Sitting of 30 June 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords](Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Worthing Gas Bill [Lords],
Leith Harbour and Docks Bill [Lords],
Edinburgh Corporation Bill [Lords],
Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell
Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Bishop's Waltham Water Bill,
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill,
Manchester Royal Exchange Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill,
Westminster Hospital Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments Made; Bill to be read the third time.
Rochford Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
Tynemouth Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords](by order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
Local Government Provisional Orders(No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders(No. 9) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
St. Andrews Burgh Extension and Links Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Private Bills (Group E).
Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills, that the parties promoting the Halkyn District Mines Drainage Bill had stated that the evidence of Richard Fuge Grantham, Civil Engineer, 5, Little College Street, Westminster, S.W., was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Richard Fuge Grantham do attend the said Committee on Wednesday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Richard Fuge Grantham do attend the said Committee on Group E of Private Bills on Wednesday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL (REGULATIONS).
Paper[presented 27th June]; to be printed.[No. 175.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Copy presented of Actuarial Report upon the Financial Proposals of the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (1909–10) ACT, 1910 (ADDITIONAL TAXATION) (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Memorandum on the estimated true Irish contribution to the Revenue of the year 1912–13 in respect of new and additional Taxation imposed by The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910[by Command];to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Accounts presented of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1912, together with a Statement showing the aggregate amount of the Liabilities of the Government to Depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on the 31st December, 1912, and the nature and amount of the Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. INo. 176.]
WOODS,FORESTS,AND LAND REVENUES.
Copy presented of Ninety-first Report of the Commissioners, dated 27th June, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 177.]
ISLE OF MAN.
Account presented of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1913, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
TUBERCULOSIS (HUMAN AND BOVINE) (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Volume VI. of the Appendix to the Final Report of the Commissioners: Report on the Results of a Chemical Investigation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the councils of the boroughs of Tynemouth (2), Keighley (3), Heywood (2), West Ham, and Burnley, and the urban district of Castle-ford, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHIPPING SUBSIDIES.
Copy presented of Report on Bounties and Subsidies in respect of Shipbuilding, Shipping, and Navigation in Foreign Countries[by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled The Harrington and Lowca, Light Railway Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled The North Lindsay Light Railways (Amendment) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled The Glamorgan County Council (Morris-ton to Pontardawe) Light Railways (Revival as to Part) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the year 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 181.]
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1913[by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of draft Order of the Local Government Board approving, with modifications, the East Birmingham Town Planning Scheme [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Sixty-seventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor. Part I.[by Act]; to be printed. [No. 182.]

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
Copy ordered, "of Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1912

1455
(being a statistical account of the passenger movement between the United Kingdom and places abroad); together with the Report to the Board of Trade thereon (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 138, of Session 1912–13)."— [Mr.Sydney Buxton.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Second Report, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Northampton Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
South Staffordshire Mond Gas Bill [Lords],
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords], Slough Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;
1. "That, in the case of the Halkyn District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of `Dame Anna Maria Mostyn and John M`Kean, M.P.,' the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
2 "That, in the case of the North British Railway [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolutions agreed to.

MOTOR CAR ACT (1903) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading upon Monday, 21st July.

FORGERY BILL [Lords) (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Forgery (No. 1) Bill [Lords]
1456
(pending in the Lords) brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 180.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  San Thomé and Angola (Labourers).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German ships which leave San Thome, about one each month, for the ports of Angola are, or can be, registered for carrying labourers?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no information on the subject.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will my hon. Friend make inquiry?
  Mr. ACLAND:Yes, Sir.

  Great Britain and China.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether in all treaties with China and in other public documents, and in the British Consulates and other British Government offices in China, where the Chinese character is used, the term Great Britain is translated by Imperial England; and whether the Government intend to take any steps to secure that in future a representative and proper term shall be used in accordance with the first article of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am unable to reply to the first part of the question, but I will make inquiry. I would, however, point out that it is the custom now to provide in treaties and conventions concluded with China that in the event of there being any difference of meaning between the English and Chinese texts the sense as expressed in the English text shall be held to be the correct sense. By the words, "the English text," I mean the text written in the English language, and intend no disrespect to the hon. Member's native country.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would it not be as well in the Chinese text when the United Kingdom is meant to say the United Kingdom instead of England?
  Mr.ACLAND: I believe that in the Chinese text the word is a Chinese and not an English word,and therefore they can not say"United Kingdom."
  Mr.MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the Chinese expression which is used as equivalent to the United Kingdom or to Great Britain in treaties with China and other public documents in which the Chinese character is used; and what is the exact English translation of that Chinese term?
  Mr.ACLAND: I cannot give the hon. Member the information for which he asks. I will, however, obtain it from His Majesty's representative at Peking if the hon. Member wishes.
  Mr.MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman say the length of time which it will take?
  Mr.ACLAND: The usual time which it takes to send a letter in the ordinary Course.
  Mr.MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether there is no one in the Foreign Office who is acquainted with the correct Chinese expression for United Kingdom?
  Mr.ACLAND: I think they are probably acquainted with the expression, but we do not know how the Chinese Government would be able authoritatively to interpret the expression.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the Foreign Office not approve of the translations of these treaties?
  Mr.SPEAKER:I would remind the hon. Member that there are ninety-seven important questions on the Paper.

  Moslems in Macedonia.
  Mr.AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that there is again an active propaganda of religious persecution of the Moslems of Macedonia?
  Mr.ACLAND: I have received no official information in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, but I have received complaints on this subject which I have transmitted to His Majesty's Minister at Sofia, with instructions to bring them to the notice of the Bulgarian Government.
  Mr.AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the many allegations of persecution by Christian bands of Moslems in Macedonia he will consider the advisability of instructing the Consuls in the districts in question to travel in the neighbourhood of their Consulates for the purpose of investigating the extent of these alleged crimes, and to acquaint themselves with the general situation?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have been kept fully informed by His Majesty's Consular representatives of events in the districts where they reside. At present I consider their presence necessary at their posts. As the hon. Member is aware, I have brought to the notice of the Governments concerned, through His Majesty's diplomatic representatives, any allegations of the nature described which I considered to be sufficiently well founded.
  Mr.JAMES HOPE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is sure that His Majesty's Government has a sufficient number of Consular representatives both in Macedonia and Albania?
  Mr.ACLAND: I have said already that the question of Consular representatives in those districts will have to be reconsidered in view of the new situation.
  Mr.JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether the reconsideration will take place soon?
  Mr.ACLAND: We do not know yet what the new situation is going to be.

