentioned. The hon. Member who raised this question is probably aware that I have just appointed a Committee to inquire into the very vexed question as to what are the parts played by wild animals and tsetse flies in Africa in spreading trypanosome infections of man and stock, whether it is necessary to destroy the wild animals altogether or only in part, or whether it is necessary to destroy them at all.
  860
  I had the joy of securing the great services of the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, both as a lawyer, a man of Colonial experience, and as a first-rate sportsman, and I have been happy in obtaining Lord Desart as Chairman to take his place, and, if hon. Gentlemen will look at the names of the Committee, I think they will agree that it is an exceedingly strong one, composed as it is of the best scientists dealing with questions of medicine and natural history. The hon. Gentleman asked for a. little more information about sleeping sickness. If he is interested in the subject, he will perhaps refer to the publications of the Sleeping Sickness Bureau, which are most admirable in every way.
  The hon. Member then made an appeal to me to do something for the West Indies in the matter of cable rates. He rightly said that they suffered very greatly from the present rates. The rates vary from the West Indian Islands to England and rice versâ from 4s. 2d. up to 5s. 6d. a word. That, I admit, is crushing to telegraphic communication and, indeed, to commercial development. I have been convinced of that for a very long time, and I have entered into some very careful negotiations with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel) to see what we could do in this matter. The hon. Member knows that it is not very easy to get money out of the Treasury, or out of any people who have to supply it for this purpose, but we have finally concluded an arrangement. At the present time, the West Indian Islands contribute a subsidy of £10,300 a year for the cable. It was quite unreasonable, in my view, to ask them for more, but if you were to get better terms more subsidy had got to be found. It turned out that we could get better terms by adding another £16,000 to that subsidy, and that has been found, half by the British Government and half, as I know by a telegram received this afternoon from Mr. Borden, by the Canadian Government. Now let me tell the hon. Member what we are going to get by that. Of course, all this is subject to the assumption that the West Indian Islands will be willing to continue their subsidy of £10,300 a year, as they obviously will be if they are going to get better terms. The rate at present varies from 4s. 2d. to 5s. 6d. per word, and by this new subsidy we are going to reduce the rate between the West Indies and the United Kingdom to 2s. 6d. per word throughout, which is a reduction of more

  861
  than half in some cases. The company are going to continue a deferred rate for plain language telegrams at half the normal rate.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At 1s. 3d.?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes. They are going to reduce the Press rate to half the new ordinary rate without deferment, and that will be a great advantage both to the Press here and in the West Indies. The company also gave us an undertaking that they will retain an absolutely British directorate and management. Those are, I think, the facts relating to the telegraph, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member will think that his constant appeal has not fallen on deaf ears, and I believe that the West Indies will really be surprised at the excellence of the terms which have been secured for them, and the very great reduction that has been made. I ought also to say that the existing rates between the West Indian Islands themselves are to be reduced to half with a maximum of 1s. 3d. a word and a minimum charge of 1s. per telegram. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Pointer) referred to the question of an elected municipality for the Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. There was, as he pointed out, recently a resolution passed by the Legislative Council that the Port-of-Spain Municipality should have a restoration of its electoral basis. I have always said this was a matter which ought to be discussed and recommended to me by that body, and, having said so, I have no intention of shirking the result which naturally flows from such a suggestion, and I have already intimated to the Governor my agreement with the proposals which have been made.
  Mr. POINTER: In the way they were made?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, the franchise which is to be used for the purpose of the qualification of the Members will have to be considered by a Committee with some other details, but I assume from what has taken place in the Legislative Council that the leaders of the community are convinced that the time has now arrived for a restoration of an electoral municipality. It is to become wholly elected only at the end of four years. It is to be a gradual process. The appointment of the chief Commissioner is to remain in the hands of the Governor until the fully elected council has been completed. The official members of the Legislative
  862
  Council were left to vote as they please, and it was carried by eight to five. I cannot, I am afraid, discuss the whole question of the constitution of Jamaica, to-night, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Member's views of which I have been very conscious for the last two years. With regard to the question of indentured labour, I believe that nothing can give more satisfaction, or give us really a sounder view of what the situation is than the step which has been taken by the Indian Government with my full concurrence. The Government are sending out an unofficial Indian gentleman of position, and he is going round all the Colonies in which we employ indentured labour in order to inquire into the whole case and into the circumstances of the labour. He does not report to me, but to the Government of India who are responsible for the indentured coolies. He will be speaking entirely in their interests, and I am quite certain that we shall be better able to judge the position and what our duties are to indentured labourers who come from India when we have obtained his report.
  Mr. POINTER: Can you give us his name?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Mr. Chinmaulal. I think that I have now dealt with all the questions which have been put to me, or at least most of them.
  Sir G. PARKER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the concession obtained by Messrs. Lever Bros.?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, I have not, and it was obvious to me from the hon. Baronet's remarks that he was not well acquainted with the circumstances of the concession which was given to them, or of the whole of the conditions; otherwise, he would never have made the remarks he did about the natives and their machinery. The only thing the natives are prevented from using is the depericarping machine, and they have never even heard of it. It is quite a new machine. But they can continue to use any machinery they have got for nut or kernel cracking.
  Sir G. PARKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I did not put forward these criticisms as my own, I drew his attention to the fact that these things had been stated in the Press, and that I thought it only fair he should

  863
  give to the Committee his reply to those criticisms which were universal in a certain section of the Press.
  Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member's Leader said he was satisfied with the conditions of the concessions, he only objected to the way in which I had introduced the subject to the House and not to the concessions themselves. The fact is that the natives in the places where the Lever and other concessions apply, are going to get a new market for their nuts. They are going to lose no land and no farms, but they will be able to sell their produce to men who are anxious to buy. It seems to me whether they are selling to Lever or to some competitor outside the circle, the whole project of these concessions will be an enormous boom to the purchaser.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to withdraw my Amendment, as I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that it is the intention of the Government to effect a further reduction of troops as soon as poossible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I think it is extremely unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has left so little time for persons who have taken considerable interest in and trouble to investigate this Lever business, and who are prepared to talk upon it, to express their views to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman challenged me with three questions which he asked me to answer. I would have been pleased to answer them but, unfortunately, he has left me no opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. HARCOURT: The moment I challenged, the hon. Member left the House, and he only returned a short time ago.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman is not accurate, and I can call as witness the Chairman of the Committee, who told me that it was of no use in the least my trying to speak, as the right hon. Gentleman must get in another speech.
  The fact is the right hon. Gentleman first made a long speech, then he was called upon a second time, and now he has just concluded his third speech. The first speech lasted an hour and ten minutes, the second occupied twenty minutes, and the third another half-hour. The Chairman assured me that he would try to give me an opportunity if he could, but I have been waiting for a long time, and the only thing I can say is that I have had to listen to the third speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not afraid of meeting him. He challenged me to answer his questions, and, although it is customary on these occasions for the Secretary of State to answer questions which are put to him by private Members I will reverse that custom, and I will answer his questions, I hope in a clearer and more satisfactory way than he is accustomed to do. I cannot, of course, do it to-night, but I may have an opportunity on the Appropriation Bill, and, if necessary, I will defer my holiday provided the right hon. Gentleman will agree to defer his, so that we can have this matter out.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER(seated and covered): I desire to call your attention, Mr. Whitley, to the fact that this door (pointing to the door leading to the "No" Lobby) was locked some time ago, and that the door opposite has been open until just now. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister has just gone through."] I was unable to get into the "No" Lobby while hon. Members were going into the other Lobby.
  The CHAIRMAN: The doors were locked the moment I gave the word.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The "No" Lobby door was locked the moment you gave the word, but the other door was open until a moment ago. It is a scandal.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are there any Members locked in the bath-room?
  Ayes, 272; Noes, 76.

  Division No. 241.]

  AYES.

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Armitage, Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Arnold, Sydney

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barnston, Harry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Barton, William

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St, Geo.)

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Shee, James John

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hinds, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Boles, Lt.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brace, William

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Horner, A. L.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Issacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Keating, Matthew

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Hey wood)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, Michael

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Clough, William

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cowan, W. N.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Cullinan, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowlands, James

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

  Maclean, Donald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

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

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Delany, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Dillon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Doris, William

  Manfield, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Snowden, Philip

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Martin, Joseph

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Firench, Peter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Tennant, Harold John

  Field, William

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mooney, John J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  France, G. A.

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Morison, Hector

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Glanville, Harold James

  Muldoon, John

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Munro, Robert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Waring, Walter,

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Webb, H.

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

  Nellson, Francis

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hackett, John

  Norton, Captain -Cecil W.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Malley, William

  866

  867

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bird, Alfred

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Blair, Reginald

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Royds, Edmund

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Boyton, James

  Grant, James Augustus

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cautley, H. S.

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hills, J. W.

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hill-Wood, S.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., South port)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalzlel, Davlson (Brixton)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Falle, B. G.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hunt and Mr. R. M'Neill.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, Haltord J.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  It being after Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each class of the Civil Service Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy and the Army (including Ordnance Factories), the Revenue Departments and Civil Services (Excesses), 1911–12, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

  Class I.
  "That a sum not exceeding £886,312, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  10.

  Public Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary Sum)

  8,000

  11.

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  125,900

  12.

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  38,478

  13.

  Peterhead Harbour

  22,000

  14.

  Rates on Government Property

  452,500

  15.

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  171,613

  16.

  Railways, Ireland (including a Supplementary Sum of £23,930)

  65,346

  17.

  The Palace of Peace, The Hague

  2,475

  £886,312"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 144.

  Division No. 242.]

  AYES.

  [10.12 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, Robert

  Barnes, George N.

  Adamson, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barton, W.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Alden, Percy

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Beck, Arthur

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hodge, John

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Brace, William

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon, John

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Buxton, Rt. Han. S. C. (Poplar)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Reddy, Michael

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Kelly, Edward

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Clough, William

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crick lade)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir John M. (Tyneside)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Cullinan, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rowlands, James

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  De Forest, Baron

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

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Delany, William

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

  Dillon, John

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shortt, Edward

  Doris, William

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duffy, William J.

  Manfield, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Snow den, Philip

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Martin, Joseph

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, Harold John

  Field, William

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, James Henry

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, George Hay

  Toulmin, Sir George

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Morrell, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Morison, Hector

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Gill, A. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Muldoon, John

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Glanville, H. J.

  Munro, Robert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Waring, Walter

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nellson, Francis

  Webb, H.

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hackett, J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hancock, John George

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Harmsworth Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hay den, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  870

  871

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

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

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Han. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Royds, Edmund

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Blair, Reginald

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

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

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bum, Colonel C. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cassel, Felix

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Lancs.,Ormskirk)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cave, George

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Home, E. (Surrey, Gulldford)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kerr-Smlley, Peter Kerr

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tulllbardine, Marquess of

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Dlckson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwlch)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Younger, Sir George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ernest Craig and Mr. Butler Lloyd.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Class II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,030,173 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 expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:£

  £

  1. House of Lords Offices

  12,037

  2. House of Commons

  208,322

  3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  59,059

  4. Home Office

  177,613

  5. Foreign Office

  39,730

  7. Privy Council Office

  5,545

  8. Board of Trade

  236,390

  9. Mercantile Marine Services

  84,424

  10. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  4

  £

  11. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (Supplementary sum)

  10

  12. Charity Commission

  16,000

  13. Government Chemist

  11,210

  14. Civil Service Commission

  29,825

  15. Exchequer and Audit Department

  41,265

  16. Friendly Societies Registry

  9,156

  18. Lunacy Commission, England

  12,100

  18A. Board of Control (Mental Deficiency), England

  3,000

  19. The Mint

  35

  20. National Debt Office

  7,583

  21. Public Record Office

  15,135

  22. Public Works Loan Commission

  23

  23. Registrar-General's Office, England

  26,535

  £

  24. Stationery and Printing

  527,708

  25. Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues

  12,850

  26. Office of Works and Public Buildings

  94,300

  27. Secret Service

  23,000

  Scotland.

  28. Secretary for Scotland's Office

  9,556

  29. Board of Agriculture, Scotland (Supplementary sum)

  4,530

  30. Fishery Board

  15,553

  31. Lunacy Commission

  3,420

  32. Registrar-General's Office

  3,715

  33. Local Government Board

  13,178

  Ireland.

  34. Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

  2,054

  35. Chief Secretary for Ireland

  16,141

  £

  36. Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (including a Supplementary sum of £25,000)

  75,497

  37. Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,257

  38. Congested Districts Board for Ireland (Grants in Aid) (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

  106,760

  39. Local Government Board

  65,586

  40. Public Record Office

  4,706

  41. Public Works Office

  26,578

  42. Registrar General's Office

  7,714

  43. Valuation and Boundary Survey

  22,069

  £2,030,173"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 243.]

  AYES.

  [10.22 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

  A damson, William

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gulland, John W.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hackett, J.

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hancock, John George

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Cowan, William Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Armitage, R.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cullinan, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hayward, Evan

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  De Forest, Baron

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Bar ran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barton, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hinds, John

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Doris, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duffy, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Bentham, G. J.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Brace, William

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brady, P. J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Field, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Kelly, Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Glanville, H. J.

  King, J.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Leach, Charles

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehy, David

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  O'Shee, James John

  Snowden, Philip

  McGhee, Richard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Maclean, Donald

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Sutton, J. E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Manfield, Harry

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Radford, G. H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Martin, Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Meagher, Michael

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Waring, Walter

  Molloy, M.

  Reddy, Michael

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Molten, Percy Alport

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Webb, H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Mooney, John J.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon, Sir Thomas P.

  Morrell, Philip

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Morison, Hector

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Munro, R.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roch, Walter F.

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rowlands, James

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Gretton, John

  Astor, Waldorf

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (BuryS.Edmunds)

  Baird, J. L.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks,Abingdon)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton, Wilts)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hills, John Waller

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Fell, Arthur

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Bird, A.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hope, James Fitzelan (Sheffield)

  Blair, Reginald

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Boyton, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gardner, Ernest

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Burn, Colonel

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Cassel, Felix

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Cave, George

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Clay, Captains H. H. Spender

  Grant, J. A.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  876

  877

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, N.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Royds, Edmund

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  O'Neill, Hon, A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Younger, Sir George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Talbot, Lord E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel Hickman and Captain Campbell.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Class III.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,520,341, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Law Charges

  43,604

  2. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  25,016

  3. Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal

  178,214

  4. Land Registry

  24,089

  5. Public Trustee

  10

  6. County Courts

  3,000

  7. Police, England and Wales

  60,436

  8. Prisons, England and the Colonies

  375,800

  9. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  150,392

  10. Criminal Lunatic Asylums, England

  32,916

  Scotland.

  11. Law Charges and Courts of Law

  51,500

  12. Scottish Land Court

  6,000

  13. Register House, Edinburgh

  25,544

  14. Prisons

  67,767

  Ireland.

  15. Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  35,488

  16. Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

  67,047

  17. Irish Land Commission

  397,683

  18. County Court Officers, etc.

  70,615

  19. Dublin Metropolitan Police

  37,787

  20. Royal Irish Constabulary

  743,421

  21. Prisons

  68,346

  22. Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  51,800

  23. Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,866

  £2,520,341"

  Class IV.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,251,680, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1 Board of Education

  9,260,311

  1 Board of Education (Supplementary sum)

  150,000

  2 British Museum

  117,508

  3 National Gallery (including a Supplementary sum of £1,200)

  15,275

  4 National Portrait Gallery

  2,677

  5 Wallace Collection (including a Supplementary sum of £400)

  4,077

  5A Stafford House

  2,600

  6 Scientific Investigation, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)

  60,708

  7 Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  214,300

  £

  8 Public Education, Scotland

  1,469,622

  9 National Galleries, Scotland

  4,281

  Ireland.

  10. Public Education

  772,396

  11 Endowed Schools Commissioners

  510

  12 National Gallery

  1,165

  13 Science and Art

  110,450

  14 Universities and Colleges

  65,800

  £12,251,680"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 149.

  Division No. 244.]

  AYES.

  [10.33 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dillon, John

  King, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Adamson, William

  Doris, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A, (Donegal, West)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Leach, Charles

  Alden, Percy

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Armitage, R.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Arnold, Sydney

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  McGhee, Richard

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  France, G. A.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Barnes, George N.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barton, William

  Glanville, Harold James

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Manfield, Harry

  Bentham, G. J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Boland, John Pius

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Martin, J.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meagher, Michael

  Brace, William

  Hackett, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Molloy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Bytes, Sir William Pollard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Morison, Hector

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Muldoon, John

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Munro, Robert

  Chapple, Dr. William

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hewart, Gordon

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hinds, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Cotton, William Francis

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cullinan, J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Dowd, John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Grady, James

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

  Jones, W. S. Glyn-(T. H'mts., Stepney)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Davies, James Arthur

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  De Forest, Baron

  Keating, Mathew

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

  Delany, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Shee, James John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Outhwalte, R. L.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Robinson, Sidney

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Parker, James (Halifax

  Roth, Walter F.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philip

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Rowlands, James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wardle, George J.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Waring, Walter

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Webb, H.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Sheehy, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Shortt, Edward

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Reddy, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Redmond, John. E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Snowden, Philip

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Richardson, Albion, (Peckham)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutton, John E.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Nottingham

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Baird, J. L.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

  Gilmour, Captain J.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Halt, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Royds, Edmund

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyton, James

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Horner, A. L.

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lyttelten, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John, (Stalybridge)

  Falle, B. G.

  MacCaw, W. J. MacGeagh

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Dalrymple and Mr. Hamersley.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class V.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £971,349, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will came in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Diplomatic and Consular Services

  430,356

  2. Colonial Services

  530,146

  3. Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  9,847

  4. Cyprus (Grant-in-Aid)

  1,000

  £971,349."

  Class VI.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £431,191, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  413,885

  1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances (Supplementary sum)

  1,516

  2. Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances

  264

  £

  3. Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  873

  4. Friendly Societies' Deficiencies

  14,653

  £431,191"

  Class VII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £188,618, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

  £

  1. Temporary Commissions

  32,000

  2. Miscellaneous Expenses

  3,951

  3. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  4,058

  4. Ireland Development Grant

  20,000

  5. International Exhibitions

  18,900

  6. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  9,709

  7. Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

  100,000

  £188,618"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 147.

  Division No. 245.]

  AYES.

  [10.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boland, John Pius

  Cowan, W. H.

  Adamson, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Cullinan, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brace, William

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Alden, Percy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy, (Lincs., Louth)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dawes, J. A.

  Armitage, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  De Forest, Baron

  Arnold, Sydney

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Delany, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Bytes, Sir William Pollard

  Devlin, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dillon, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Doris, W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barton, W.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Field, William

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

  Redmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  France, G. A.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Manfield, Harry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Robinson, Sidney

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Martin, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Guiland, John William

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molloy, M.

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

  Hackett, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-an-Tees)

  Hancock, John George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morgan, George Hay

  Scott, A. MacCallum, (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morison, Hector

  Sheehy, David

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shortt, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Muldoon, John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Hayward, Evan

  Munro, R.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N)

  Munro Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Neilson, Francis

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hewart, Gordon

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sutton, John E.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hogue, James Myles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T.H'mts., Stepney

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Webb, H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  King, J.

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williamson, Sir A.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Leach, Charles

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Radford, G. H.

  Young, William (Perth, E.)

  London, T.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  McGhee, Richard

  Reddy, Michael

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cassel, Felix

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cautley, H. S.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Cave, George

  Baird, J. L.

  Bird, A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyle, William

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Boyton, J.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Barnston, Harry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clyde, James Avon

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  886

  887

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Royds, Edmund

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Horner, Andrew Long

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  MacCaw. Wm. J. MacMeagh

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Grant, James Augustus

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tullibardlne, Marquess of

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

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

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Younger, Sir George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Harris and Mr. C. G. Hamilton.

  Hills, John Waller

  Rawlinson, Frederick Peel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class VIII.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,178,273, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

  £

  1. Old Age Pensions

  7,600,000

  2. National Health Insurance, Joint Committee

  14,877

  3. National Health Insurance Commission (England)

  2,047,493

  4. National Health Insurance Commission (Wales)

  132,250

  5. National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland)

  274,018

  6. National Health Insurance Commission (Ireland)

  109,260

  7. Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance

  684,525

  8. National Insurance Audit Department

  66,200

  £

  9. National Health Insurance (Special Grants) (including a Supplementary sum of £22,650)

  1,889,650

  10. Treatment of Tuberculosis (Special Grants) (including a Supplementary sum of £180,000)

  305,000

  11. Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board

  45,000

  £13,178,273"

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £27,940,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

  £

  3. Medical Establishments and services

  272,200

  4. Martial Law

  3,400

  5. Educational Services

  159,700

  6. Scientific Services

  66,200

  £

  7. Royal Naval Reserves

  476,000

  8. Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Material

  5,851,600

  8. Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work

  12,226,300

  9. Naval Armaments

  4,396,000

  10. Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

  3,448,000

  £

  11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  590,700

  12. Admiralty Office

  450,000

  £27,940,100"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 379; Noes, 39.

  Division No. 246.]

  AYES.

  [10.54 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clancy, J. Joseph

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Armitage, Robert

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Grant, J. A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Granville (Peterborough)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Greig Col. J. W.

  Baird, J. L.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gretton, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Gulland, John William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Cullinan, John

  Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne, Sussex)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hackett, John

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Barlow, Montague, (Salford, South)

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

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Barnston, Harry

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Barran, Rowland, Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barton, W.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks,Abingdon)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Dillon, John

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Doris, W.

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

  Bentick, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hewart, Gordon

  Bird, A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Blair, Reginald

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Boland, John Pius

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hinds, John

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Boyton, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Essex, Sir Walter Richard

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fell, Arthur

  Horner, A. L.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hughes, S. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Field, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Cassel, Felix

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Cave, George

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Joyce, Michael

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Keating, Matthew

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  France, G. A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Kelly, Edward

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Dowd, John

  Shortt, Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Leach, Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Lee, Arthur H.

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  O'Shee, James John

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Lundon, T.

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Maclean, Donald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Manfield, Harry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Waring, Walter

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Reddy, Michael

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Webb, H.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Malloy, M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roch, Walter F.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Ralleston, Sir John

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

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morison, Hector

  Rowlands, James

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Royds, Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Muldoon, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Munro, R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

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

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

  Yale, Colonel C. E.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Nield, Herbert

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Barnes, George N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Brace, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sutton, J. E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  King, J.

  Thomas, J. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Clough, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wardle, George J.

  De Forest, Baron

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gill, A. H.

  Martin, Joseph

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Grady, James

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. Pointer.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,227,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:—

  2. Medical Establishment

  £

  Pay, etc.

  440,000

  3. Special Reserve

  715,000

  4. Territorial Forces

  2,815,000

  5. Establishments for Military Education

  146,000

  6. Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  1,694,000

  8. Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

  720,000

  9. Armaments, Aviation, and Engineer Stores

  1,677,000

  11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  66,000

  13. Half Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers

  1,849,000

  14. Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Men, etc.

  1,950,000

  15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities

  140,000

  Ordnance Factories

  15,000

  £12,227,000"

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,098,720, 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 Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

  £

  1. Customs and Excise

  …

  1,538,750

  2. Inland Revenue

  …

  1,194,130

  3. Post Office

  …

  13,365,840

  £16,098,720"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 147.

  Division No. 247.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Adamson, William

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Alden, Percy

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Field, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Armitage, R.

  Clough, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Goldstone, Frank

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Barnes, George N.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Cullinan, John

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

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

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

  Barton, W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gulland, John William

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

  Hackett, J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hancock, John George

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boland, John Pius

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Dillon, John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Brace, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Brady, P. J.

  Doris, William

  Hayward, Evan

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duffy, William J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Hewart, Gordon

  Morgan, George Hay

  Robinson, Sidney

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Hinds, John

  Morison, Hector

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Muldoon, John

  Rowlands, James

  Hogge, James Myles

  Munro, Robert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

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

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Jones, Rt.Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Shortt, Edward

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Snowden, Philip

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  King, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  O'Grady, James

  Sutherland, John E.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Leach, Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, J. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lundon, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  McGhee, Richard

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Maclean, Donald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pringle, William M. R.

  While, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradestont)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Manfield, Harry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Reddy, Michael

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  Martin, Joseph

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. Webb.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Archer-Shee, Major

  Cautley, H. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cave, George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Baird, J. L.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Barnston, Harry

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Grant, J. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Greene, W, R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Bird, Alfred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hamersley, Alfred St George

  Blair, Reginald

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Boyton, James

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  896

  897

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Nield, Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lloyd, George Butle (Shrewsbury)

  Rolleston, Sir John

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Locker-Lampoon, O (Ramsey)

  Royds, Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

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

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Younger, Sir George

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Lewisham and Capt. Spender Clay.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), 1911–12.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £461 6s. 4d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1912, namely:

  Class II.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Vote 9. Mercantile Marine Services

  10

  0

  0

  Class III.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Vote 3. Supreme Court of Judicature

  451

  6

  4

  £461

  6

  4"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 140.

  Division No. 248.]

  AYES.

  [11.21 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  French, Peter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Field, William

  Adamson, William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Alden, Percy

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Armitage, R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goldstone, Frank

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gulland, John William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cullinan, John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

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

  Hackett, John

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hancock, John George

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barton, William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  De Forest, Baron

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Delany, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Boland, John Pius

  Dillon, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Doris, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Brace, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hinds, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hodge, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Rowlands, James

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

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Neilson, Francis

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Joyce, Michael

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Kelly, Edward

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sheehy, David

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  King, Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Dowd, John

  Snowden, Philip

  Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Grady, James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Leach, Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Sutherland, John E.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  O'Shee, James John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lundon, Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Thomas, J. H.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  McGhee, Richard

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Waring, Walter

  Manfield, Harry

  Radford, G. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Martin, J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Molloy, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morison, Hector

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Muldoon, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. Webb.

  Munro, R.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Archer-Shee, Major

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Grant, J. A.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gretton, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Barnston, Harry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hamersley, Alfred St George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Bird, A.

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Falle, B. G.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fell, Arthur

  Hills, John Waller

  Boyton, James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Cassel, Felix

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Cautley, H. S.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Cave, George

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Kerry, Earl of

  900

  901

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Valentia, Viscount

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Royds, Edmund

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Nield, Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Younger, Sir George

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. R. M'Neill and Sir R. Baker.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported that the Committee had come to several Resolutions.
  Ordered, That the Report be received upon Monday next, 4th August.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE (1911–12).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1912, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not ex-

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1911–12. Votes

  Difference between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, &c., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

  24,683

  7

  9

  —

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  —

  104,805

  15

  3

  3

  Medical Establishments anti Services

  11,878

  1

  10

  —

  4

  Martial Law

  130

  1

  10

  —

  5

  Educational Services

  2,595

  7

  11

  —

  6

  Scientific Services

  —

  1,104

  18

  4

  8

  Royal Naval Reserves

  641

  3

  1

  —

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

  I. Personnel

  18,919

  1

  5

  —

  II. Matériel

  —

  149,967

  14

  3

  III. Contract Work

  2,396,198

  6

  4

  —

  9

  Naval Armaments

  —

  79,266

  6

  9

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

  —

  102,229

  8

  11

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  26,360

  19

  0

  12

  Admiralty Office

  457

  4

  7

  —

  13

  Half Pay and Retired Pay

  —

  10,999

  19

  8

  ceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  2,466,187

  16

  3

  Total Deficits

  …

  487,944

  15

  4

  Net Surplus

  …

  £1,978,243

  0

  11

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

  SCHEDULE—continued.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1911–12. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  14

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  10,685

  1

  6

  —

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities

  —

  11,149

  4

  1

  —

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  —

  2,060

  9

  1

  Total

  2,466,187

  16

  3

  487,944

  15

  4

  Net Surplus

  £1,978,243 0 11

  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1912, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  Schedule.

  Number of Vote.

  Army Services, 1911–12. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, &c, of the Army

  102,184

  17

  4

  —

  2

  Medical Establishment: Pay, &c.

  —

  5,219

  0

  5.

  3

  Special Reserve

  32,020

  6

  5

  —

  4

  Territorial Forces

  78.603

  9

  0

  —

  5

  Establishments for Military Education

  1,079

  5

  9

  —

  6

  Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  —

  42,448

  3

  9

  7

  Supplies and Clothing

  —

  118,824

  4

  0

  8

  Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

  —

  103,344

  19

  5

  9

  Armaments and Engineer Stores

  —

  10,733

  12

  4

  10

  Works and Buildings

  99,247

  19

  11

  —

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  635

  12

  8

  —

  12

  War Office

  4,020

  9

  5

  —

  13

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c.

  1,884

  19

  10

  —

  14

  Non-effective Charges for Men, &c

  171

  17

  2

  —

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities

  3,072

  15

  9

  —

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

  —

  4,643

  3

  6

  Total

  322,871

  13

  3

  285,213

  3

  5

  Net Surplus

  £37,658 9 10

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  322,871

  13

  3

  Total Deficits

  …

  285,213

  3

  5

  Net Surplus

  …

  £37,658

  9

  10

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  2. That the application of much sums be sanctioned.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.

1. Resolved, "That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, the sum of £461 6s. 4d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2. Resolved, "That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, the sum of £93,739,842 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Gulland.]

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to ask the right hon Gentleman who moved the Second Reading certain questions, because the Bill is one which has aroused considerable interest amongst my Constituents and a number of constituencies represented by other hon. Members on both sides. I therefore endeavoured to look into the Bill to see what are the parts which apparently give rise to misgiving and what are the parts of it which seem to be quite unexceptional in their nature. As to portions of the Clauses of this Bill, I feel quite sure that all Members on both sides of the House would wish to see them passed into law. A great number of Clauses seem to be concerned simply with what I might call the domestic working of the co-operative societies, and so far as those Clauses are designed to smooth the working of the co-operative societies, the industrial provident societies, I am quite sure that they will awaken a ready response from all quarters of the House. This movement has been in operation for a considerable number of years. It is now fully twenty years since the Consolidating Act of 1893 was passed and it remains the principal Act and is so referred to in this Bill, and may be referred to, I think, as the Charter of the system of industrial and provident societies. On looking at these Clauses, I find that a considerable number?
906
of them are intended to remedy certain difficulties which have arisen. In illustration of that I may refer to the somewhat long and difficult Clause which stands as Clause 6, with the side-note "Amendment of the principal Act as to nomination."
It will be perhaps in the recollection of Members that a case was decided, the Eccles case, in which a controversy arose, as to the period of time at which a limit which obtains under the principal Act should be considered. There is the power to nominate for the purpose of transference on death, by the living holder of shares, a certain person who is to represent him and have his shares after his death. That nomination could be made at the time when the holder of the shares held not a larger amount than £100. The question that arose in the case was whether the time you were to look for the possession of the £100 was at the time of nomination or the time of death. It was decided if I recollect rightly that the time of nomination must be looked on. Whether it was time of nomination or death is really what I may call a domestic matter which concerns the co-operatives and their holdings, and I feel quite certain that if Clause 6 of the Bill is an Amendment which would be acceptable to those who are both shareholders and otherwise interested in the societies, it is a Clause to which no exception can be taken by any Member of this House. I desire at once to point out on my own behalf, and I speak naturally entirely on my own behalf, that I have no desire to endeavour to put the clock back, or to cause any sort of difficulty to the fair working of what may be called the industrial and provident system. It has done much good in the past, and offers facilities to a number of persons to obtain their goods at cheap rates. So far as it is used for the purpose for which it was intended, it has undoubtedly established its right to sympathy and to the facilities required by an amending Act.
I come to the other side, which causes considerable misgiving amongst people who also are entitled to have their views put before the House and their rights considered. The classes who have misgiving about the Bill are the small shopkeepers and traders. They undoubtedly deserve a great deal of sympathy. It is not easy in these days of large capitalised concerns for the small trader to make a profit, maintain his independence, and