  War in Balkans(Compensation).
  Mr.AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any compensation will be given by the Allied Governments to those families who have been driven from their homes by regular and irregular bands?
  Mr.ACLAND: I understand that steps are being taken by the occupying Power to protect and, where necessary, to administer the property of fugitives from the occupied territories in the interest of the absent owners.

  Turkey (Administration).
  Mr.KINGasked whether the Turkish Government has requested the loan of British officials as administrators to assist in maintaining law and order; whether any answer has been given; and, if so, under 'what conditions?
  Mr.ACLAND: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration. Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down the second part of his question again for Thursday.

  Murder of Mahmud Shevket Pasha.
  Mr.KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the recent executions in Constantinople in connection with the murder of Mahmud Shevket Pasha, and especially whether Damad Salih Pasha was among the persons implicated?
  Mr.ACLAND: I have been informed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople that twelve men found guilty of the murder of the late Grand Vizier were hanged on June 24th, including Damad Salih.

  Development Fund Grant.
  Mr.CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what sums have been allocated by the Board out of the Development Fund Grant for the improvement of heavy horses, cattle, and pigs, respectively, in England and Wales; upon what principle such sums have been apportioned as between the twelve provinces into which the country has been divided for the purposes of agricultural education; and who will be responsible for selecting the necessary male stock and the persons who will enjoy the benefit of their use?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr.Runciman): The Treasury, on the recommendation of the Development Commissioners, have authorised a Grant of £8,000 to heavy horse stallion societies for the current financial year, and £5,000 to milk recording societies. The Board are still in correspondence with the Development Commissioners in respect of Grants for the provision of bulls and boars. The Grants will be apportioned between England and Wales in accordance with the estimated number of holdings above twenty acres and not exceeding 100 acres, namely, England 81 per cent., Wales 19 per cent. The sum available for England will be divided between the ten provinces on the basis of the live-stock population concerned. It is proposed that the male stock should be chosen in each district by a selection committee in conjunction with the live-stock officer for the province, and it is intended
  1460
  that the persons to benefit by their use should be, as far as possible, occupiers of agricultural holdings which do not exceed 100 acres in extent, or, if exceeding 100 acres, are of an annual value for the purpose of Income Tax not exceeding £100.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand from that answer that these Grants are limited in their application to those holding less than 100 acres and who are paying less than £100 rent?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that they are strictly limited, but the Grants were recommended by the Development Commissioners on the terms that in the first place the claims made for the benefits of the Grants by these smaller farmers should be satisfied before the case of larger farmers can be considered.

  Rural Education Conference.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether it is proposed to bring to an end the work of the Rural Education Conference which has for the last three years been considering rural education in all its grades and advising the Boards of Agriculture and Education in reference thereto; if so, when the work of the conference will terminate; and for what reason such termination has been deemed desirable?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging publicly the valuable services which have been rendered by the Rural Education Conference during the last three years. In particular their Reports and recommendations have been of great assistance in the reorganisation of agricultural education in England and Wales. Having regard to the important changes which will result from the development of the new system, I am considering the desirability of reconstituting the Rural Education Conference on somewhat different lines, but I have no intention of bringing their work to an end, so long as I can supply them with useful references and they are willing to give their time to this work.
  Mr. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out the process of reconstitution at an early date?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I think that it will be necessary that the conference should be reconstituted at an early date to do the kind of work for which it is intended.

  Swine Fever Orders.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the admitted failure of the Swine Fever Orders of 1908, the interference with the swine industry involved in such administration, and the expenditure of public money upon both administration and compensation with no apparent result, he proposes to repeal such Orders and abandon the attempt to exterminate the disease by the policy embodied in these Orders?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the hon. Member is aware, the subject is being considered by a Departmental Committee, and before making any change in the general policy of the Board, I think it desirable to await the completion of their investigations.
  Mr.BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this policy has now been five years in operation and that swine fever is much more extensive throughout the country now than it was when this policy was initiated?

  Regent's Park.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked upon what grounds a beneficial lease of valuable land in Regent's Park was granted to Bedford College; and whether, before this lease was granted, to the detriment of the park, steps were taken to ascertain the marketable value of such a lease and to offer it to open competition?
  Mr.RUNCIMAN: Bedford College in 1908 acquired the lease of South Villa, Regent's Park, which would have expired in 1924. The rent of this lease was £333 per annum. They applied for the grant of a new lease, and in accordance with the usual practice terms for the surrender of the existing, and grant of a new, lease were negotiated with the college on the advice of the architect and surveyor who usually advises the Commissioners of Woods in matters affectng the Crown's London estates. The rent agreed for the new lease was £500 for the first year and £950 per annum afterwards. It is not the usual practice in similar circumstances to offer property to open competition, and that course was not taken before the lease was arranged, nor could it be taken in cases where there is an existing lease which has several years to run.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Was the existing lease held by Bedford College?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Bedford College acquired the lease in 1908. It had to run until 1924.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Were not the terms on which it was granted very advantageous to this particular educational institution?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not in a position to challenge the assessment which was made by the adviser to the Commissioners. He advised that £950 per annum would be a full rent.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Were no representations made for special treatment for this educational institution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice.
  Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. Surely this question arises out of the answer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires an answer he should put down a question.
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) what leases are under negotiation for renewal in Regent's Park, of what value, and for how many years; and (2) whether his attention has been called, by deputation, public demonstrations, and by other means, to the opposition to the renewal of any leases in Regent's Park and to the need of the extension of the park in the interests of public recreation and public health; and whether he will postpone the renewal of any leases in Regent's Park until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the question in its broadest aspects of public utility?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for St. Pancras North on 21st January last, terms were provisionally arranged for the surrender of the present leases (the rents under which are £233),and the grant of a new lease of St. John's Lodge (less 3r. 23p. to be given up to the public) for a term of 60¾ years from 5th July, 1912, at a rent of £1,270 per annum and a premium of £14,290. Terms were also provisionally arranged for the surrender of the present lease (the rent under which is £650), and the grant of a new one of St. Katherine's Lodge (less la. lr. 5p. to be given up to the public) for a term expiring 5th April, 1973,

  1463
  at a rent of £720 per annum. Several deputations have been received on the subject mentioned, and in January last, in order to give time to local authorities or others to consider the situation, I agreed to postpone all further negotiation for renewing leases until 1st July. If the local authorities are prepared to reconsider their decisions not to take over the leases,
  I shall advise the Commissioner to suspend negotiations until a later date.