907
earn a livelihood. I am not speaking now of the large trading concerns, they can probably look after themselves. But in regarding the rights of all classes it must be remembered that one outlet for thrift and honest ambition is found in the possibility of carrying on a small business with some hope of success. For these people this Bill has given rise to considerable anxiety. I am not sure that all their anxiety is well founded, but there are some Clauses which I shall strongly press the right hon. Gentleman to explain. Clause 1 raises the limit of holdings from £200 to £300. What is felt by the small trader is that if cooperators are to have the opportunity of possessing as much as £300, they are no longer the class for whom these societies were originally founded. In 1893, when the Act was passed, the total number of members of these societies was 1,057,000; the total share capital was little more than £12,500,000, and the loan capital was £2,110,000. At the present time the share capital has more than trebled, the loan capital may be multiplied by ten, and the number of members has risen to more than two and a half millions. I quite appreciate the approval that is expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the figures that I have just given. We all wish well to these societies. It is a remarkable fact that the principle has succeeded so well that the present number of members of societies doing productive as well as distributive work is 2,785,000.
I now touch upon a point that is giving anxiety to small traders. During the year 1911 the turnover on the sales of goods by these societies worked out at £120,000,000.
Mr. ADAMSON: Is there anything wrong with it?
Mr. POLLOCK: I wish the turnover were as large of all persons engaged in the honest industry of selling goods. But I am not going to overlook the rights of the small traders whose turnover, I hope, will also grow as large. They are entitled to all the rights and privileges that we can give them, equally with other societies. What right has the right hon. Gentleman, turning to Clause 1, or on what ground does he found the necessity to raise the limit from £200, which have proved undoubtedly so successful, to £300?
Mr. ADAMSON: Why not?
Mr. POLLOCK: This £120,000,000 should be accepted with a caution, in a way shown by the Register-General. Because there are three large wholesale societies in England, Scotland, and Ireland, which are responsible for an enormous wholesale trade. The English society does more than twenty-seven-and-half millions worth of trade, the Scottish society, £7,850,000, and the Irish society £133,000—a total roughly of £36,000,000. The Register-General calls attention to the fact that in the £120,000,000 is included some of the trade done by the wholesale societies. In that case some of it might possibly be counted twice. It still, however, leaves about £100,000,000—a startling figure. What about the smaller trader Has not the small grocer and the small dealer in the humbler streets cause to feel some anxiety and ask why this step should be taken? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Has not the time conic when the holder of the sum of £300 has ceased to be a person for whom these Acts were intended, and Who was the person for whom this system was designed? It might be said by the right hon. Gentleman that it is so arranged that the small owner should be able to join the society and so have the consequent advantages.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably have a good deal to say about that because the privileges enjoyed by these societies certainly do not make for a large return to the Income Tax. It must be remembered that while you are increasing the limit of capital from £200 to £300—a very substantial sum at least to a great number of people—that if holders of £300 are to be allowed the benefit of the Act then the difficulty of revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer must certainly arise. Let me point out the way the members of these societies enjoy special privileges in this matter of Income Tax. There is one that is constantly pointed out. The matter is one with which I am not unfamiliar. It is one we constantly argue and will argue again either on Bank holiday or at three or four o'clock in the morning in the early days of August. Under Section 24 of the principal Act indemnity from Income Tax is granted to members of an industrial provident society, unless it sells to persons not members thereof and the number of shares of the society is limited either by its rules or its practice. What is the exemption? Let me take the case of the small trader. He has to make his return and he is allowed under the

909
scheme of Income Tax, I think very unfairly, but a small deduction in respect to depreciation, and subject to that he has to make his return of Income Tax on his gross return, and he has a right if he can to get back something in respect of his exemption. But he is paying Income Tax on his gross return subject to the slender rebate in respect to depreciation. What happens in the case of the members of these industrial provident societies is that they are exempt from paying Income Tax at all, and, of course, the reason of it was this: That it was supposed those persons who came within the ambit or sphere of these societies were persons who in all circumstances would be well below the limit of anything like an income that would bring them within the Income Tax Acts.
What is said upon the other side is that the trading societies now instead of confining their attention solely to their members do in fact sell to persons who are not members thereof, and that by reason of their selling to all and sundry they are taking away a large amount of trade which ought to go to the small traders, and they are not confining themselves to the terms on which alone they were granted exemption from Income Tax. The small trader pays Income Tax and gets back what he can afterwards, and we all know that to obtain a return of money from the Revenue is not an easy thing. That is a point the small trader feels and his position ought to be considered and he has a right to be considered as fairly and justly as the trader in the industrial and provident society. This Bill, so far as I understand it, is giving the members of these societies still further privileges. I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how he can justify the raising of this limit from £200 to £300 in face of the facts and figures I have given. At the present time this movement is prosperous and successful and is one in which a very large number of members of the community take part, and it is a movement which certainly does not require any artificial assistance from the State. If we desire to do justice between one class and another and not to overlook the rights of the small trader, then Clause 1 ought to be deleted from the Bill. There is no necessity for increasing the amount which could be held by members of these industrial societies. The sum of £200 is large enough, and there is really no need, if you wish to have regard to the views of others for including this Clause.
910
12.0 M.
I also ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to give us some explanation of Clause 2. I suppose this is a Clause which Clause 2. I suppose this is a Clause which ordinary way of industrial and provident societies, but I do not quite see why you are to permit registration of a society consisting of two or more other societies. That is probably a matter of domestic concern and I pass on. As to Clause 3, on the whole I think it is a very fair Clause, and perhaps it will tend to a better audit in the future, because the persons who will be the auditors will no longer be members of the society and in that sense the probability is that they have adopted a system which will tend to the good management of their affairs and raise themselves free from any possible criticism against the value of the audit. Clause 5 is one I wish to offer some criticism upon. I do not see why the return should be only a triennial one. Why should it not be an annual return? Again, if the return is made at all to the Registrar, why should it not give the names of members of the society? I understand the reason why, in the locality itself, a number should be used in the place of a name, because it may be that there is a desire that matters of personal concern should not by any possibility be discussed locally. Once a return has to be made of the shareholders, I do not quite see why the return should not be made in the name of the person who is the shareholder. I do not see why the number and not the name should be transmitted. Acknowledging the importance of the number in the locality, I see no need for it when it is transmitted to the central office. Clause 6 is one upon which if it is claimed to be necessary I have no criticism to offer nor have any of my Constituents. Clause 7 is probably a matter for arrangement between the Exchequer and the socieites; but, if I might in all humility offer sonic criticism in regard to Clause 8, I should say that it was a Clause which was certainly somewhat unfortunate. Section 29 of the principal Act enables a sum of money in case of the insanity of any member to be paid over to any person whom the society shall think to receive it, and that power extends up to £100. Now this limit is to be removed with the result that the society will have power to pay any sum whether £100 or upwards to anyone it pleases. Once the sum becomes larger than £100, I think that it would probably be wise even

911
in the case of insanity to have some provision to protect more carefully the property of members, and I very much doubt therefore whether Clause 8 is in the interest of the industrial societies themselves.
I can conceive many cases in which it would be found to be unfortuuate and where serious difficulties would arise. If you take power to pay over to all and sundry sums above £100, it seems to me that you will be applying a very good principle beyond its natural limits and beyond the point where you have got any safeguard. Clause 9 is one for which I can see no reasonable justification. What says the small trader? The small trader says "I am competing with a co-operative society which really has abundant capital and a great number of customers all interested in coming to this particular centre, and I have to cut and cut my prices in order to attract customers." Then follows the difficulty that I have pointed out about the Income Tax. He adds under Clause 9 there is another privilege which is given to members of co-operative societies. How does it affect them? It is an attraction to draw people into the industrial and provident societies. It may be good in one sense, but the small trader does not feel that it is to his advantage. What one wants to do in all these Bills is not so much to be quite sure that in a world where rough justice must prevail that there is such justice and that you should have real justice meted out, but one wants to prevent any sense of injustice arising. I do not think, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Duchy, that Clause 9 matters at all, but when you are trying to see if you can prevent a sense of injustice arising, I contend that Clause 9 is one which equally with Clause 1 ought to be deleted.
As to the rest of the Bill that is a matter which really concerns the mechanical working of the societies. I think Clauses 11, 12 and 13 might be left in. The result of the observations I have endeavoured to make is this, that I press upon the Chancellor of the Duchy what I may really call the injustice of Clause 1. It is a Clause which raises this movement into a different plane, and is for the advantage of men who have reached the point which all hope as many as possible will reach—i.e., the possession of £200 or nearly,£300, but when they have reached that point the small trader naturally feels that they
912
ought not to be invested with the privileges that industrial societies get, and if the members of societies are to have relief from burdens then the same relief should be given to the small traders from burdens which, in their case, press far harder and which they, being mere members of the general public, see no possibility of getting relief from. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will take this matter into serious consideration, because, when the Bill comes up for Second Reading, while there are a great number of the Clauses I should like to see passed in the interests of the smooth working of industrial societies, I have at the same time to submit that the two Clauses I have pointed out invade the rights of others beyond what is necessary to safeguard the liberties of industrial societies and enlarge the limit of societies beyond their proper sphere, thereby creating among a large number of my own constituents a sense of injustice which is not easily removed and which, I think, if the two Clauses were deleted from the Bill, would pass away. Then the co-operative societies and small traders would each be able to do their own work and prosper, as we all hope they will, in the interests of the community at large.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): I very willingly accept the invitation of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to give some explanation of the Clauses of this Bill. I should like to point out to the House that it is substantially the same Bill of which I got a Second Reading in 1910, and which passed the House of Lords without alteration and without comment so recently as 1912, and to the general principles of which, therefore, there can be no objection. The hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out that the greater number of the Clauses deal merely with domestic arrangements which are for the convenience of co-operative societies generally, and, therefore, I need not trouble the House with comments upon them. These Clauses are Nos. 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I come at once to Clause 1, to which the hon. and learned Member more particularly objects. He said—I am sure quite truly—that he did not wish to put the hands of the clock back, but I am afraid that, with the best intentions in the world, if the view which he has advocated were allowed to prevail, at all events the clock of co-operation would go rather more slowly than it does at present.

913
In passing the hon. Member referred to the anxieties of the small trader. Those are anxieties which all of us must share and with which we all sympathise. The question, however, is whether the provisions of Clause I would really operate to the detriment of the small trader in the way and to the extent he stated. I pass by, for the purposes of this evening, the question of Income Tax, upon which he dwelt, although I would point out to him that the difference between the operation of the Income Tax in respect to co-operative societies and the ordinary trader is that in the case of the ordinary trader it is collected at its source, and in the case of the co-operator it is collected from the individual, if it is otherwise due. No cooperator, as a co-operator, escapes Income Tax if his income is over the £160 level, and he is subjected in that respect to all the penalties and pleasures of the Income Tax.
I come to the point with which the hon. Gentleman dealt more particularly. Under the principal Act, the Act of 1893, it is laid down that no person who is a member of a co-operative society may have a larger interest in that society than is represented by the possession of £200 of shares in the society. That limitation does not in any way apply to another cooperative society, which may have as large a holding in the society as it likes. The restriction is upon the individual, not upon the total capital of the society. That is a very important point for the reason that societies have no difficulty in getting all the capital they want, and upon reasonable terms. The hardship, if there is any hardship involved, is that a co-operator may not invest as much money as he likes in the society, although the society may have as much capital as it likes in excess of an average of £200 per member who invests in the society. The restriction to £200 at the present moment, therefore, does not limit the activities of the society or the competition of the society with the small trader. The individual co-operator, who may not have in the society more than £200 of capital, may lend to the society as much money as he possesses or chooses to lend. He may not invest more than £200 in it, but, if he is the possessor of £10,000, he may lend it to the society. The result is that this Clause operates not to restrict the activities of the societies but to restrict the investment of the individual co-operator who wishes to invest in a co-
914
operative society. Although the individual co-operator may not invest £1,000 in any one society, there is nothing to prevent him from investing £1,000 in five different societies. When that fact is stated, when it is perfectly well known that the societies can get as much money as they likeߞ
Mr. POLLOCK: At interest.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no difference at all so far as the society is concerned between interest and dividend. The operation of the existing law does not limit the competition of the societies with the small trader, and it does not limit the activities of the society, but merely restricts a particular investment of a particular individual in a particular kind of industrial undertaking.
Mr. POLLOCK: Why have they it in at all?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am trying to answer to the best of my ability the very reasonable argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it not better to let the individual co-operator invest a little larger sum in his co-operative society, in a regular form, rather than force him to lend his money to the society, if he wishes to extend his interest in its operations? There is one more point made by the hon. Gentleman. He said, "If you allow £300 to be put into shares of the society by the co-operator instead of £200, which he may invest at present, you make a difference between that class and the original persons who invested in co-operative societies for whose benefit they were established, and you get a wealthier class associatd with them." I do not think that is altogether so. The hon. Member will recollect that there is a fall in the value of money. When these societies were started forty or fifty years ago £200 would purchase as much as £300 would to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not so."] I think that is so, in comparative wealth—I do not mean, of course, £200 in one hand and £300 in the other; but fifty years ago £200 purchased not much less than £300 would to-day.
Let me deal with the question of Clause 5. The hon. Gentleman asked me why the special report provided for in that Clause is not made annual. I would ask the House to remember that there is all the difference in the world between the special return which is mentioned in

915
this Clause and an annual return of income and expenditure. All that the Clause provides for is this: A society at the present moment may advance, and does as a matter of fact issue to its members, a biennial report showing the balance to the credit of each member of the society, indicating him not by name but by a number. Under the Census Act of 1908, I think Section (6), individuals are protected from having anything known about their business by their competitors or neighbours, and they are in fact indicated by numbers in the Board of Trade returns. It is for precisely the same reason that co-operators have asked that their identity should be distinguished by number instead of by name. The incidental advantage to the society, is, perhaps, a small saving, but in many cases there is a large saving of clerical labour. Members of societies see their credits which, if small, are important to them, and without checking over the items they know generally what stands to their credit. Sometimes, unfortunately, officials are not as successful or as honest as they might be, and there have been lapses on their part. This Clause will protect the societies against any possibility of that sort, and, in fact, it is the general wish of the co-operative societies that it should be inserted.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with Clause 8. The principal Act says that where a person has become insane and where someone else claims on his behalf to have a transfer made of the money which stands to his credit, the society may, when it is proved to the satisfaction of the committee that it is just and expedient so to do, pay an amount not exceeding £100 over to some person whom they shall judge proper to receive the same on his behalf. If you may pay over £100 to his credit why should you not pay over £105 or £120 or £150? It is only a reasonable extension of the law which is made after all for the fit and proper representative of the insane person and it is to the common advantage of the society and the person who invests. Then there seemed to be some general objection to the Inland Revenue Clause, Clause 9, which I should have thought would be acceptable. If it is not acceptable I will not press it and am prepared to withdraw it. I do not attach very much importance to it. It would be convenient to the Inland Revenue to have it but if the hon. Member and his friends object and if they will assist me to get the Bill
916
through without undue delay, certainly before the end of the Session, I should have no inclination to press it.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not say he would withdraw Clause 7 as well as Clause 9. Speaking for myself, if he will withdraw both Clauses I shall be very happy to assist him. He has made a great point, which is also made in a circular I received to-day from a co-operative society with which the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) is acquainted, that £200 twenty years ago were the same as £300 now, only the circular says twenty-five years ago and not fifty years. The original co-operative Bill was only introduced some twenty years ago, and in 1894 and 1895 £200 invested in first-class English trustee securities would have produced about £5 a year; but £300 at present would produce not £5 but £12. The result is that instead of £300 now being only worth £200 the reverse is the case. Where the right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake is this: While it may be that the prices of bread, meat, and other articles have risen, the return on capital has also risen, and if you are in the fortunate position of having money uninvested, you can get a far better return for it than before. Therefore, that argument falls absolutely to the ground.
There remains only the other argument about the clock. The right hon. Gentleman said my hon. Friend did not wish to put back the clock. But if Clause 1 was omitted, the clock would go as fast as at present, because matters would be exactly the same as they are now. My hon. Friend says that during the last fifteen or twenty years co-operative societies have increased enormously, and that, therefore, there is no necessity to do anything more in the direction of providing capital, because experience has shown that they can get as much capital as they want. Therefore, we can in no way injure the cooperative society movement if the right hon. Gentleman should decide to drop Clause 1. All that would happen would be that the small trader, who has suffered very much, not only from co-operative societies, but from big combinations of other traders, would, at any rate, be assisted if the Clause was dropped, and, at, the same time, the co-operative societies would be in no way injured. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet the request which has been made by my hon. Friend. I do not know whether he