  Carnarvon and Denbigh Castles.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what authority is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Royal castles of Carnarvon and Denbigh, respectively; how much money has been expended upon the latter since 1907; whether the castle is regarded as being in such a state of repair as is desirable from its character as a national monument; and whether the office has received any appeals from persons in Denbigh on the matter?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner is responsible for the repair and maintenance of Carnarvon Castle. I am informed that certain trustees on behalf of a local committee hold Denbigh Castle under lease from the Commissioner of Woods and are responsible for its repair and maintenance.I am not able to say how much money has been spent on the latter castle since 1907, but it cannot be considered to be in such a state of repair at present, as is desirable.I understand that an appeal from the local committee has been received and is under consideration.

  House of Commons (New Staircase).
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he can now make a statement as to the date when the new staircase and lift leading from the Dining Room Lobby to the Terrace will be completed, and whether the staircase when finished will have any decorative or novel features?
  Mr. BENN: The decoration of the new staircase has largely been carried out with the old wood carving which had been in store. The central panel is at present occupied by tapestry lent for the remainder of this Session by the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is intended ultimately to fill this panel with a picture by Mr. Seymour Lucas, representing the
  1464
  flight of the five Members. The First Commissioner feels certain that the House will learn with gratitude that a generous promise to present this painting has been made by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton. It is hoped that the staircase itself will be open for use on Wednesday. The lift will be constructed during the recess.

  Hyde Park.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked if the regulations as to the management of Hyde Park preclude its use for operations by mounted troops; if so, whether the regulations have ever been waived; if so, on what occasions; and whether the regulations made by the Office of Works for the control of places under its direction apply to Government Departments as well as to the general public?
  Mr. BENN: The rules for Hyde Park provide that no unauthorised person may drill; permission is not granted for mounted troops to use the park for their operations, and no exception is made. The rules for the Royal Parks and open spaces in the charge of the Office of Works apply in practice to Government Departments as well as the general public.
  Mr. F. HALL: Have not mounted troops at any time been used in the park?
  Mr. BENN: Not to perform operations, but there have been on occasions mounted troops camping there.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of medical men on London panels are advertised as being available for patients at more places than one at one and the same time, whereas Regulation B (2) (a) of 5th December, 1912, requires that the lists of such panel doctors shall contain particulars of the days and hours at which they undertake to be in attendance at each place; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to ensure compliance with this condition?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that, with the exception of three misprints, which will be corrected in the revised edition of the list about to be

    1465
    published, the cases referred to in the hon. Member's question are cases in which the doctors concerned are either in partnership with other doctors on the panel or have engaged assistants. In these cases the particulars given include not only the hours at which these doctors can be seen personally, but also the consultation hours of their partners or assistants.

    LEAFLETS.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked how many separate leaflets, circulars, or other papers have been issued by the Insurance Commissioners or the Treasury since the passing of the National Insurance Act, containing regulations or explanatory or other memoranda concerning the Act; and what has been the total cost of issuing them up to the present time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have previously stated in reply to similar questions, the information asked for in the first part of the question would involve intricate calculations not necessary for any other purpose on the part of the Departments concerned with the production and distribution of the printed matter referred to. The total cost of the printing in connection with Part I. of the National Insurance Act up to the present time is approximately £140,000.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether 2,000 separate forms of circulars have been issued, to the number of 10,000,000 copies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Mr. M'NEILL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say how many separate circulars have been issued?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say. A large number of various circulars has been issued, some intended for all classes of persons and others limited to certain sections.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked how many insurance committees have made adequate provision under the National Insurance Act for the treatment of sanatoria patients, how many have made partial provision, and how many have made no provision at all; and whether the Insurance Commission intends to withhold the whole or any portion of the allowance made to insurance committees who have failed in this duty or negligently performed it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any insurance committees who have failed to make proper provision for the treatment of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis. A Return has been laid showing that up to the 30th April last, two months ago, over 19,000 persons had received sanatorium benefit, 10,239 of whom have been treated in sanatoria and other residential institutions.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury will expedite the giving of sanatorium institutional treatment to No. 895 A 0 52, of Society No. 214, who was granted three months' sanatorium treatment by the Lancashire Insurance Committee on 26th May, and was informed on 2nd June that he would be admitted to an institution as soon as there was a bed, and who in consequence got leave of absence from his firm for three months, of which two only are now left; and how many other cases within the jurisdiction of the Lancashire Insurance Committee are waiting for admission to a sanatorium for institutional treatment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the insured person referred to was recommended on the 2nd of this month for sanatorium treatment, and that he will be admitted to a sanatorium as soon as possible. The number of cases in the area awaiting removal to sanatoria is 105, who I assume are receiving domiciliary treatment.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What number on the list is this patient, and how long is he likely to be kept waiting?
    Mr. MASTERMANI would have given the information with pleasure if I had been given notice.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will inquire why Miss Selsey Allan Sawyer, No.2,842,029, an insured person, to whom four weeks' sick pay was due on the 9th June, has been unable to obtain payment of more than 15s. from the agent of the Prudential Society, H. Bell, of 47, Cambridge Street, Grantham, on the ground that he is short of money, although he obtained a receipt in advance from Miss Sawer for a full month's money; whether it is in accordance with the regulations to demand receipts in advance; and whether the

    1467
    agent being short of money is due to the withholding of grants by the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have asked the society to make inquiries into this case as the hon. Member desires. The suggestion in the last part is in any event without foundation.
    Mr. BOOTH: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence, and can he trace any complaint whatever in the correspondence?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have neither seen the correspondence nor do I know of any complaint that can be traced. I have not had notice of these matters.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity to see the correspondence?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will make inquiry.

    DISTRICT INSURANCE COMMITTEES (POPLAR AND STEPNEY).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury will say why the local medical committees formed for the boroughs of Poplar and Stepney who have applied for recognition under Section 62 in April last have not had any reply to their application; whether the district insurance committees are now transacting business without the presence of direct representatives of the medical profession in Poplar and Stepney; and whether, in view of the fact that the district committees have to draw up schemes. for allotment of patients, the Commissioners will ensure that the medical profession should be represented thereon?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of recognising a local medical committee for the whole county as well as local medical committees for the different Metropolitan boroughs is receiving the careful consideration of the Commissioners, but they are at present unable to recognise any local medical committee either for the whole county or for the different boroughs as properly representative of the doctors resident in the respective areas.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Are those district committees giving allotment to patients without any consultation with the medical representatives?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer the question without notice.

    NATIONAL AMALGAMATED APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the rule of the National Amalgamated Approved Society empowering the committee of management to terminate the membership of any member guilty of wilful or material misstatement in his application for membership was sanctioned by the Insurance Commissioners; what facilities are afforded to persons dealt with under this rule for appeal against a decision of the committee; and if he will inquire into the circumstances in which the society referred to has refused an application for sickness benefit by an insured contributor named A. Wells?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The rules of the society, which were approved by the Commissioners, provide that the committee of management may expel a member on the ground not of wilful or material misstatement, but wilful and material misstatement. They further provide that such a member shall first have fourteen days' notice in writing, and shall have an opportunity of stating his case, either in writing or in person, as he may choose, and that he shall have an appeal to an arbitrator, and finally to the Commission. I am informed by the society that the person referred to was expelled, after due notice, on the ground that he had not disclosed on the form of application for membership the fact that he suffered from epileptic fits, that he has made no appeal against the decision, and that he was paid benefit from the end of February till the 2nd April, the last day in respect of which he sent any claim. If the hon. Member will inform me of any special circumstances which appear to make further inquiry desirable, I will see that it is made.

    SURPLUS SICKNESS BENEFIT AND MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Mr.GODFREYLOCKER LAMPSONasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury will explain why Circular A.S. 73 says surplus maternity benefit money (unpaid to dependants, etc.) must be paid in cash when the mother leaves the hospital, while Circular A.S. 94 says that surplus sickness benefit money (unpaid to dependants, etc.) must not be paid in cash when the insured person leaves the hospital, having regard to the fact that the same Section 12 of the National Insurance Act and the same words govern both sickness and maternity benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Neither sickness benefit nor maternity benefit can be paid to an insured person during residence in a hospital. The right to maternity benefit, however, accrues in respect of a single event, while the right to sickness benefit accrues in respect of periods of time. In view of this difference the Commissioners are advised that, any balance of maternity benefit, not otherwise disposed of, may properly be paid to the insured person after the woman leaves the hospital, while in the case of sickness benefit the right of a person in a hospital to receive any balances undisposed of necessarily lapses under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act at the expiration of the period in respect of which the benefit would have been payable.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Report of the Insurance Commissioners will be issued before the SecondReading of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope that copies of the Report will be available for hon. Members this week.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the representations made to him by approved societies and the medical profession, and in 'view of the fact that many Members of this House who have taken a special interest in health insurance would be excluded from any Standing Committee to which the Bill might be referred, he is now prepared to support the reference of this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House?
    The PRIME MINISTER(Mr. Asquith): As at present advised I see no reason to depart from the intention of the Government to send the Bill to a Standing Committee.
    Mr. CASSEL: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a final decision on this matter will he take into account the fact that this Act has had very special effect on a great many different constituencies, and that it is only fair that Members for those constituencies should have the opportunity of presenting the special reasons which affect their own constituencies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There will be the discussion upstairs in Committee, and then on Report.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any guarantee that we shall have full and adequate time for discussion on the Report stage?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am much too experienced a Parliamentarian to give any guarantee.

    Glasgow Friendly Society.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has satisfied himself that the special meeting of delegates of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society, held on the 21st May last, for the consideration of complete amendments to the rules affecting the rights and financial interests of the members, was legally called; is he aware that the balance sheet of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society for the year ending December, 1912, shows that £50,485 ls. was collected from the members during the year, and that £25,511 15s. 7½d. has been expended in management, which means that upwards of 10s. of every £has been used for the management of the society; and will the Chief Registrar, in the interests of the members, take steps to see that this state of matters is remedied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making inquiry into the matters to which the hon. Member refers, and I will inform him of the result.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has been. making inquiries now for about a year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that that is so in reference to this specific question, and am making imquiries now.

    Irish Agricultural Organisation> Society.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked what particular condition in the Treasury letter of the 1st April, 1913, in reference to the Grant to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society did that society require to be modified?
    Mr.MASTERMAN: The society have, I understand, found difficulty in accepting the third condition in the form suggested by the Treasury. The matter is under consideration.

    Civil Service (Boy Clerks).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the number of Civil Service boy clerks who competed in, and the number declared successful as the result of, the assistant clerks' examination held on 20th April, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The numbers were 252 and 89, respectively.

    Lunacy Commissioners (Camberwell House).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked if the Secretary of State for the Home Department will state when the Lunacy Commissioners inquired into the complaint regarding the treatment of Mrs. Haynes in Camberwell House, and the circumstances connected with her being certified as a lunatic; whether the inquiry included an interview with her husband, who alleges that his consent to her detention was obtained under false representations; and whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the secretary of Camberwell House that, so far as his knowledge goes, no such inquiry has ever been made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Lunacy Commissioners inform me that they made inquiries in July, 1910, after the discharge of Mrs. Haynes to her husband's care, and that they received a letter from Mr. Haynes saying that his wife had improved greatly, and making no complaint either as to the treatment of Mrs. Haynes in Camberwell House or as to the circumstances connected with her certification as a lunatic. More than a year later Mrs. Haynes called on the Lunacy Commissioners and made some general complaints with regard to what she alleged was her illegal detention in 1910. She subsequently asked to be supplied with copies of the detention documents in her case, which were given to her on 11th October, 1911. It was not until November, 1911, that any complaint was made by Mr. Haynes; but as Mr. Haynes had allowed more than a year to elapse without making any complaint, as he could have withdrawn his wife at any time from Camberwell House, as the papers in connection with the patient's reception were in order, and as it was quite incredible that Mr. Haynes did not know what he was doing when he signed the petition, the Commissioners considered it unnecessary to take any
    1472
    further action. The Commissioners cannot say whether the secretary of Camberwell House was aware of the inquiries they made of the superintendent or not.