917
attaches much importance to my evidence one way or the other, but if he will get up and say that he will drop the Clause, we may go home to bed feeling satisfied to some extent.
Mr. DICKINSON: I hope, in view of what the hon. Baronet has said, that we shall not go home to bed to-night under any misunderstanding that this Bill is going to be altered materially in Committee. Of course, I have nothing to do with deciding that, but at the same time I consider that the measure has had most careful examination already, and it is presented in the form in which I should hope to see it passed. My excuse for speaking on the question to-night is that I introduced a Bill on these lines at the request of the co-operative societies some seven years ago in company with two hon. Members on this side of the House and two or three very much respected Members on the other side. Since then the measure has passed into the hands of the Government, and almost every year the proposals have been submitted to various Government Departments. As a result, every criticism that could be levelled against the Bill has been made by the Government Departments, and I venture to say that no Committee of this House could go into its details without arriving at the conviction that in regard to every one of them the co-operators have a very good case, whilst the opponents of the measure, who have made their views well enough known outside, have no case at all. I do not wish to detain the House at any length, but there are just three or four matters which I should like to put before them. I am certain, whatever the general competition of co-operators with the private traders may be in the country, that there is no provision in this Bill which can have a disastrous or damaging effect on any private trader. I can certainly say that when the Bill was proposed the cooperators had no sort of idea that they were putting forward any proposals which could meet with the legitimate opposition of the private traders of the country.
If the House will permit me, I should like to take three examples. First of all, there is the example of Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman explained that very clearly, and there is only one thing that I can add to the statement he has made on the subject. The point with the co-operators was this: They sound that their own members came and
918
invested up to £200 in the concern, but that if those members had a further sum of £20, £30 or £40 which they wished to invest they had either to turn them away, or else allow them to invest it, as they actually do, by simply loaning the sum to the society. It was thought advisable that this restriction should be withdrawn, and accordingly the suggestion was made to allow them to extend to £300. Why was this proposal made? I will tell the House. It was because, a year or two before, the same considerations had arisen with regard to friendly societies, and the limit in the case of these societies was raised from £200 to £300. As has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and admitted by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, the cooperators have no reason whatever to put forward this proposal from a financial point of view. They do not want to raise money in this way. It costs them more to do so. They raise an enormous sum of money already by loans from members and elsewhere. The wholesale co-operators, I may point out, pay for shares 5 per cent. and for loans 3½, per cent. The distributing societies pay for shares 4¾ per cent. and for loans 3¾ per cent. I would ask the House this question: Why should we step in and prevent poor people putting their little savings into these concerns? What good object can there be, what public policy to serve, in preventing these poor people investing £250 instead of £200?
Take the other point—the Income Tax objection. In the first place this is not in the Bill. The objection has been raised by people outside who want to kill cooperation. What they try to show—and they are attempting to do this every day—is that co-operators are free from the payment of Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman has explained already what really is the case. But even apart from the fact that 98.8 per cent. of the members of cooperative societies have less than £160 a year, and will not, therefore, in the ordinary course of things, be called upon to pay Income Tax, it must be borne in mind that there have been decisions in the courts with reference to mutual societies which have shown that in any system of a division of profits in mutual assurance those profits are not to be taken as profits for Income Tax. The co-operators work on a system of buying goods at market prices. They pay for them in their shops the same prices as other people are paying, but then each individual is credited with the particular sum which represents

919
the profit on his own transaction. In that way he gets a little bit credited to his account each time he goes to the shop to purchase goods.
As regards Stamp Duty, let me say that I cannot imagine any case that could have been more misrepresented than this has been. Here is one of the objections:—
"The societies which carry on business with the public should be subject to all the ordinary incidences of such business, and should not be exempted, as is proposed by this Bill, from Stamp Duties or any other contributions to the Exchequer."
What is the exact position of this matter? Under the Clause the Stamp Duties are very limited in number. There is only one document that co-operators are exempted from paying Stamp Duty upon, namely, that for the release of a mortgage. That is to say, if a society has lent its money to an individual member in order that he may buy his house, when he pays back the whole amount he has borrowed, then he is entitled to have the release signed without paying a tax. That is already the case in Scotland. It is not the case in England, and I will tell the House shortly what is the reason of the difference. When the Act of 1893 was going through the House it contained a Clause with reference to this question of the paying off of mortgages, and inasmuch as the mortgages in England and in Scotland are totally different this Section had two Sub-sections, one relating to England and the other to Scotland. In the Scottish Sub-section there were words which exempted the societies from the payment of this particular Stamp Duty.
When the Bill took the form of an Act the one Section and the two Subsections had been transformed into two separate Sections. The result of this was that the words which were intended to exempt both England and Scotland remained in the Section which applied only to Scotland, and England was left without the exemption. That was a pure mistake. So much was it a mistake that since then the Government have not insisted on the payment of this Stamp Duty. They felt, as anybody must feel who knows the circumstances, that the payment of Stamp Duty was not intended by Parliament, and that, therefore, it ought not to be insisted upon. In this Bill we propose simply to amend that and to put matters right in accordance with what was the evident intention of Parliament. I ask the House to note that, because we do, that the suggestion
920
is made outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] If hon. Members will have patience, I shall have finished in one minute. Because of that simple proposal it is said that co-operators are asking to be relieved from the payment of a particular Stamp Duty. If the House will allow matters to be discussed fairly and freely in Committee, then, should there be any real opposition to proposals which are contained in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the arguments in favour of any alterations that may be thought desirable. I trust that by passing the Bill, the House will do this small measure of justice to the co-operators, who represent a very large section of the community, and, moreover, some of the poorest people in the community, and who are striving to carry on their business without competing unduly with private traders.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I want to make one observation about Clause I. I gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no reason at all for placing any limit on the amount of shares any individual might hold, and that was the interpretation I put upon his speech. But there is some reason for putting some limit on the amount of shares an individual might hold, because otherwise you might have a society with only half a dozen members, and surely the purpose of limiting the amount of shares individually held is to extend the number of members. I happen to be a chairman of two cooperative societies, and I do honestly think that if you extend this limit of £200 it will be a serious obstacle in the way of a number of small people belonging to these small societies. I think this point should not be lost sight of, and, speaking as one in favour of co-operation and who likes to take an impartial view, I do not see any real reason myself for the extension of this limit, and I hope the Government will give much more consideration to the matter before allowing this Clause to become law.
Mr. BARNES: I rise for a moment to appeal to the Government to stick to this Bill. So far as we have gone I understand that Clause 9 is now given up, and therefore I need say no more on that point, but I hope nothing else will he given up, for the simple reason that this Bill is regarded by co-operators, who, as some hon. Member has just said, form a very large section of the community—as a matter of fact

921
about one-fifth of the community—and a very important Section as well. Therefore, apart from Clause 9, I hope the Bill will be stuck to in its entirety. The hon. Member who has just sat down has founded some argument against an unlimited amount of shares being allowed. That is not the Bill. The Bill simply proposes that the amount should be raised from £200 to £300. So far as I gather, everyone has admitted that the co-operative societies can now get their money. There is no difficulty about that. That being so, I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member who first spoke where does all the hardship in regard to the small trader come in? The small trader is usually the widow in this particular case, but it seems to me there is absolutely no ground for it at all.
I believe the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury) admitted that co-operators now get their money. As a matter of fact, they get their money cheaper by loan than by shares, and, that being so, the small trader cannot possibly be injured. On the contrary, from the mere money point of view, if this Bill were passed and co-operators put their money in shares instead of loans it seems to me that co-operative societies would be to some extent hampered in their operations. Some may ask, why then should co-operators ask for this Bill? So far as I gather—and I have been a cooperator for thirty years, and have been in close touch with co-operators pretty well all my adult life—the reason co-operators ask for this is largely a matter of sentiment. They feel that, although co-operative societies get sufficient money, it is not fair that a limit should be placed upon the desire of the individual co-operator, who is a working man and knows nothing at all about investing money in other ways, but who has a sentimental affection for his society, which society enters very largely into his life—they feel it is unfair that any unnecessary and arbitrary restriction should be placed upon his right to put his small savings into his co-operative society in the ordinary way.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very anxious to understand this. May I ask why £300 is suggested as a better figure than £200?
Mr. BARNES: As a matter of fact cooperators never objected to £500. The £300 has been imposed upon them. The first Bill, introduced five or six years ago, had £500 in it, but co-operators found that
922
there was a great deal of opposition to their Bill. The private traders' friends were then at hand just as they have been during the last few weeks. The cooperator, desiring to have the limit raised for the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, and for the other reasons I have just stated, placed the limit at £500, but in order to placate the opposition they made a compromise upon £300, and that is the simple explanation why £300 figures in this Bill. They would desire more. Besides the sentimental reason, there is another reason why co-operators want this. At present the society gets plenty of money by loan, but that means a complicated system of book-keeping. They want to have all their money, so to speak, in one basket and to avoid the confusion that arises now as a result of having part of their money in share capital and part in loan capital. Those two reasons are in the mind of the co-operator in wishing to raise the amount from £200 to £300. I want again to repeat what has been said by almost every speaker, that the co-operative societies find no difficulty at all now in getting plenty of money, and that being so, all these weird arguments about the poor small trader absolutely fall to the ground.
Just one other observation in regard to sales to outside people. The hon. and learned Member founded an argument upon what he called co-operators' privileges, but I fail to see any privilege at all, because the small trader is just as open to competition next door by another small trader as by the co-operative society. As a matter of fact, I was going to say that the small trader is being squeezed out to-day snore by the multiple shop, but let that go. The argument was founded on the statement that co-operators no longer simply form a body by themselves, but that they are doing a large amount of business outside. I wondered if the hon. and learned Member had any information on the point. There were some figures got out some little time ago by the general secretary of the Co-operative Union as to the amount of outside sales in a considerable number of societies, though not all. It came out at 41—that is to say, less than one half per cent. of the sales of that particular group of co-operative societies were to outside people, and it is absolutely certain that if you took the whole of the co-operative societies throughout the entire country you would find that the sales to those who were not members would come out

923
at considerably less than 1 per cent. All that is done in co-operation with the outside world is simply to attract those who are not members to begin to buy, and who, as they say, eat themselves in. As a matter of fact, persons who buy from a cooperative society are very often so poor that they cannot become members, and therefore an arrangement is made with the co-operative society so that a half-dividend is put to their credit until £1 has accumulated.
Under those circumstances, I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, who, I know is a very fair-minded man, not to object further to this Bill going through, because I think he will find that although the small traders have made a great fuss during the last few weeks, and have shown a great deal of opposition to the Bill, it arises, not from any really solid argument, but simply from the general attitude of mind on the part of the small trader towards co-operation. I can quite understand that feeling, and I can quite sympathise with it. We all know the extreme and growing difficulty with which the small trader now gets a living. I would, however, appeal to my hon. Friends to recognise the fact that it is not because of co-operation, it is because of the combination of capital in few hands—in the hands of your Home and Colonial Stores, in the hands of Lipton's, and many others, who are planting down their shops at every street corner all over the country, and squeezing out the small trader. That is what is the matter with the small trader, and not co-operation, which, in so far as it does compete with the small traders, competes with them on much fairer lines than Lipton's, because it does not undersell, as Lipton's and others do, but it gives to those in its employ far better conditions of labour than are given by other firms.
Mr. SANDERSON: I desire to detain the House but a very few minutes at this hour of the night, but I want to support what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend, and from the hon. Baronet who sits in front of me, in regard to the Clause of this Bill, which I may call a domestic arrangement. I am most anxious to see this Bill pass, and so far as I can understand, from the letters I have receved, those are the Clauses which the cooperative societies principally want. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman
924
(Mr. Hobhouse) is anxious to help the co-operative movement he will be very well advised to see if he cannot get through the Clauses of the Bill which are really wanted by the co-operative societies, and getting rid of the opposition, by abandoning Clause 1. I am certain that there. is a good deal of opposition to what is represented in Clause 1 throughout the length and breadth of the country. Hon. Members on the other side must be just as well aware of that as I am, and therefore, if they are anxious really to benefit the co-operative societies, by getting the, material Clauses, and those Clauses that the co-operative societies really want, the best way of doing that would be to disarm opposition by withdrawing Clause 1. It now appears, from what the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow has said—and I have no doubt he is voicing the opinion of the cooperators, because he knows so much about them—that Clause I is largely a matter of sentiment, and that if it were rejected it would not hurt the co-operative societies materially in any sense whatever. If that is so, I submit that that is not a sufficient reason for altering the amount which has been fixed by Parliament, namely, £200, and increasing it to £300.
I am reminded, and I was just about to say that, that the small trader may have his sentiments, too, and are we not entitled to consider his sentiments just as much as those of the co-operators? This is the point I wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Assuming that this is only a matter of sentiment, as the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division has pointed out, why not abandon Clause 1 at once, and let us get to work with the other Clauses which are desired. It is said that the co-operative societies can now get as much money as they want, therefore, by abandoning Clause 1 you are not going to hurt them financially. Then it is said that if a member of a society has got more than £200, he can loan some money to the society and get his rate of interest. If he has got £300, he can invest £200 in shares, and lend his other £100 to the society, and get interest on that. Therefore, you arc not preventing poor people from investing their money, by abandoning the Clause, you are not hurting the societies themselves, nor are you hurting the individual members of the societies. Therefore, when it does appear, during this Debate, that it

925
really is a question of sentiment, from the co-operative point of view, and that, by abandoning Clause 1, you are not going to hurt them in the least and, when you remember also that there is a considerable amount of opposition throughout the country, as I am certain there is, to this part of the Bill, surely the right hon. Gentleman would be well-advised to abandon that portion of the Bill.
EARL of RONALDSHAY: May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? I am bound to say that I have been very disappointed in the way he has met us in regard to this Bill. I understood, from what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, and last week, that this Bill was not to be pressed through the House, unless agreement could be come to on these Clauses in dispute. There are three Clauses to which we on this side of the House particularly object, namely, Clause 1, Clause 5, and Clause 9. To what extent has the right hon. Gentleman met us? The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow assumed that Clause 9 had been jettisoned. Have we got an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that that Clause is no longer to have a place in the Bill? I do not know whether or not we have such an assurance.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: After the Noble Lord has finished what he has to say, I will answer.
EARL of RONALDSHAY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman has expressed a willingness to jettison Clause 9. We should like Clause 1 and Clause 5, also, to be left out of the Bill. There is very strong opposition to both these Clauses, and I can speak with authority because I have many small traders in my Constituency, who feel, very deeply indeed, that these Clauses are likely to inflict grave injuries on them. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to abandon Clause 5 and Clause 9, cannot he at least meet us by abandoning Clause 1? This is the Clause which has aroused the greatest amount of apprehension, with Clause 9, in the minds of the small traders. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pass his Bill—and we all wish to assist in passing it, if we can—surely, he will meet us in dropping these two Clauses, especially in view of the fact that it has been shown to-night that the co-operative
926
society movement will be in no way interfered with by such action.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can only speak again, by leave of the House, for one moment. The Noble Lord who has just sat down, and various other hon. Members opposite have asked me what I can do to assist them, and to meet their views, so as to enable us to get this Bill through. We have had an equally urgent appeal from my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), to stick to the whole of the Bill. I confess that my inclination goes out to him, and not to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am faced with two facts. The first is that we are within fourteen days of the end of the Session—I think we have only ten or eleven working days in front of us—and that there is a very sincere desire on the part of a great number of hon. Members, in all parts of the House, to get the main parts of the Bill. Well, I have got to make a choice. If I cannot have the whole of my Bill, I prefer to get the major part of it than to lose the whole of it.
In regard to what was said by the Noble Lord opposite, I really cannot give up Clause 5. I attach great importance to it, and believe it to be of the greatest possible convenience to the co-operative societies, and while I am willing most reluctantly, and only because I am face to face with opposition and the end of the Session, to give up Clause 1 and Clause 9, it is upon the distinct understanding that I get assistance from hon. Members opposite in passing the rest of the Bill with great celerity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In those circumstances I am willing to do that.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 4th August. [Mr. Gulland.]

TELEGRAPH (MONEY.)
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 for the further development of the telephonic system and to enable the Treasury to borrow for the purpose of providing the money necessary to make the issue or for repaying to the Consolidated Fund any sums so issued, by means

927
of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, and to provide for the payment of the terminable annuities or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer Bonds out of moneys provided by Parliament for Post Office services or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
Resolution to be Reported to-morrow (Friday).

FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Gulland.]