    Conviction for Embezzlement (Sheffield).
    Mr. POINTERasked if the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case of John Bowler, who was recently convicted at Sheffield and sentenced to four months' hard labour for stealing 3d. from the tramway department of the Sheffield Corporation; and whether, in view of the previous good conduct of prisoner and the smallness of the amount stolen, he can recommend a reduction of the sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry, and find that the prisoner was convicted of embezzlement on trial by jury. Three separate charges were proved of appropriating tram fares, and I see no reason for recommending any interference with the sentence passed on him. It is open to the prisoner to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a reduction of sentence.
    Mr. POINTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the prisoner was convicted on the unsupported evidence of two young policemen who were on probation, and that the total amount of the embezzlement was only 3d.; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that four months' hard labour is an atrocious sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: As to the first part of the question, that constitutes a material fact to bring before the Court of Appeal. As regards the second part, it is true that the amount was 3d., but it is obvious that as each case only amounted to one penny, and it was not necessary to go beyond the three cases, the mere fact that the amount was only 3d. does not enter into the merits of the case.
    Mr. POINTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if it had been the case of a rich man instead of a poor one he would have got four months' hard labour?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes; I am sure that if it had been a rich man who had embezzled his employer's money it is quite certain that he would have been similarly sentenced.

    Vivisection.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether the Home Secretary can state the number of establishments in this country licensed for vivisection purposes or for research work involving experiments on living animals; how many persons are now in possession of licences and certificates authorising them to perform such experinients; how many dogs were employed for this purpose during 1912; what proportion this bears to the total number of animals so employed; and when the annual Return of vivisection experiments will be published?
    Mr. McKENNA: The total number of registered places in Great Britain is 109. The number of persons holding licences is 568. Most of the holders of licences also hold one or more certificates. The total number of experiments performed during 1912 was 83,559. I cannot give the exact number of experiments on dogs–888 experiments were performed under the certificates which allow experiments on, dogs or cats, but the returns do not show how many were on either kind of animal. In addition to these, some of the 2,584 experiments performed under licence only, without certificate, may have been experiments on dogs. The annual Return is almost ready for publication, and will,
    I hope, be issued shortly.

    Motor Car Accident (Washington, Sussex).
    Lord EDMUND TALBOTasked if the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case of a labourer killed near Washington, Sussex, in April by a foreign motorist; whether, notwithstanding a verdict of manslaughter, the accused escaped abroad; what precautions were taken to avoid his escape and who was responsible for their failure; and what steps the Government are taking with a view to bringing the accused to justice?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have caused inquiry to be made into this matter. So far as I can judge, the facts ascertained by the police in connection with the accident in question were not of such a kind as would have justified them in arresting the motorist on a criminal charge before the conclusion of the inquest. As soon as the coroner's jury returned a verdict of manslaughter steps were immediately taken for the arrest of the accused, but he appears to have escaped from this country the same day. I am advised that neither
    1474
    the coroner nor the police can fairly be blamed for remissness in this affair.
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this very foreign gentleman was the cause of the death of a woman about three weeks previously, though it is only fair to add that in that instance the verdict was "Death by misadventure."
    Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of the circumstances stated by the Noble Lord.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: asked whether the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been called to the fatal accident of a workman employed on the new dock works, Rosyth, as the result of a fall from the staging; whether the life-buoys were over 200 yards from the scene of the accident and covered with iron piping, preventing their use; and what action he proposes to take to have life-saving apparatus always at hand in case of similar accidents in the future?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My attention has been called to the fatal accident in question, and as the result of local inquiries, it has been ascertained that although a lifebuoy was hanging in its proper place 11 yards from the site of the accident, an old lifebuoy under some pipes 9 yards away was utilised instead. Lifebuoys are, and have been, maintained on the staging for a considerable time past.
    Mr. WARDasked whether the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been called to the fact that the Government contractors at Redford Barracks now pay navvies and labourers a minimum wage of 6d. per hour; and if he can state how long the contract at Rosyth is?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am informed that the Government contractors for Army works at Redford Barracks are now paying navvies and labourers a wage of 6d. per hour. The contract date for the final completion of works at present in hand at Rosyth is 31st May, 1917.
    Mr. WARDasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will consult with the War Office as to what is the proper rate of wages for navvies and labourers in

    1475
    the Forth district and induce the contractors for the Admiralty to refrain from continuing to be the lowest wage employers in the district?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I see no reason for consulting the War Office as proposed. The suggestion contained in the last part of the question, more than once made by my hon. Friend, is not in accordance with the facts. I may add that when my hon. Friend suggested on 24th March that as a result of a strike in the locality, 6d. per hour has now become the rate current in the district for competent workmen, I sought the advice of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee as to the facts. I am now awaiting a further communication from them on the matter.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to an agreement signed between the trades unions and the Builders' and Contractors' Association, on 24th June, at Portsmouth, by which the wages of navvies and labourers are advanced a halfpenny per hour on and after 1st July, 1913; and whether his Department are taking any action to secure the observance of such agreement by the contractors employed in Portsmouth Dockyard in accordance with the Fair-Wage Resolution of the House of Commons?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that an agreement has been arrived at as suggested in the first part of the question. Should the new conditions be applicable to the cases of the labourers engaged by contractors in the dockyard, and should any representations be made to me in the matter of compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause as an outcome of this agreement, I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. WARD: Is it not the business of the Department to find out what are the wages in the localities and see that they are enforced in proper time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The agreement which has been come to comes into operation to-morrow. I do not require to inquire, because the matter does not arise until to-morrow, and then I shall have to see whether it is applicable.
    Mr. WARD: Are we to' understand from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that the contractors in the dockyards are treated differently from contractors outside?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will have to see whether they come under this agreement between the trade unions and the Builders and Contractors' Association.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the Royal yards with regard to the probationary system introduced on the 1st June last with regard to the employment of skilled labourers; that the probationary period is regarded as opening the door to the employment of ordinary labourers for skilled work without extra remuneration; and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the concessions to workmen which came into operation on the first day of this month, it was decided to retain the rate of 23s. a week for skilled labourers as a probationary rate, all men who had at that time been a, year or more on the rate being moved up to 24s., with a possibility of rising to a maximum of 28s., and a special rate maximum of 31s. The only statement I can make about the recent concession to the skilled labourers is that, as it stands, it is estimated to cost £19,000 a year.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any precedent for paying skilled men at the same rate as unskilled men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of that question.
    Sir C.KINLOCH-COOKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the rates of pay received by storehousemen employed in the works department of the Royal dockyards; whether he is aware that these men have heavy responsibilities and important duties to perform, and that special qualifications are required from them, that assistants are often required to take the position of seniors, and that while the assistant have a superior rating they are not able to reach the maximum pay of skilled labourers, while their average rate of pay is very little in advance of a skilled labourer's wage; and whether he can see his way, in view of the rise in the cost of living, to make some addition to the weekly emoluments of storehousemen as a whole?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of the assistant storehousemen in the various Departments is under consideration, but I cannot give any undertaking in the matter.

    WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    Mr. WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what date it is proposed to put down the Vote for his Department dealing with works and buildings?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Questions affecting the business of the House should be addressed to the Prime Minister, but I would observe that the House has already had some two and a half days' general discussion on Navy Votes, when my hon. Friend might have raised any points in Vote 10 to which he desired to draw attention. A further opportunity, may perhaps be afforded when the Consolidated Fund Bill, including Vote 10, is taken.
    Mr. WARD: May I point out that while it is true that I had the opportunity referred to the officials of the House took care that I did not get the chance to use it?

    SUBMARINE E 5 (LATE ENGINEER COMMANDER MOORE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Engineer Commander Moore, of Submarine E 5, left a mother in receipt of a small pension as a widow of a naval officer and a sister in receipt of a small allowance from the Admiralty, in the service of which she lost her health; that mother and sister were helped by the late engineer commander, who lost his life in the explosion on the submarine; that, though Miss Moore does not fulfil all the requirements of Article 2005 (a), her position is wholly exceptional and deserving of sympathetic treatment; and whether the Government can make her any grant under these circumstances?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Mrs. Moore has a pension from the Admiralty of £90 a year, and Miss Moore an annual allowance of £16. The question of an additional grant to Miss Moore or Mrs. Moore is receiving attention.

    FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEM.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an automatic fire-control system invented by a Mr. Pollen was in whole or part used
    1478
    by His Majesty's ship "Orion" at her recent battle practice; whether the good firing results obtained by that ship are attributable to the use of this system; whether it is intended to adopt the Pollen system or any other fire-control system in the British Navy; whether the Admiralty has co-operated with Mr. Pollen in the development of his system; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to prevent it being acquired by other nations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that some portions of Mr. Pollen's apparatus were used, but they were not used in accordance with the Pollen system. The good shooting was not attributable either to the Pollen apparatus or to any employment of the Pollen sytem. It is not intended to adopt the Pollen system, but to rely on a more satisfactory one which has been developed by Service experts. In reply to the last part of the question, the Admiralty has given Mr. Pollen considerable assistance in the hope of obtaining a valuable system of fire control for the Navy. The results obtained with his system and the principles underlying it are such that it is not proposed to take any steps to prevent him making public use of all its essential features. This he can do without divulging official secrets connected with the Service system, and he will of course be precluded from disclosing Service secrets of which his connection with the Admiralty has given him knowledge, or from any infringement of the Official Secrets Act, which I have every confidence will, be respected. I should like to add by way of caution, that all these questions connected with fire control are of a highly technical character, and their discussion in the newspapers could not lead to any intelligible conclusion or be attended by any public advantage. So far as the relations between the Admiralty and Mr. Pollen are concerned, I shall be quite prepared on a suitable occasion if desired, to explain them fully to the House. So far as the technical aspects are concerned, I must decline on behalf of the Admiralty to take any part in their public discussion. I can only say that in coming to the decisions which I have stated to the House, and for which I accept full responsibility, I have been guided by the representations of my naval colleagues and the advice of the experts on whom the Admiralty must rely.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is it not the fact that the First Lord himself invited the owners

    1479
    of this Pollen patent to negotiate with the Admiralty, and the sale not having been carried out are they not entitled to sell it to the best advantage?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think if the hon. Gentleman will study the effect of my answer, he will see it covers very largely the point raised by his question.

    FLOGGING.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if under the present Navy Regulations lads are liable to be flogged; if so, what are the offences for which this punishment may be given and by whom may it be ordered; and what were the number of cases in which this punishment was inflicted in 1912?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Flogging has been suspended as a punishment in the Navy for over thirty years.

    SS. "RECOVERY."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have decided that the crew of the ship attached to the Portsmouth dockyard and employed on out-port work are to be relieved every two years; and, if so, will he undertake that the same privilege be given to the sister ship "Recovery" attached to the Devonport yard?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Portsmouth Yard officers have made arrangements for relieving the crew of "Resource" (the vessel to which I presume the hon. Member refers) after two years' service in the vessel at an outport. It is being considered whether similar arrangements can be made in the case of "Recovery," but, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member on 29th May, the whole question of the hours, wages, and conditions of the Yard Craft Service generally is at present under the consideration of an Admiralty Committee.

    SPIRIT RATION.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps, if any, have been taken to inform the warrant officers and men of the Navy about the change of conditions under which the rum ration will be issued as from 1st July; and what system the accounting officers of His Majesty's ships are to adopt to ascertain the wishes of the men, or if there is only to be an automatic change in the lettering on the ledgers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The revised regulations have been promulgated to the Fleet by Circular Letter, a copy of which I have sent to my hon. Friend. From to-morrow men who desire to draw the spirit ration in kind must signify their wishes to the accountant officer or his representative, otherwise they will be credited automatically with the money allowance in lieu. I cannot give details of the exact procedure on board ship which will be followed in giving effect to the new arrangement, as this must be left to the discretion of the officers in command; but I would remind my hon. Friend that it is the intention of the Admiralty to watch closely the effect of the change of conditions, and with this object reports will be called for from the Fleet in six months' time.