POST OFFICE BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment. Bill read the third time, and passed.
The other Government 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 Five minutes after One o'clock a.m., 1st August, 1913.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SALE OF STAMPS (IRELAND).
  SALE OF STAMPS (IRELAND).
  Contra Toxin.
  Contra Toxin.
  Assistant Clerk.
  Assistant Clerk.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (King's County).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (King's County).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY
  "DREADNOUGHTS."
  "DREADNOUGHTS."
  SEAPLANES.
  SEAPLANES.
  NAVAL PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  NAVAL PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
BRITISH ARMY
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  BATTERIES OF ARTILLERY.
  BATTERIES OF ARTILLERY.
  SOUTH AFRICAN FORCE.
  SOUTH AFRICAN FORCE.
  SOLDIERS' RELIGIOUS SERVICES.
  SOLDIERS' RELIGIOUS SERVICES.
  Prisoners Released or Escaped.
  Prisoners Released or Escaped.
  Physiological Laboratories.
  Physiological Laboratories.
  Obstruction by Taxi-Cab Driver.
  Obstruction by Taxi-Cab Driver.
  Officers' Compulsory Retirement (India).
  Officers' Compulsory Retirement (India).
  Cavalry Officers (India).
  Cavalry Officers (India).
  Sara Bridge (India).
  Sara Bridge (India).
  Army Pensions (India).
  Army Pensions (India).
  Zanzibar.
  Zanzibar.
  Opium Conference.
  Opium Conference.
  Portuguese Plantations.
  Portuguese Plantations.
  Bulgaria.
  Bulgaria.
  Bulgarian Atrocities.
  Bulgarian Atrocities.
  Industrial Societies.
  Industrial Societies.
  Vaccination Accounts.
  Vaccination Accounts.
  Infantile Mortality (Workhouses).
  Infantile Mortality (Workhouses).
  Workhouses.
  Workhouses.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Foreign Merchant Ships.
  Foreign Merchant Ships.
  Ships' Hospitals.
  Ships' Hospitals.
  Canadian Marine Enquiries.
  Canadian Marine Enquiries.
  Timber Deck-Cargoes.
  Timber Deck-Cargoes.
  German Shipmasters.
  German Shipmasters.
  Shipping Inquiries (Costs).
  Shipping Inquiries (Costs).
  Yacht Lights.
  Yacht Lights.
  Steam Coal Exports.
  Steam Coal Exports.
  Railway Rates (Ireland).
  Railway Rates (Ireland).
  Road Material.
  Road Material.
  Carriage of Stone.
  Carriage of Stone.
  Navy (Coal Tonnage).
  Navy (Coal Tonnage).
  Marconi Contract.
  Marconi Contract.
  Redirecting of Holiday Letters.
  Redirecting of Holiday Letters.
  State-owned Atlantic Cable.
  State-owned Atlantic Cable.
  Morriston Post Office.
  Morriston Post Office.
  Postal Gang-hands.
  Postal Gang-hands.
  Exmouth Telephone Exchange.
  Exmouth Telephone Exchange.
  Royal Visit to Lancashire.
  Royal Visit to Lancashire.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 148.)
AIRDRIE CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Earl of Craven), and reported from the Committee. (No. 149.)
EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY (ST. EDMUND HALL AND GATCOMBE RECTORY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
CROWN LANDS BILL.
HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

BARRY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next" be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Craven.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, I now move that this Bill be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill, which is an uncontroversial measure, is to enable the Postmaster-General to construct an underground electric railway from the east to the west of London for the purposes of his Department for carrying mails and parcels.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Craven.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

TRADE BOARDS ACT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, 011 behalf of my noble friend the Master of the Horse, I beg to move the suspension of the Order made on April 22 with a view later to moving that this Bill be react a second time.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of July next" be dispensed with.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I now move that the Bill be read a second time, and in doing so I should like to explain why the Bill has come up to your Lordships' House so late. As the House knows, the

1549
present session of Parliament did not begin until March 10. Representations were made to the Board of Trade that it would be desirable to further extend the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, 1909. The Board of Trade therefore had to make very full inquiry into the matter upon these representations in order that they might see whether there was a strong case for the extension of the Act and whether the employers would be damnified at all by having the Act extended in the manner proposed. As your Lordships are aware, the Board of Trade are very anxious to extend this Act to other trades where a clear case is made out for it. This Bill went before the House of Commons for First Reading; on May 1, but owing to the long Whitsuntide holiday it was not read a second time until June 16, and the Select Committee did not report until July 17. The Bill now comes before your Lordships' House as an unopposed measure, though in the House of Commons it was opposed in regard to the question of steam laundries, but this provision has since been dropped out of the Bill.
The Trade Boards Act, 1909, applies to the trades specified in the Schedule to that Act, and to any other trades to which it has been applied by Provisional Order of the Board of Trade made under section one of that Act, and time Board of Trade have power under that section to make a Provisional Order applying that Act to any specified trade to which it does not at the time apply if they are satisfied that the rate of wages prevailing in any branch of the trade is exceptionally low as compared with that in other employments, and that the other circumstances of the trade are such as to render the application of that Act to the trade expedient. The trades to which the Act of 1909 is extended by this Bill are sugar confectionery and food preserving, shirt-making, hollow-ware making, and linen and cotton embroidery. These trades are defined in the Schedules of the Bill. The trades have been consulted in the matter, and there is no organised opposition whatever to these four additional trades coming under this Act. Therefore we may take it that employers generally are satisfied that it will be an advantage.
It is very satisfactory from the point of view of the Board of Trade that up to the present, moment the working of the Trade Boards Act has given general satisfaction,
1550
and we are glad that in consequence of the Act wages have been considerably raised in those trades where employers were cutting prices and sweating their work-people. Some 200,000 persons come under the present Act, 70 per cent. of whom are women and girls; and it is considered that by the new Provisional Orders included in this Bill between 150,000 and 200,000, a vast proportion of whom are women and girls, will be added to the number of employees who will have their rates of wages settled under the Trade Boards Act. As the object of this Bill is to do something for the benefit of those who are unable to help themselves, I hope that your Lordships will consent to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachic.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I dare say that what the noble Lord has said is all perfectly true, but at the same time this Bill has never been circulated to your Lordships and I cannot see a copy of it upon the Table.
LORD STRACHIE: I hold the Bill in my hand. It bears the endorsement that it was brought from the House of Commons on July 24.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But I do not hold it in my hand, and that is why I have called attention to the matter. The Bill has not been circulated and is not on the Table, and I have never seen any print of it.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I think there is one answer which I might offer to the noble Earl by way of explanation, and that is that it is not usual to circulate Provisional Order Bills. A copy of the Bill is, of course, at the disposal of the noble Earl in the Printed Paper Office if he wishes to see it. I can assure him that there is no sinister intention in the Bill not having been circulated. That fact is due, as I have said, to its not being usual to circulate these Provisional Order Bills. But if the noble Earl wishes it, I am sure my noble friend in charge of the Bill would have no objection to postponing it so that the noble Earl might have an opportunity of looking at the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It seems to me to be a Bill of considerable importance. I understood the noble Lord to say that it affected 100,000 people.
LORD STRACHIE: It would apply to between 150,000 and 200,000.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then surely a Bill which has that application is a very important one, and one of which the House ought to be informed. As your Lordships know,' in the closing days of the session every sort of measure is brought up; it is not circulated, and then some Minister rises and proposes that it be read a second time and that all the Standing Orders be suspended. I am not accusing the noble Lord the Paymaster-General in the least personally, but I say that this thing has happened in my recollection constantly in the last fortnight of the session. Unless there is some very special reason why this Bill should be taken to-day, I certainly think it should be postponed until we have had an opportunity of seeing the Bill and studying its points.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a matter of considerable importance. We are all watching with sympathetic interest the working of the Trade Boards Act, which as your Lordships know, was not the subject of any Party controversy when the measure was passing through your Lordships' House. I gather from the noble Lord's statement that this particular Bill will almost double the number of persons who are subject to the Trade Boards Act. Therefore it is a Bill of very great importance, and although we were very much interested and gratified to hear the account, the brief account necessarily, which the noble Lord gave of the working of the Trade Boards Act, yet I think your Lordships would have liked rather longer notice and an opportunity of studying the whole of the provisions proposed in this Bill before being asked to give it a Second Reading. I understood the noble Lord to say that the trades concerned had been very carefully notified of what was proposed to be done, and that all the necessary steps had been taken to put them in possession of what it was proposed to do. That is very satisfactory. We should have, perhaps, liked a little more detailed information as to how far these trades had been consulted, what steps had been taken to consult them, who had been seen,
1552
and what the Board of Trade thought it right to do, for this is almost the first Occasion on which the Trade Boards Act has been extended under the section permitting its extension. Perhaps the noble Lord would not mind postponing the Second Reading until another day in order that we might have an opportunity of looking at the Bill. I see that one or two copies of the Bill are now upon the Table, but they were not there just now, and as far as I know the Bill was not circulated to your Lordships with the Minutes. That being so, I think there is a strong case for the postponement of the Second Reading, though I hope His Majesty's Government will understand that we do not in any sense wish to stop the operation of this Bill, but merely desire that a Bill of this importance should be properly considered before it is given a Second Reading.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Marquess and the noble Earl opposite are anxious that the Second Reading should be adjourned, of course the Government will readily consent to that course. But may I appeal to noble Lords opposite upon the urgency of this Bill? It would be very unfortunate if it were to fail for want of time. The reason it did not come up earlier, as I have explained, has something to do with the late period of the year at which the present session commenced and the long Whitsuntide holiday. The noble Marquess asked whether the employers concerned had been given full time for the consideration of the proposals in the Bill. That, my Lords, was one of the reasons why the Bill took so long to go through the House of Commons. It was put down on May 1, and the Second Reading was deferred until June for the very object of giving the employers concerned ample time to consider it. Provisional Order Bills are circulated to Members of the House of Commons, and I should think it would be well for the future for instructions to be given that all Provisional Order Bills should be circulated also to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope His Majesty's Government will agree to the short postponement asked for by my noble friend. I do not think that it need involve any interference with the ultimate fate of the Bill. There will be plenty of time next week to consider it.
LORD STRACHIE: What day does the noble Marquess suggest?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Tuesday.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And that the Bill be circulated in the meantime.
Further debate on the Motion for Second Reading adjourned till Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday next.
WEMYSS TRAMWAYS ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DUNFERMLINE CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN LOAN BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the object of the Bill to which I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of interest on a Loan to be raised by the Government of the Sudan for irrigation and other purposes. Not only may we say that it is an obligation on our part to assist in the social and commercial development of the Sudan and the maintenance of good government there, but while we are helping the people of the Sudan we are also able to say that we are helping our own people in this matter. The Loan which the Government of the Sudan
1554
propose to raise is mainly for irrigation, and in that matter the people of this country have a direct and very great commercial interest, especially the people of Lancashire, because the object of this irrigation is to enable a very large tract of country in the Sudan to be made available for cotton growing. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that there has been a very large increase in the export of cotton goods from this country. In the last ten years the increase has been something like £50,000,000, and we may fairly say that this country is the greatest exporter of cotton goods in the world; while on the other hand, as far as Europe is concerned, this country is the greatest consumer of raw cotton. From that your Lordships will see that it is very important to the commercial interests of the great cotton spinning districts of this country that there should be a large supply of cotton coming from different parts of the world. The more we can increase the supply of raw material the cheaper we can buy it, and the cheaper it can be bought in the raw state the cheaper is the cost of manufacture and the more easy it is for us to export the finished article abroad.
The British Cotton Growing Association, feeling the necessity of increasing our cotton supply in different parts of the world, sent out a Commission of Inquiry to the Sudan. The chairman of that Commission was Mr. Arthur Hutton, who reported on the possibilities of cotton growing in the Sudan and described a very large part as being an area which it would be very desirable to irrigate. At the present moment this area, the Gezira Plain, was described as being barren, sterile, and hardly growing anything—in fact, an absolute desert, useless for man and beast, except some 2,000 or 3,000 acres, which had been irrigated and was consequently a perfect oasis in that great desert. And where cotton was being grown at the present time in the Sudan he found that there was produced 550 lbs. of cotton per acre, as against an average in Egypt of 450 lbs. per acre, and in America of 200 lbs. Mr. Hutton, dealing with the Gezira Plain, this large tract of country of over 5,000,000 acres, described it in this way. He said—
"Practically every acre of it is capable of producing high-class cotton and of a quality which Lancashire requires in larger and larger quantities every day. It is also a country which can be irrigated at a comparatively small expense."

1555
No doubt your Lordships are aware that one of the difficulties of irrigation is not only that of getting the water upon the land but of getting the water off the land. The configuration of this particular tract of country called the Gezira Plain, the slope of it, is such that it is not only easy to get water on to the land but also off. It is proposed out of this Loan also to irrigate the Toka and Kassala areas as well, but they are comparatively small areas of 200,000 acres.
Lord Kitchener estimates that the irrigation of the Gezira Plain would cost from £1,250,000 to £1,500,000, and I might incidentally remark that this great scheme is only following out the policy of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, who we all are aware did so much in Egypt as regards the vast works of irrigation that were carried out in that country, which have added so enormously to the value of the land there and to the revenues of Egypt. I should also state that in taking this water from the Nile for irrigating this Plain, great care will be taken that nothing shall be done to prejudice the irrigation works which have already been such an enormous success in Egypt. This will be safeguarded by not taking the water at the same time, or by taking it under conditions which will do no harm at all to the irrigation works in Egypt, because I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would not be right to do anything to benefit the Sudan at the prejudice or the harm of the Egyptian irrigation works. Lord Kitchener is sanguine that this undertaking will have the indirect effect of once more making the Sudan a largely-populated district. Before the Dervish disturbances the population was some 9,000,000 in this area. It was reduced after the Dervish raids to a population of something like 2,000,000, and at the present moment the inhabitants do not number more than 3,000,000. Lord Kitchener thinks that when these great irrigation works are carried out it is safe to reckon that in the next five or six years the present population of 3,000,000 will have doubled, because when good government and work are established there it will be certain that a large population from outside will flock into that district.
As your Lordships will see, this Bill only proposes to guarantee the payment of the interest on this Loan. But it is proper
1556
that your Lordships and the country should consider the financial position of the Sudan at the present moment. A few years ago there was no trade and no revenue to speak of, but now the trade has grown enormously. In 1906 the exports were £265,000; in 1911 the exports had risen to £1,400,000. And as regards revenue, in the year of the battle of Omdurman, 1898, the revenue was only £35,000. It went up in 1899 to £127,000; in 1905 to £665,000; and in 1912 to £1,424,000. The subsidy which Egypt used to make to the Sudan to assist them in their finances has this year come to an end, with the exception of a small sum that is paid for a small body of Egyptian troops who are kept in that country. Again I may mention, as this Loan is being also asked for by the Sudan Government for railways, that the railway receipts since 1909 have gone up from £330,000 to £505,000. As I have explained, this Bill does not ask this country to raise a Loan as a present for the Sudan; it only asks that the interest on the Government of Sudan Loan shall be guaranteed by the Imperial Treasury. As regards the payment of interest, power is given to the Treasury to guarantee the Loan at an interest not exceeding 3½ per cent., but the guarantee is not to be given until the Treasury and the Secretary of State are satisfied as to the provisions for raising and applying the Loan, and also that an arrangement for the establishment and regulation of a sinking fund for the repayment of the principal in thirty years or less has been made by the Sudanese Government. The Treasury are not responsible for the sinking fund; but no guarantee will be given until they are satisfied that due provision has been made for paying off the Loan in thirty years or less. The Treasury will also have to lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement of such guarantee and an account of the sums issued.
I may add that Lord Kitchener does not at all expect that it will be necessary to call upon the Treasury to make good this guarantee. The object of the Sudan Government and of Lord Kitchener in supporting this application is that they may be able to borrow the money at a cheaper rate, because it is clear that a Sudan Loan with an Imperial guarantee is a very different thing in the Money Market from a Sudan Loan without an Imperial guarantee. Lord Kitchener is

1557
of opinion that the irrigation work in the Gezira Plain, which is to be undertaken first, will be self-supporting. He is satisfied that the finances of the Sudan at the present moment are well able to bear the interest on this Loan until construction, and therefore there will be no call even during construction on the guarantors of the Loan. The Loan is for £3,000,000—for irrigation works, £1,900,000; for contingencies, £100,000; and for railways, £1,000,000. It is not proposed to raise the whole of this money at once but as it is required, and the guarantee in respect of the payment of interest will move pari passu as the money is raised. But, as I say, the contingency that any charge is likely to fall on the revenues of this country is very remote. The Loan will be paid entirely by the Sudan without the smallest chance of any charge falling on this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CROMER: I trust that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I can confidently state that nowhere has the exercise of British influence produced better results than in the Sudan, and one of the main reasons why these results have been so good is that the system of government has been singularly well adapted to the requirements of the country. More especially decentralisation has been carried very far in the Sudan. Sir Reginald Wingate and the admirable staff of officers, civil and military, who have been working with him have been left practically alone to work out the salvation of the country. There has been practically no interference from London, and but very little interference and guidance from Cairo. The results have been in every respect admirable. When you consider the vast extent of this country, the savagery of a great portion of the population, the enormous distances of waste and desert which separate one place from another, and the general economic conditions of the country, the rapidity with which the Sudan has been regenerated is really marvellous. I often wish that those politicians and others who at times are apt to depreciate and to decry the work which their countrymen are doing in the distant parts of the Empire, could see a
1558
little more of these young men, for most of them are young, could hear them talk, and could realise a little more than they appear to do at times what is the work they are doing. If they did, they must be very curiously constituted if it did not evoke in their minds some feeling of pride for the work which their countrymen are doing abroad. I am particularly glad of an opportunity of stating this, because these Sudan officials, besides being very efficient, possess another good quality which is not common in these self-advertising days and to which I attach great importance—that is, they are very modest; they do not blow their own trumpets, and they are very rarely heard of in the Press. That, my Lords, is the more reason why those who, like myself, have had some opportunity of judging their work should bear testimony to what they have done.
A great deal has been done in the Sudan, but there remains a great deal to do. No doubt one of the first requirements of the country is that there should be considerable capital expenditure by Government on public works. A good deal of money has already been spent, and I should like to explain to your Lordships why more money has not been spent. It is because, as the noble Lord remarked in the course of his speech, capital is not the only requirement in the Sudan. It has also required population; and when I was to a certain extent responsible for the general government of that country it always appeared to me that it was both useless and unnecessary to spend vast sums of money 41 bringing fields under cultivation when there were no hands to cultivate them. Therefore I went slow. The waste of life in the Sudan during the Dervish rule, to which the noble Lord alluded, was something appalling. Be quoted figures based on the estimate of Sir Reginald Wingate. They were that the population before the Dervish rule was about 8,500,000, and in a period of twelve years that number had wasted to 2,000,000. That was by reason of inter-tribal warfare and the ravages of disease. I confess that when these figures were first revealed to me they were so startling that I hesitated to believe them, but I have no reason to discredit them, and I should like to state a thing which I saw myself which rather confirms them. I remember perfectly

1559
well the year after the Battle of Omdurman going to the town of Metemmeh, which lies 50 or 60 miles this side of Khartoum, and which had been a big town containing many thousands of inhabitants. I went into the square, where all the people assembled to meet me. There appeared to be very few of them and especially very few men, so I asked the local official in charge of the town what the population was. He told me that there were 1,300 all told, of whom only 150 were men. The fact was that most of the men had been killed. The most hopeful sign that I saw in my frequent visits to the Sudan was the large number of children about. No doubt good government has already attracted many people there from other parts of Africa, and I do not doubt that Lord Kitchener's estimate is correct that as time goes on further people will come in. The result is that we have now got to a stage when money may safely be spent upon irrigation purposes without any danger of outstripping the wants of the population.
To turn to the question of this Loan, I noticed that in the discussions which took place in the other House some objections were raised to the Loan because it was said that the money might better be applied to helping the agricultural population of this country. I do not propose to go into that question. It appears to me that a discussion on that point would lead us perilously near the dreary and tangled jungle of the fiscal question, which certainly I wish to avoid. Therefore I am going to leave that branch of the question entirely alone, and to consider the point on its own merits. There was another objection which was not raised to this Loan, but which might very well have been raised, and to which I think I had better allude. It might have been urged that inasmuch as the British Government does not guarantee the interest on Indian and Colonial Stocks, why, therefore, should it guarantee the interest on the Sudan Loan? I see my noble friend Lord Welby in his place, and I think he will bear me out in saying that that was a point to which in bygone days the Treasury attached some importance, and no doubt the objection is a rather forcible one. But I should like to point out to your Lordships why I consider that the Sudan in this instance may be differentiated both from India and the Colonies. The
1560
circumstances are very peculiar. In the first place, there is to some extent a precedent for this Loan, because in 1885, I think it was, the English Government in concert with the other Powers of Europe guaranteed the Egyptian Loan of £8,000,000. But that is not the only reason, and in order to explain the further reason I must allude very briefly to the political status of the Sudan.
You will remember that after the Battle of Omdurman the question of the political status of the Sudan had to be considered, and a very difficult question it was. On the one hand, the British Government did not in the least want to annex the Sudan. Far from it. They very much wished not to annex it, and had it not been for the capitulations and the ex-territorial rights acquired by Europeans in Egypt the best course would have been to have incorporated the provinces of the Sudan into Egypt and to have treated them as part of Egypt. But that was impossible. If we had done that, the whole of the cumbersome paraphernalia of mixed Courts and all the rest of it, which have done some good but which have certainly retarded progress in Egypt, would have been brought into the Sudan and would have rendered the government of the Sudan quite impossible. That being the case, we had to find a way out of the dilemma. In these circumstances, I undertook to propose to Lord Salisbury, who was then at the Foreign Office, that a hybrid form of Government, wholly unknown to international jurists up to that time, should be created, and that the Sudan should be neither British nor Egyptian but Anglo-Egyptian, with both the British and the Egyptian flags flying. That was a proposal which was novel and was certainly rather of a nature to shock conventional diplomatists. But I think its unconventionality and its novelty was rather an attraction in the eyes of Lord Salisbury, under whom it was my privilege to serve then, and he readily acceded to the proposal. The result was that the Sudan Convention was passed, and there is no doubt that the arrangement has worked very well. But it has had a certain disadvantage, and that is that being a complicated arrangement it has been very difficult to make the Egyptian people and the Egyptian Legislative Council understand it, and I must confess they are to be excused for not under-

1561
standing it altogether, for I doubt whether there are many people in this country who would understand it. A certain feeling of soreness was created in Egypt. They were constantly saying, "You say we are partners. The British and Egyptian flags are flying. There are considerable charges in respect of the financial burden, but the principal partner in the undertaking is paying nothing at all." I do not think these complaints were justified, because it must be borne in mind that this particular form of Government was created because of Egyptian complications. Moreover, it was Egypt much more than England which profited by the reconquest of the Sudan. At the same time, as I say, it was very difficult to explain; and for my own part I very much welcome this opportunity on political grounds of doing away, I hope, to a certain extent with that soreness which existed among Egyptian people when they said that the whole financial burden of governing the Sudan was left to them. Therefore I am glad this opportunity has been taken to show that British financial assistance will come to a certain extent to the aid of the Egyptian Treasury.
But in saying that I wish to utter one note of warning. There is nothing said in this Bill about the Egyptian liability. I do not complain of that. I do not profess to have gone into all the most recent facts of Sudanese finance, but I presume that His Majesty's Government and also Lord Kitchener have satisfied themselves that the Sudan Treasury can bear this charge and that in all probability no call will be made upon the British guarantee. But I think that the Egyptian Ministers and all in authority in Egypt should understand that the mere fact of this Bill having been passed does not involve their washing their hands entirely of all interest and all responsibility in Sudanese financial matters. Indeed I may go further and say that if, unfortunately, it should prove to be the case, as I trust it may not, that the Sudan Treasury cannot pay the interest and sinking fund under this Bill, I think it is conceivable that in the future questions of the extent to which some call may be made upon the Egyptian taxpayers may have to be revived.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. (Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise, in pursuance to a Notice I have given, to move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months. I do so more for the sake of putting myself in order than for any other reason; but I desire to express my regret that this House is making itself responsible for this Bill in its present form. There can be no doubt that the House does make itself responsible by passing it in the circumstances in which we stand to-day. I think that the whole procedure under this Bill is an advertisement of how useless discussion is on any Bill, at any rate in this House, and I think in the other House also to a large extent, when once the powers given to the Government under the Parliament Act have been invoked. I venture to add that I do not believe the Parliament Act was ever intended for a Bill of this kind, brought forward in the circumstances under which this Bill has been brought forward, or a Bill which has been discussed, or its general principles so cordially accepted, as has been the case in regard to this Bill. I go further, and I say that I do not believe when the Government passed the Parliament Act that they themselves had any intention of applying it to a measure of this kind. The fact that the Parliament Act has been invoked for this Bill is really owing to what I may say, I think, almost the intolerance of a large section of the supporters of the Government in Scotland.
The point I want to make is this, that once the Parliament Act is appealed to, it has the effect of taking away all real freedom and responsibility from discussion. I am the last to say that this House under any circumstances can be, or even ought to be, on absolutely equal terms in matters of this kind with those who are, so to speak, the representatives of the people. But it seems to me entirely unreasonable in a matter of this kind that all independent action should be taken away from this House under the threat that if this House does not agree to anything which is proposed by the Front Bench opposite the Bill shall be passed over the heads of this House. I venture to say respectfully to those who are

1563
responsible for it that I think, in all the circumstances that have passed—which I shall go over as briefly as I can—it would have been much more in conformity with the dignity of this House if this House had thrown upon the Government the responsibility of the passing of the Bill under the Parliament Act, to be passed, if it was to be so passed, with all its crudities and all its absurdities in the form in which it came up to this House in the first instance. In other words, if the appeal is made to the Cæsar of the Parliament Act it should be by that tribunal judged, and that it would be more in conformity with the dignity of this House not to have taken part in making any amendments in the Bill after the discussion which took place last year unless really substantial concession on points of detail had been given to us.
At any rate, there can be no doubt of this. This Bill does not in any way stand in a parallel position to either the Government of Ireland Bill or the Bill with regard to the Established Church in Wales. So far as the Irish Bill is concerned it would have been an absolute farce to give that Bill a Second Reading or to go into Committee upon it, as we were invited to do, in the hope of making it a Bill which could in any way be in conformity with the opinions and judgment of the majority of this House. But there never has been disclosed any really fundamental differences in regard to the contents of this Bill. We all want to promote temperance. All of us who know the condition of affairs in Scotland—and I think I may say the whole House—agree that there is a strong case in the present state of things there for reform and for change. I can say for myself, at any rate, that all along I have cordially welcomed the extension of local control over licences. I have a real belief in its wisdom. I am perfectly prepared to trust my fellow-countrymen to do justice when the case is fully put before them and they are given a full measure of discretion in regard to the policy which they would choose. I agree that there is a strong case for reduction in the number of licences in many parts of Scotland, and that if you can, as it is possible you may under this Bill although I have some doubts about it, get a really judicial consideration and decision with regard to the licences which ought to be taken away, you may make some change for the better in regard to the position of affairs.
1564
I frankly admit that in those points, at any rate, this Bill is really desired by enlightened Scottish opinion; but I go further and say that I think Scottish opinion is favourable to a much freer power than is given under this Bill to make experiments, and I believe it would be wiser to give the people of Scotland a really broad choice over the policy which they, on full information, would have desired to adopt. It is not unfair to say that the Government, or at any rate a large proportion of those who are behind the Government in this matter, are not prepared, like those of us on this side of the House, to trust the people altogether. They are only desirous of trusting the people with those options which they in their wisdom think the people ought to want to choose. As an illustration of this I instance the whole question of what we have been accustomed to describe as disinterested management. Even the Secretary for Scotland has never challenged the wisdom of the principle underlying disinterested management, and it is an open secret that a large number of his colleagues in the Cabinet are actual supporters of it. Their public declarations show that that is the case. Yet we have the anomaly of a Government in that position, and holding the opinions some of its members hold, making no effort whatever to adjust terms whereby the people of Scotland, or such portions of them as may desire it, can have the opportunity of exercising that option.
So far as that is concerned, in the last session of Parliament when minor Amendments favourable to bringing in disinterested management, which is seriously handicapped under the existing law, were proposed, those of us who were in favour of the principle of disinterested management could get no support at all or even toleration from those who are in charge of this Bill. At present the principle of disinterested management is seriously handicapped in the respect that under the present licensing law we are obliged to take out the licence in the name of an official or an individual employed by the company for disinterested management. We cannot get the licence in the name of the company. That is a serious difficulty, because it puts the individual under the general licensing law in whose name the licence is taken in far too prominent and far too powerful a position. This is a part of the licensing

1565
law of Scotland wherein it differs from that of England, where, speaking generally you license premises rather than an individual. In Scotland you license the individual to sell in premises, and the licence is much more regarded in Scotland as the appanage of the individual than of the premises or of those who are behind him. We asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, even in a small matter of that kind, a reform might be made whereby the company charged with disinterested management should be in receipt of the licence. There is no real difficulty in it. Yet the answer given to us was that there were certain penalties to be enforced in the case of breach of licence, and that these were money penalties with the option of imprisonment, and you could not imprison the company if they did not pay. How hollow that is I will show your Lordships in a moment. I believe there is no case on record—at any rate not for a very long number of years—where it has been found necessary to put in prison for any of these classes of offences any holder of a licence for not paying the fine. But even so under the Factory Laws there are many cases in which, if there is a breach of those laws, the penalty is a tine with the option of imprisonment if the fine is not paid. There are many limited companies employing hands in factories, and they cannot be put into prison because it is obviously impossible that you can do it. That is an exactly parallel case, and it shows the sort of rubbish which is thought good enough for argument by the Secretary for Scotland.
When we knew that we were not going to get the option of disinterested management, we confined ourselves to asking that this simple change in the law might be made which would give us greater facility for trying these experiments; and although this Bill is a Local Option Bill it does contain half a dozen or more provisions for the amendment of the general licensing law, even this simple request, was denied us. The Divisions which have been taken on this question of disinterested management are about the most striking and remarkable that I have ever seen. I go so far as to say that this Bill as it stands, without the option of disinterested management, represents neither the wishes of the people of Scotland nor the untrammelled desires of the House of Commons, and it cannot in any way be said to be representative of the opinion of this House. On the
1566
Amendment early in the year on which the question of disinterested management was first discussed, the Government could only get 22 Peers to go into the Lobby with them, and I think I am right in saying that 17 of those were actually members of the Government holding office, and four of the other five had been created Peers within a very short time. The overwhelming sense of the House was in favour of giving the option of disinterested management, and even so consistent a supporter of noble Lords opposite and one who knows Scotland so thoroughly as Lord Loreburn actually left the House rather than support the Government in the Division which they took upon that particular matter. That, even if it stood alone, is a somewhat striking proof of what the opinion of this House in regard to the principle at stake is. When the point went down to the other House of Parliament, there were challenges over and over again that the Government Whips should not be pot on, that the free vote of the other House should be given in this matter, but that was rejected. If that is a true instance of the working of our representative system under the domination of Party and under the working of the Parliament Act, then I am even more surprised now than I have been in the past that this system as it is should be so much the ideal of the noble Viscount the President of the Council, who is the most consistent and determined opponent of anything in the nature of a referendum upon any of these matters.
I should be the last person to say anything harsh or bitter about those who have worked hard for this Bill. At the same time, I believe that they are in an infinitesimal minority among the people of Scotland. I pay them the tribute of saying that they are earnest and hard-working and self-denying, and that they are much in evidence in local organisations and very skilful in bringing their influence to bear. In the passing of this Bill in the form in which it passes they have their reward. In my opinion they will find that they have won, from their point of view, a useless victory. It is my belief that the voting on this Bill will prove that they have over-estimated their power and their influence, and that, although in some cases there may be a reduction, in very few instances indeed will they gain their real desire of total prohibition. I go further and say that where the change is