    PETITIONS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state to whom the replies to annual petitions are to be sent, and when they may be expected?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As my hon. Friend is aware, the petitions as regards wages generally were dealt with in Admiralty order of 9th May, and the increases then announced came into operation on the first of this month. As regards the many other matters placed before me at the annual hearing of petitions, the branches of the office concerned with these are now at work upon them, and I hope that replies covering all outstanding points may be issued before the close of next month.

    Plumage Bill.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public announcement of the representatives of the Government of South Africa and of the Ostrich Farmers' Association that the Plumage Bill is strongly favoured by the ostrich farmers of South Africa, he will now state whether the Committee of the Cabinet has come to any decision on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER:The matter is still under consideration. Looking to the time of the Session, I am afraid it is doubtful whether legislation can be undertaken this year.

    Increment Duty.
    Mr. CASSELhad given notice of the following: To ask the Prime Minister

    1481
    whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation exempting all persons not liable to Income Tax from Increment Duty?
    I am informed I must put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I ask whether the announcement made at a recent by-election, that the Government intended to introduce legislation, was authoritative?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Gentleman asks the question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow he will get a full answer.

    Crown Service.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will consider as to extending to the English Civil Service and also to Ministers of the Crown the regulation of the Colonial Service which prohibits all salaried public officers, whether or not their whole time is at the disposal of the Government, from speculating in the shares of or being connected with any company, occupation, or undertaking which might bring their private interests into real or apparent conflict with their public duties, or in any way influence them in the discharge of their duties?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I see no reason to define more exactly the general rules which govern such matters and which are well known to all who serve under the Crown.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask why it has been necessary to make those regulations with regard to officers serving under the Colonial Office?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They have been in existence for a great many years. I do not know exactly the circumstances under which they came into existence.

    Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister if he will say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill; and whether it is intended to carry this measure into law during the present Session of Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it may be possible to make progress with this measure, but I am afraid I cannot at present name a date for its consideration.

    Lord Milner.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will now reconsider the Vote of Censure passed upon Lord Milner in 1906?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Resolution to which the hon. Member appears to refer refrained from passing censure upon individuals.

  AIRCRAFT.

    AEROPLANES (REPAIR).
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inquire further into the question of the repair of damaged aeroplanes; and will he forbid the use of those which have met with serious accidents and have been repaired, but which are only almost as good as new and may have undiscovered flaws in them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All important repairs are passed by the Admiralty inspectors before the machine is taken over by the flying officer. These inspectors are practical flying officers, who are in close touch with all air work. The suggestion that machines are used which are unsafe is without foundation.
    Mr. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentlemen appreciate the anxiety felt in using machines which have been once broken?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We all appreciate that, and the hon. Gentleman may be quite sure the matter receives attention.

    Telephone Service.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the complaints of inefficiency of the telephone service in Nottingham since the Government took over the management; that it is of very common occurrence that no answer at all can be received over the wires; that charges of inattention at the central exchange are not uncommon; that it cannot be presumed from the fact that he has received no complaints from anyone other than the Member for East Nottingham that considerable dissatisfaction does not exist; that the normal time for receiving an answer has largely increased under Government management; that cases are not unknown in which it has taken an hour to get through to Leicester, which never happened in the company's time; that no rebate is allowed by the Government for periods in which subscribers are without service; and whether

    1483
    he will state what is the result of the inquiries he made on the Motion of the Member for East Nottingham?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel):Few complaints of inefficiency of the telephone service at Nottingham have reached me, and the special inquiry which I have made on the spot does not confirm the allegations in the question. Local calls are answered in less than five seconds on the average, and the returns show that it is not the case that the normal time of answering has increased under Government management. Calls to Leicester are usually effected within from fifteen to seventeen minutes. Three additional lines between Nottingham and Leicester are now being constructed, but, owing to great pressure of work in the Leicester engineering section, they will not be completed before the end of the year. Rebate of rental is being allowed to those subscribers whose service was interrupted for a considerable period after the severe snowstorm in January. The failure of the telephone call for the fire brigade on the occasion of the fire at Messrs. Jacoby's factory appears, I am sorry to say, to have been due to inattention on the part of a night operator, who has been suitably punished. Special measures have been taken to guard against a similar occurrence.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Postmaster-General if the same operators are employed under the Government service as were employed under the National Telephone Company and under the same conditions; if he is aware that the present service in the House of Commons is not as efficient as it used to be, the delay in answering customers being infinitely longer; and if he can hold out any hope that within a reasonable time some improvement in the present public telephone service will be effected?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The whole operating staff of the National Telephone Company has been transferred to the service of the Post Office, but under improved conditions as regards pay, annual leave, and medical attendance. The telephonists, both male and female, in charge of the Private Branch Exchange in the House of Commons have been for some years on this duty, except that the night operating staff has lately been increased. Notwithstanding that the volume of traffic
    1484
    has increased lately, both the average time of answering and the percentage of effective calls have improved during the last twelve months.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that, beyond extremely civil answers, which we always get from his Department, I personally have received no assistance except the alteration of my numbers? We receive very civil answers, but we get no further attention.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my officers and myself are continually engaged in devising improvements in the telephone service, and very considerable improvements have been effected during the last twelve months. We are making a very large expenditure indeed this year—some millions of pounds—in providing further facilities, including new exchanges.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will give a list of the offices throughout the country in which inquiries are now being made by the telephone administrators with a view to having the telephone work done by male sorting clerks and telegraphists performed by women; whether he is aware that the proposals are the result of an order issued by two of the headquarter staff; whether, in consequence, the hours of attendance of the male sorting clerks and telegraphists at many small offices will be aversely affected; and whether he will give a definite instruction that no worsening of the duties now in existence is to be made consequent upon the substitution of females for males?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I stated in reply to an analogous question asked by the hon. Member on the 19th instant, I am not aware of any inquiries tending in the direction stated, and in this case, also, I would suggest that he should send me a copy of the instruction which he has in mind.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Postmaster-General if it is his intention to reduce at some future date the fee for telephoning between Manchester and Stockport; if he is unable to reduce the fee at the present time because by doing so he would create such an increase in traffic as to cause the present service, which is admittedly not so rapid as it should be, to become still more unsatisfactory; and whether he can state how long it will take