1567
most needed I believe it will not come under this Bill either with the rapidity or with the good effect with which it might have come if a more sensible course had been pursued. It is my humble belief that, except in some sparsely-peopled areas where it is not required, prohibition as a policy will not be adopted by the people of Scotland. It is never wise to prophesy until you know, and perhaps I am risking something in making that confident prophecy, but it is my belief that in those congested populations where the reduction of licences is most required a great danger will be run that success will not follow the efforts which will be made.
I believe that the real hope of reform and of improvement lies in improving the management of public-houses, coupled with the increasing growth, and it is increasing and growing, of working-class opinion and sentiment that it is a disgrace to be seen the worse for drink; and also, I think, we have much more chance if we rely on the slow but sure operation of religious and educational influences in strengthening character and in giving self-control. But for these things to take effect, you must, in my humble opinion, have improvement in management. Through all the time I have been on the Bench as a licensing magistrate in my own district my experience has been that far more can be done by the personal responsibility of a high minded man in managing a public-house than can be done by coercion or by unduly limiting the times and driving those who are determined to get drink at times when the law says they are not to have it either into what are known as shebeens or into not altogether creditable clubs. This Bill is passing under the œgis of the Parliament Act. I cannot deny that the Government can pass it by that means. In my humble opinion it would have been wiser for this House to have let it go with all its defects and absurdities in the matter of areas and other things in the form in which it came, rather than make itself responsible for it even in the to the some extent improved form in which it now stands.
I admit that the areas are likely to be better now than they were when the Bill was brought to us. But look at it how you like, local government areas are not suitable for this class of legislation. You have the difference between county and burgh and the divisions between wards in your
1568
larger cities. Unless the authorities of those different areas work together, you will have all over the country a series of areas with different laws in which men who desire to procure drink will only have to walk a few hundred yards, in some cases only across the street, for the purpose of satisfying their desires. My experience from what I learnt in Wales nearly 20 years ago is this, that anything like a division by streets or by a river, as is sometimes the case, between county and borough is absolutely destructive of the possibility of carrying out a law of this kind If you are going to have areas in some of which there is prohibition and in others there is not, you ought carefully so to delimit the areas for the purpose by an arrangement in which local knowledge plays its part, sanctioned by the central authority, in which, as between one area and another, there will be wide spaces rather than the mere crossing of a street. In very many cases in Scotland there will be different authorities on opposite sides of a river, and although I admit that the areas as they now stand are an improvement upon what they were before, I venture to predict that this Bill will not go any distance, as it now stands, to satisfy the wishes even of its promoters, and so far as I am concerned I desire to dissociate myself from any responsibility with regard to it.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Notion ("this day three months").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Lord who has just sat down will, I hope, acquit me of discourtesy towards himself if I do not respond at any great length to the speech which he has just made, in view of the important discussion which we are awaiting with regard to the affairs of India. Indeed, if I were to answer, point by point, the various questions which he has raised, I am afraid the debate would be prolonged for a considerable period. He spoke, as we on this side are now becoming accustomed to hear, hard words of the Parliament Act. This is not the first time during the past few weeks that we have heard denunciations of that measure, and I daresay that in the course of the next year we shall hear even a great deal more against it. But I venture to think that

1569
in so far as it has promoted the passage of this Bill during the present session, those who were responsible for that Act may at any rate take some credit to themselves. I believe that on the whole all moderate-minded men would have preferred the passage of this Bill even with the Amendments that have been put in, small though the noble Lord thinks them to be, during the present session, rather than its ultimate passage next session without any of those Amendments having been made. The noble Lord laid emphasis on the fact that discussion was useless in the present circumstances. I remember that some years ago, in 1904, we had long discussions upon a licensing measure which had been introduced by noble Lords opposite. A great many Amendments were moved, among others by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches The noble Earl will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that he was disappointed at not receiving all those concessions from the Government in power which he hoped to get. Amendments were moved, not only by the noble Earl himself, but by a large number of noble Lords who felt on that occasion, as the noble Lord feels to-day, that discussion is, after all, useless when the Government has made up its mind with regard to a particular measure.
We are forced back on this occasion to consider which of the two views most nearly represents the wishes of the people of Scotland—the opinion of your Lordships' House as it was expressed last session, or the opinion of the direct representatives in another place of the people of Scotland. On the whole we prefer to take the expressions which reach us from the direct representatives of Scotland as being the most representative of opinion in that country. There was, indeed, one feature which gave us some satisfaction in the speech of the noble Lord. That was the fact that he seemed rather to blame this Bill for its sins of omission rather than its sins of commission. It is not so much what the Bill does as what it leaves undone that the noble Lord blames.
That brings us to the question of disinterested management, as to which Lord Balfour said a good deal in the course of his speech. We have discussed this at considerable length, and I am still
1570
not without hope that, within the course of next session, a Bill may be introduced by those who are keen advocates of the proposal for disinterested management which will make that principle apply to England as well as to Scotland. I am afraid I am obliged to repeat myself upon this question. We do look forward to the possibility of such a Bill being introduced in order that it may apply, not only to Scotland, but also to the whole of the country; and I venture to think that if such a Bill could be produced and laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House we should then be able to judge more easily what are the difficulties in the way of the passage of such a measure and how far it will be easy to apply tins principle. But if such a suggestion is refused and no such Bill is introduced, I venture to think that those noble Lords who are anxious for the promotion of the principle of disinterested management will lay themselves open to the suspicion that perhaps after all it is more difficult to draw up a Bill for the promotion of that principle than we had suspected before.
To a great deal which was said by the noble Lord it is, of course, difficult to make any reply. Much of it consisted of prophecy as to the uselessness of our victory and as to the uselessness of the Bill even when it is put into operation. We must wait and see what the actual result will be. But, at any rate, if in the course of the next few years no progress is made with the principle of disinterested management we on this side of the House who believe in the principle will be able, when we change sides, to claim the support of the noble Lord if we then press upon the Government of the day to support or produce a Bill on these lines. I am glad to think that the noble Lord does not intend to ask your Lordships to divide upon this occasion. Indeed, if a Division had taken place I venture even to think that we might have managed to secure the passage of this Bill. But although it is being passed without the support of the noble Lord I cannot conclude without expressing my regret that that should be so. We all of us know the interest which the noble Lord has taken in social affairs in Scotland and the influence which he very justly and rightly exercises in that country and therefore we regret the more that in this matter we should not have his support.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend who has made this Motion will, I understand, not ask the House to divide upon it, and I am glad that that should be his intention, for it would obviously have been impossible for me to go into the Lobby with him. At the same time I rise for the purpose of expressing my entire concurrence with a great deal of what was said by my noble friend. I say frankly that I have never liked this Bill, and I do not like it now. I dislike it because I believe it will be fitful and perplexing in its operation. Under this Bill the law in any given area in Scotland will depend, not upon principles laid down by Parliament, but upon the will or, I might perhaps say the whim, of the majority of the electors inside the area. I dislike the Bill because I feel convinced—and I ant glad in this respect to be fortified by the high authority of my noble friend—that it is not likely to do much for the cause of temperance. There will be startling discrepancies under this Bill between the treatment of one area and another. You will have one area in which prohibition will prevail, and alongside of it, divided perhaps by the width of the street, you will have another area in which there will be free trade in intoxicating liquors, stimulated and aggravated by the disappearance of all facilities in the adjoining area.
I dislike this Bill, again, because I believe it to be unduly severe and harsh in its operation upon the holders of licences, and because it cannot fail to inflict a great deal of uncalled-for inconvenience upon persons who may desire to gratify a perfectly harmless propensity which no law has yet stamped with the brand of illegality. And perhaps most of all I dislike this Bill because, although it professes to be a Bill for conferring local option, it denies to the electors a particular form of option which many of them probably prefer to any other, and which upon the merits appears to me to be a more reasonable form of option than any of those included in the scope of the Bill. We tried hard to deal with those defects during the different stages of the Bill, and if we failed I do not think it can be said that we failed ignominiously. We failed really because we attempted an impossible task—that of amending an extremely complicated measure without any
1572
assistance from the Government who are responsible for it. Our feelings remain unchanged. But we had to take into account that persistence in our views meant the loss of the Bill this session, followed by its passage into law next year in a completely unaltered shape under the operation of the Parliament Act. My noble friend told us just now that in his view it might have been better for this House and more consonant with its dignity if we had chosen that course. I do not entirely agree with him. There was, perhaps, something to be said for it if we had merely desired to bring discredit upon the Bill and upon those who are responsible for it, but we had to consider the Bill on broader grounds, and to my mind the most important point we had to consider was that it is a Bill which is distinctly local in its operation. Its operation is confined to Scotland, and we are told—and I think my noble friend confirmed it—that it is desired by a great number of people in that country. And again it is local in its operation as regards the different areas concerned. The principle of the Bill is that each area is to be free to choose for itself.
That being the character of the Bill it has never seemed to us to be one in regard to which we ought altogether to exclude the idea of compromise; and therefore when an overture was made to us, as it was the other evening, by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, we did not think it our duty to disregard that overture. We accordingly endeavoured to come to terms. I say frankly that to my mind the terms are by no means completely satisfactory, but we have to remember that in negotiation we did not meet on equal terms. Noble Lords opposite had a weapon which they were able to hold in terrorem over us, and we had to be content with the best terms that we could get. We have been able in some respects to make it a less unfair Bill than it was. We have in particular been able to mitigate the hardship of the Bill by a substantial extension of the time limit. That I regard as distinctly an improvement. We have also been able to render it less easy to inflict either prohibition or limitation, with all their attendant hardships, upon the areas con-

1573
cerned by an alteration in the numbers of those voting under the second clause. We arrived at an agreement upon these bases, and such as it is I am glad that it has been arrived at. We, at any rate, have been parties to that agreement, and that being so we cannot recede from it now; and it is therefore certainly not our intention to offer any further opposition to the progress of the measure.
On Question, whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

THE INDIA OFFICE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is in contemplation, by legislation or otherwise, to introduce any changes into the conduct of business in the India Office.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have ventured to put this Question on the Paper because for some little time past statements have been current, especially in one or two of the leading Indian newspapers, to the effect that some change is imminent in the conduct of business at the India Office, and, I think it has also been suggested, in the relations between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy. It would be, I think, undesirable for me to enter into any of these questions while we are still in ignorance as to whether the Government have decided to take any action in either of the directions suggested. With regard to the conduct of the India Office itself, although the circumstances of the Secretary of State are peculiar as compared to other Offices in that he is assisted by a Council and acts in most of his official acts in concert with a Council, at the same time with regard to the actual arrangements of business in the India Office the Secretary of State has, without legislation, very great powers, and if there is anything which calls for amendment in the present conduct of business there I apprehend
1574
that the Secretary of State has it in his own power to make very considerable changes without in any way infringing the Act under which the business of the India Office is carried out. As to the relations between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy I should be still unwilling to enter into that subject, except to say that we all realise that great changes have been carried out recently in regard to the conduct of business in India, but nothing certainly has transpired to make us believe that these changes have in any way altered the extremely harmonious working between the Secretary of State and the India Office on the one hand and the Viceroy and the India Council on the other. Therefore without in any way prejudging any of the questions at issue, I think perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to take this opportunity of putting the Question standing in my name on the Paper in order that he may inform the House before we separate whether these rumours have any foundation, and, if he so desires it, to set them at rest.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am afraid that I must occupy rather more of the time of the House than would be needed for a simple answer to the Question put to me by the noble Viscount. I have to thank him for giving me full notice of his intention to raise this matter, because the subject of the government of India and of the methods by which it is conducted are intrinsically of vast importance, although the actual details of that government cannot be expected to be of close interest to a large number of people in this country. But so far as this House is concerned there are many noble Lords who, in one way or another, have been engaged with the conduct of Indian affairs, and I have no doubt they will be glad to know what the present position is, and how far it is contemplated to propose any changes in that position.
I propose to allude to various points in connection with our Office affairs in the merest outline, and I venture to assume that until I am able to put some distinct proposals before the House noble Lords will desire to postpone anything in the nature of a general discussion. It is true, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, that there are many changes in the conduct of the business of the India Office

1575
which can be carried out by the Secretary of State under the powers already given him by Parliament without asking for the amendment of any Act. But those possibilities are so closely interwoven with the possible necessities of asking for statutory sanction for changes that it is almost necessary to describe the subject as a whole, and to mention certain matters upon which the discretion of any Secretary of State might be exercised without application to Parliament.
When I went to the India Office quite late in the year 1910 I found that the conduct of business there had for some little time been the subject of discussion, and it was obviously necessary for me to wait for a little time to get some experience of the particular methods of the India Office before I could attempt to form any conclusion as to whether or not changes were necessary. It so happens that during the last thirty years I have been an inmate in various different capacities of several Public Offices, and I was able, therefore, to institute certain comparisons of the various methods which obtain, and to compare them with those of the India Office. Since my appointment, as it happened, I have been absent from my Office twice for two periods of several months in duration—once from illness, and once when I was attending His Majesty in India; but so far as these particular periods were concerned the time was in no way wasted, because the interval has enabled me to obtain opinions on the working of the Office and upon possible changes from many of those who are most competent to speak on the subject. Those who have, either in India or this country, had personal experience of the methods under which the India Office works have in a considerable number been good enough to supply me confidentially with their personal impression. I ought particularly to express my obligations to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Montagu, who has brought to bear much industry and acute observation in studying this subject of business; and all those of your Lordships who have had to do with Public Offices will, I am sure, agree that in many respects as regards the daily details of an Office an Under-Secretary is in a stronger position than his Chief to observe and also to form critical opinions upon the every-day proceedings of the Office.
1576
I found, in collecting the various opinions of experienced men, that the general opinion appeared to be, in the words of one of my eminent predecessors, that the procedure of the Office in relation to India was "intolerably cumbrous and dilatory." In discussing the general question I must remind your Lordships, as the noble Viscount did, that the India Office is different in constitution from other Offices, from the fact that there is a Council which works with the Secretary of State. It is a unique form of Council, because such other bodies as the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council are really administrative boards, which the Council of India is not. It differs in important respects. The most important point to remember is that the Secretary of State in Council controls by a majority of votes the grants or appropriations of revenue; that is to say, the whole control of the expenditure of India finally rests with that body. It is familiar, I think, almost to everybody that the inception of this Council dates from the year 1858, when after the great Mutiny of the previous year a Secretary of State with this Council was substituted for the Honourable East India Company and the Board of Control. But it is worth noticing that the idea of the Council goes back further than that. It had been seriously mooted in 1853, when the Mutiny was never dreamt of; and for twenty years before that the East India Company had to some extent altered in character and ceased to be the great commercial body which it had been in the past. In February, 1858, Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister, and he brought in a Bill for the dissolution of the Company and the formation of the Council. He proposed that there should be a Council of eight members whose tenure of office would be for five years, and that for the sanctioning of expenditure at least four of those eight must concur with the Secretary of State; and the Council was to distribute its business among the various members according to the different departments in the Office. The members of the Council were to receive a salary of £1,000 a year.
Almost immediately afterwards came the great Parliamentary débûcle which noble Lords will remember occurred after the attempt by Orsini on the life of the Emperor Napoleon. The attitude of Lord Palmerston and his Government with respect to such crimes caused him to be

1577
defeated in the House of Commons, and they were turned out and succeeded by the Government of Lord Derby. Accordingly in March, only a month later, Mr. Disraeli tried his hand at a similar task. He introduced a Bill involving the creation of a Council of a different kind, a Council of eighteen members with a six years' tenure; nine of them were to be nominated, and nine were to be elected by some singular constituencies composed of Civil servants, of holders of India Stock, and of some of the great urban communities in this country. This Bill did not find very great favour, and it was finally withdrawn in the course of the summer; and Lord John Russell proposed that, as there were two rival measures similar in object but completely different in method, the House should content itself with passing certain Resolutions involving the disappearance of the Company, and this was accordingly done. The result was that, later still in the session of the same year, Lord Stanley, whom we remember in this House as the fifteenth Lord Derby (the uncle of the noble Earl who sits on the Front Bench opposite), the last President of the Board of Control and afterwards the first Secretary of State for India, brought in what was known as No. 3 Bill, which became an Act and is the Act under which the India Office is now worked, although various modifications have been introduced into the system since. That created a Council of fifteen members receiving a salary of £1,200 a year. The conditions of tenure I will deal with later.
The debates in both Houses of Parliamen on that measure were of singular power and interest. Mr. Disraeli took a prominent part; Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Bright all made speeches in the course of the debate, as did also a number of those particularly qualified to speak from Indian experience; and when the Bill came here the debates were also powerful and interesting, conducted by Lord Derby, by Lord Ellenborough, whose eloquence has remained a historical tradition in this House, and by Lord Granville on behalf of the Opposition. The measure received the Royal Assent in August of the year 1858. From the discussions and from the form which the measure ultimately assumed certain practical conclusions emerged. It was agreed by everybody that the Secretary of State should be assisted by a Council founded, no doubt,
1578
largely on the analogy of what had been the government of India under the East India Company. It is evident to anybody who reads the debates that there was a marked dread of the Government and in particular of a single Minister having uncontrolled power of spending the revenues of India, and there was also deep mistrust of the patronage of India being handed over to a single individual. But it was also generally agreed that the functions of the Council should be in the main advisory, and that the individual responsibility of the Secretary of State should be safeguarded and maintained. It was also frequently emphasised that the Council of India should not have to give its time to routine work but that it should mainly devote itself to important questions of policy and other matters of first-class interest.
The Act of 1858 is one of the most elaborate pieces of machinery which could be seen anywhere. I may again remind the House that its central point may be taken to be this—namely, that every order or communication proposed to be sent to India, and every order proposed to be made in respect of Indian affairs in the United Kingdom, must either be approved by the Council or must lie on the Council table for a period of seven days. I think the House will at once see that this rigid rule, added to the size of the Council, almost inevitably brought about a state of things in which the work of the Council would be mainly done by Committees, power being given in the Statute to divide the Council into such Committees. It became the natural trend of affairs that all business should in time fall within the scope of the work of such Committees, and for this reason—that, in the first case, where a conclusion had to be approved by the Council it was found to be an obvious saving of time in the long run for it to be examined by three or four people, when, if they were able to come to some agreement, it was likely to go through more surely than if it had to be considered for the first time by a body of fifteen. In the second case. where a Paper had to lie on the table, the fact that it went to a Committee would tend to prevent the possibility of some member of the Council rising and objecting while it was on the table, and thereby perhaps causing more delay than the examination in Committee itself would cause. These two things being so, the

1579
process naturally grew up of relegating to the examination of Committees practically all subjects of business, large as well as small. I have stated that the Act was a careful and elaborate one. One of its provisions is that the Council is obliged to meet every week in the year whatever business there may be to be done. The result is, therefore, that the longest actual holiday which can be obtained by all of its members is that somewhat maimed period of enjoyment known as "the clergyman's fortnight," one meeting being held on a Monday and the next on the ensuing Saturday week. No business whatever can be done without a quorum of five, however trivial the business may be, and there are certain cases in which a series of signatures by members of the Council are required to documents the importance of which scarcely seems to warrant such extreme closeness of attention.
I need not trouble the House with certain modifications which were made in the Council arrangements in 1876, and again in 1889. But in 1907 my noble friend the Lord President, who was then Secretary of State, was responsible for a Bill which your Lordships may remember, in which it was laid down that the Council should consist of not less than ten or more than fourteen members, and their salary was reduced from £1,200 to £1,000 a year. This, generally speaking, being the system under which we work, I must ask the House to consider what are the shortcomings which seem specially to attach to it, and what methods of reform it might appear wise to adopt. It was asked in 1858, and it has been asked on various occasions since, Why have a Council at all? The Foreign Office and the Colonial Office—the latter, of course, presenting the closer analogy—dispense with any such system of advice to the Secretary of State, and why, it is asked, should not the India Office do the same thing? In 1858 Mr. Roebuck, who belonged to that perennial class of politicians, of whom there are always a few in Parliament, whose life is spent in raising objections to almost everything that is proposed, took a strong view on this question. He spoke of the attempt that was being made to "patch up the rickety progeny of Lord Stanley"—that being the third Bill—and he prophesied confidently that in a very few years time the Secretary of State would be the sole governing power.
1580
My own shorter experience is confirmed by the opinion of those who have enjoyed longer experience, and I say confidently that if I could I would not part with the Council of India. The India Office in its official departments is manned by a singularly able body of Civil servants, and so far as the conduct of the Office is concerned we should no doubt be as competent as other Offices to do our daily work. But it is by no means only a question of the assistance which the Council of India render to the Secretary of State by causing matters to come before him for decision in a more compact and concentrated form than they do in other Public Offices. It is also a marked advantage to the Secretary of State, supposing there to be some differences of opinion and a discussion on a particular subject in Council, to be obliged to present his case in a more accurate form than he probably might, do if he had only to argue the pros and cons of it with himself. And furthermore—and this is by no means the least important point—the existence of the Council greatly strengthens the position of a Secretary of State in his dealings with the Government of India, more especially, of course, when he is a new comer to the India Office. My own experience is a special one, because I happen to be on terms of almost life-long intimacy with the present Viceroy, I am well acquainted with his ways of business, as he is with mine, and so far as our relations are concerned I should not mind conducting business with the Government of India without any intermediary. But if the existence can be conceived of a Viceroy of a singularly independent or even arbitrary turn of mind, a Viceroy backed by a body of local experts of long practical experience, then I think the Secretary of State would need to be a Bismarck to hold his own in any controversy against so powerful a combination as that, and the only result, a disastrous result as I think, would be that India might be brought more often than it is within the cock-pit of Parliamentary politics. Therefore, as I have said, I for one, and I believe all those with similar experience would say the same, would not dispense with the Council of India. What is more, my own experience, and, so far as I know, that of others, would not lead me to ask relief from that financial control which the Act of Parliament empowers the Council to exercise.

1581
In theory, of course, the Council might make the government of India under our Parliamentary system almost impossible by opposing the Government of the day and declining to carry out propositions to which the Cabinet attach supreme importance. But those are purely theoretical possibilities which need not alarm practical men, because it is, I think, the universal experience of people that when you collect a number of men practised in affairs round a table anxious to agree if they can, a method will always be found by which some reasonable result can be obtained. The proof of this appears to me to be that in other matters not financial, in all of which it is within the competence of the Secretary of State of the day to override his Council, it is only on the very rarest occasions that such a step has to be taken; and if any of the ex-Viceroys of India who have been in the same position with regard to their Councils happened to be in the House now, I think they would give similar testimony of their relations with their own Council. Therefore I shall certainly not ask your Lordships' House either to abolish the Council of India or to strip it of its former powers; but there are certain propositions, some domestic and some necessitating the amendment of the Act of Parliament, upon which I ought to say a word.
In the first place as regards the number of the Council. The existence of the present number seems to me to depend upon the necessity, if proved, for that universal activity of the Council which in its turn involves the perpetual action of Committees. Now, I venture to think that the Committee procedure is, in fact, only required on matters of moment. There are now seven Committees, and to man such a number as that it is obvious that a large Council is required. I shall propose, therefore, to make the procedure by Committee exceptional instead of, as it is now, invariable, and that I believe can best be done by attaching the various Members of Council to a particular Department in the office; not, of course, making them the controllers of the particular Department or in any way depreciating the position of the Secretary of the Department; but initiating a system by which they may co-operate for the particular work. And I should hope that thereby a great deal of business which now goes to Committees, and afterwards in a perfunctory
1582
way to the Council, might be done directly by the Department, sometimes, of course requiring the particular sanction of the Secretary of State, approached for the purpose, as he always is, through an Under-Secretary, but often in small matters on the responsibility of the Department itself.
I need not trouble the House with a description of the long and intricate method by which a file of papers travels backwards and forwards within the walls of the India Office, a rolling stone which on its way gathers sometimes a vast amount of moss. The process in subjects of the first magnitude is not too elaborate and may, indeed, be absolutely necessary, but in minor matters time is obviously thus spent which might quite well be spared; but I will not attempt now to elaborate any details of how Committees which would have to sit on many subjects should be specially framed for that purpose. It is said, I know, that if a Member of Council is thus specially attached to the Department the position of the permanent head of the Department, the Secretary, would thereby be lowered; but it is worth while noting that in our Military Department a system practically similar to that which I have mentioned obtains. The Military Secretary and the Military Member of Council are both soldiers of great eminence, both full Generals, and it is certainly not the case that co-operation between them is difficult, or that the position of either is compromised by the presence of the other.
One advantage which I should hope would follow is the initiation of far more direct communication between the different. India Office departments and the Government of India itself without the necessity of passing through the various processes which at present are followed, and I should hope thus to dispose of the complaints which we have many times received from India of delay which occurs in small matters. Well, this all points to a reduction of the number of the Council. For the actual work of the office, except for a consideration to which I will allude, a Council of eight would, I think, be adequate, answering so far as possible both in number and in the character of the work done to the different members of the Viceroy's Council in India. But it has to be noted that my noble friend behind me (Lord Morley) introduced, if he will allow me to say so, with great perspicacity the custom of getting two

1583
Indian gentlemen to sit on the Council here. That is a custom which I trust will be perpetually maintained; and it would sometimes, no doubt, be possible to attach an Indian gentleman of official experience to some particular department. However, it may not always be possible so to attach him; and the conclusion, therefore, is to my mind that the statutory limit which we shall probably desire to submit to your Lordships in a Bill will be the number of ten, which would leave a certain margin in case any particular Member of Council is not to be attached to a department.
There is a further reason why all that I say now must be regarded as somewhat provisional. Your Lordships are aware that an important Commission is sitting—a Royal Commission—under the presidency of Mr. Austen Chamberlain to inquire into matters relating to Indian finance, and at the close of the terms of reference to that Royal Commission you will find the words "The Commission is to report as to the suitability of the financial organisation and procedure of the India Office." Now, my Lords, I cannot in any way foretell what recommendations that Royal Commission may make. They have been good enough to inform me that they have not so far touched upon this question of India Office organisation. I, of course, should be anxious not to propose anything beforehand which would be incompatible with their recommendations and I have no doubt that they would be equally unwilling to propose any form of office reorganisation which would be incompatible in a general sense with the outline which I am now setting before the House. But it cannot be disputed that the Finance Department and the finance membership of Council, which has been the subject recently of a number of attacks—many of which I am confident are founded on absolute ignorance of the subject—it cannot be disputed that the position of the Finance Member or Members of the Council and the salary which should be paid to such Members may need differential treatment from that which we should propose to apply to those who sit on the Council in an ordinary capacity. I make that caution because it is desirable it should be understood that I am leaving out the question of India Office finance, at any rate in its detail, from these general propositions which I am laying down.
1584
Then there arises the question as to what Members of Council ought to be paid. If I succeed in carrying out my project of reducing the numbers of the Council and effecting some method of attachment of each Member to a particular department, it will be obvious that such a Member will have to become, more than he is at present, a full-time public servant, and that he will not be able to combine the holding of his post, as Members are able to do now to a certain extent, with outside work. In those circumstances it would probably be right, I think, to revert to the salary of £1,200 a year instead of the £1,000 to which my noble friend altered the payment in circumstances, of curse, altogether different from those which will exist when our measure is put forward. And I hope it will be found that the membership of the Council here should be regarded in the future, not as the beginning of an Indian official's retirement, but as the final stage in his actual Indian work; and there is no reason that I can see why it should not accordingly count for pension as part of his Indian service. That, I think, would be a change which might sometimes help us to obtain a man whose services we should not otherwise get; and it seems to me to be reasonable and fair, as well as advantageous, to link more closely this particular service with the service which a man carries out in India.
Much has been said about interchange between the Indian service and service in the India Office. The word sometimes almost becomes a shibboleth with those who have seen, or at any rate heard of, the useful effects brought about by interchange, as for instance in the Foreign Office. Interchange can be applied sometimes, and is sometimes applied, to the great public advantage; but the suggestion which has sometimes been made that officials in India might come on to the Secretary of State's Council and then return to Indian activities, although there may be cases in which such a thing is possible, contains one objection which I am sure your Lordships will realise. It has been pointed out that in such a case a Member of Council waiting for further promotion in India at the hands of the Secretary of State would, or at any rate might, lose some portion of the complete independence which ought to characterise a Member of Council, because he might be, or consider himself to be, dependent for promotion on

1585
agreement with the Secretary of State of the day. That is an objection which, no doubt, carries some weight. In my view the system of interchange should be an elastic one, but it should not be general, either as regards Members of Council or even as regards secretaries and clerks within the office itself, although in the latter case it can no doubt be usefully applied on occasion.
But one consideration I do regard as very important—namely, that so far as possible when a man comes on to the Council his experience of India should be recent experience. That was obvious to the acute mind of Lord Palmerston so long ago as 1858, because in one of his speeches on the subject he said that "obsolete experience is worse than useless." Men talk of the "unchanging East," but, as a matter of fact, social and sometimes political changes in India pass with the rapidity of a kaleidoscope, and a man's knowledge of a number of local considerations of importance soon wears rather thin. Experience, of course, of a different kind—experience of character and probable motive—always remains valuable and does not wear out, but the actual experience of affairs must be tolerably recent if it is to be of great value. As it is now, of the Members of Council nine must have served for ten years in India, and they must not have left India for more than five years. Formerly the limit of possible absence from India was ten years but that was one of the points which was altered by my noble friend behind me to the public advantage, as I venture to think, for an interval of ten years must be in most cases too long. It might not be prudent to debar by Statute the Secretary of State from appointing a Member who had been absent for five years, but so far as the practice is concerned—and I do not hesitate to say that so far as I am concerned myself it is a practice I should desire to follow—the interval of absence should not, if possible, be more than two or three years.
My Lords, I have made it, I hope, clear that certain statutory changes would be required to carry out these reforms to which I have alluded. There is a great deal in the Act of 1858 which might be left to be done by rules in the Office instead of being imposed upon us by an Act of Parliament; but it is quite possible that it may be thought not worth while, as the
1586
Act is there with all its detail, to repeal small or unimportant details of such a kind except where their existence can be shown to be actually obstructive to business or likely to interfere with any general improvement in the way business is conducted. But I hope that public attention, so far as interest can be generally taken in such matters, will be directed to the subject, and I can only say that I myself shall welcome any criticism or any fresh ideas which those who are so interested may feel able to bring forward. The sole object which any of us can have in view is to improve, and so far as may be perfect, the machinery by which the daily and sometimes almost the hourly intercourse between those who represent the Imperial Parliament and those who control the actual government of our great Eastern Empire is carried on. Nobody on any side, I am glad to think, has any axe to grind in such matters as these, and no Party considerations of any kind enter into it. I hope, therefore, that general assistance will be forthcoming when I am able to produce a measure, as I hope to do next session, which as noble Lords will see will not be by any means of a long or elaborate character, to carry out the reforms which I have indicated.
On the single point that the noble Viscount opposite mentioned, that of any alteration in the relations between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy, except so far as those relations may be affected by possible changes in the procedure or methods under which the Council works I can assure the noble Viscount that none such are in contemplation. I have already stated that the relations between the Government of India and myself are of the most happy and harmonious character; and although, of course, suggestions may be made for improvement of methods at that end as well as this, we have no formal propositions of any kind to make which would alter the relations between the two Departments, the one in India and the other in Whitehall.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Might I ask the noble Marquess for an explanation upon one point, whether the attachment of a Member of his Council to a department of his Office will be of the same character as the attachment of a Member of the Viceroy's Council to a department of the Government of India?

1587
In other words, is a Member of the Council of India to be in charge of the department with power to pass orders on matters of ordinary importance, reserving matters of serious importance for the decision of the Secretary of State in Council?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not attempt to go into anything like detail. My general impression is that the relations between the particular department and the Member of Council would not be quite so close or so formal as those which exist in the case of the Viceroy's Council. The Secretary to the department would, of course, have precisely the same direct access to the Secretary of State that he enjoys at present. I should look rather to a system of general co-operation than to anything which could be described as the passing of orders, which the noble Lord has mentioned.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, it would manifestly be impossible to discuss now the very important statement which the noble Marquess has made, but there was one point to which he alluded to which I think your Lordships listened with great pleasure—that is, that the proposals of reorganisation solely concern the India Office, and that there is no intention of altering the statutory relations between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy. Although there has been no statutory alteration since 1858, in practice the relations between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State have unquestionably a great deal altered in recent years; and one point is frequently forgotten in connection with these matters—namely, that directly the telegraph was established it was inevitable there should be certain changes in practice. I heard with great
1588
satisfaction the noble Marquess say that there was no intention of making any statutory alteration in those relations.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am sure the noble Marquess will not expect us to make any comment to-day on the interesting statement he has made. I quite share the feeling expressed by Lord Cromer. I gather that the changes which the noble Marquess has adumbrated cannot be introduced at this moment, and I will therefore not add anything except that we shall most carefully consider his statement.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.