    1485
    his Department to make the service sufficient to carry the traffic at the present threepenny rate, and what further time it will require to make it sufficient to carry the increase anticipated at the twopenny rate?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope to be able to reduce the charge for calls between Manchester and Stockport when the construction of a new underground cable between those places as well as of a new telephone exchange at Stockport is completed. This work will occupy, I fear, fully a year. In the meanwhile, however, other circuits have recently been completed and more are being constructed, which should materially improve the service at the existing rate.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Has not this connection between Manchester and Stockport been in the hands of the Post Office for a considerable number of years?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get it done in less than a year?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is being pressed forward, but the mass of work in the engineering department of the Post Office is so great that I could not give any pledge.
    Mr. BLAIRasked the Postmaster-General if he can give any reason for the delay in telephone communication between Edgware, Stanmore, Bushey Heath, Watford, and London; is he satisfied with the existing telephone facilities between these places and London; and can he account for the usual delay of forty minutes on a Saturday to cover a distance of fourteen miles?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The delay, which I much regret, is due to extreme pressure of telephonic business on the London-Watford route. A new underground cable which will enable additional circuits to be provided between London and the exchanges mentioned is now being laid, but unfortunately the work has been retarded by a wayleave difficulty. I hope, however, that the cable will be completed in about a month or six weeks.

    Birkbeck Bank.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the
    1486
    Official Receiver dealing with the assets of the Birkbeck Bank has declared the final dividend; and, if so, will he state the total sum lost to the depositors through the failure of the bank and the number of depositors affected by such loss?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The final dividend in the liquidation of the Birkbeck Bank has not yet been declared, as it depends on the result of certain legal proceedings which are now pending a decision of the House of Lords. The number of depositors affected by the failure of the bank is 73,000, but the total sum lost cannot yet be ascertained.

    San Thomé.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the British ships which leave San Thomé each month for the ports of the Congo and Angola are, or can be, registered for carrying labourers?
    Mr. BUXTON: Possibly my hon. Friend refers to the conveyance of labourers on deck. British passenger steamers are sometimes allowed to carry deck passengers between ports abroad, but so far as the Board of Trade are aware no such permission has been granted as regards vessels running between the ports named. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case he has in mind I will inquire into it.

    Railway Rates.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department will receive complaints from traders of any of the increases of rates on goods traffic of which the principal railway companies recently gave general notices; and, if so, whether he will state in what form such complaints are required to be submitted and what arrangements the Board of Trade propose to make for dealing with and hearing such complaints?
    Mr. BUXTON: By Section 1 (3) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, any complaint under the Act must first be made to and considered by the Board of Trade. No special form is prescribed for such complaints; they are dealt with under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which empowers the Board to endeavour to settle amicably the differences between the complainant and the railway companies.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, having regard to the consequences which ensued upon the authorisation by the Board of Trade of the form of notice which enabled the railway companies to give general notice of their intention to alter their rates on 1st January, 1893, and the general and indefinite character of the notices recently issued by the principal railway companies of their intention to increase rates on goods traffic as from 1st July next, the Board of Trade will require them to abstain from giving any effect to those notices, and to give further public notices specifying any particular rates which such railway companies may intend to increase, and the exact amount of the increases proposed to be made therein; and (2) whether the Order made by the Board of Trade on the 25th January, 1889, under Section 33 (6) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, respecting notice of intended increases of railway rates on goods traffic is still in force; and, if so, whether he is aware that the general notices recently given by the principal railway companies of general increases of rates which they intend to make on the 1st July next are not in accordance with the terms and provisions of that Order?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Order of 25th January, 1889, is still in force; and notices of increased rates must be given in conformity with that Order. It is not for the Board of Trade, but for the Railway and Canal Commissioners to decide whether the Act and Order have been properly complied with.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in regard to the notices recently given by the principal railway companies of their intention to increase their rates on goods traffic as from 1st July next, subject to the statutory maxima, he is aware that in many cases it is difficult for agriculturists and traders to ascertain the maxima chargeable by railway companies, and that the form of the notices leaves such persons in doubt as to the extent to which their traffic may be affected by the carrying out of the railway companies' intentions; and whether he will take steps with the object of ascertaining and causing to be published precise lists of the rates which the railway companies intend to increase and the amounts of the increases which they propose to make in them?
    Mr. BUXTON: There are no doubt some cases in which the existing rate is not sufficiently below the maximum to allow of the full increase of which general notice has been given, but I understand that it is not now proposed to make any increase in the class rates between places in England, and it is only in the case of class rates that this difficulty is likely to arise. The new rates should appear in the rate-books immediately.

    Mercantile Marine (Alien Officers).
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, considering the fact that the number of masters and mates of foreign nationality employed in British-registered trading vessels is decreasing so slowly, only from 472 in 1906 to 397 in 1911, he will now, having regard to the difficulties that might arise in time of war, reconsider the question of bringing in legislation to prevent alien officers in future from acquiring certificates of competency under the British flag?
    Mr. BUXTON: The position does not appear to me to indicate the necessity for legislation. I may point out that the number of masters of trading ships registered in the British Isles who are not British subjects number eighty-seven out of 7,995, or only 1.1 per cent.

    Pawnbrokers (Rate of Interest Charged).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the fact that the Act of Parliament regulating the rate of interest chargeable by pawnbrokers provides that such interest shall not exceed 25 per cent per annum, his attention has been called to figures showing that in the majority of cases of loans to the working classes the interest varies from 500 per cent. to 1,000 per cent. per annum; and that on an average the interest works out at over 200 per cent, per annum; and whether he will appoint a Select Committee of Inquiry or cause investigations to be made into the working of the Pawnbroking Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My attention had not been previously called to the matter, and the records of my Department contain no information with regard to it. My hon. Friend has sent me an extract from a newspaper, from which the figures in the question are apparently taken, but I should be glad if he could furnish me with the evidence on which the article is based

    Postal Service (Gurteen, County Galway).
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the people of Gurteen, Ballinasloe, county Galway, suffer loss and inconvenience in consequence of their letters not being sent direct from the Ballymacward post office to the Gurteen post office, so that they would arrive at 7.30 a.m. instead of 9.15 a.m., as now, which makes it impossible for replies to be sent by the morning mail to Dublin; whether this delay is caused by the Duke de Stackpoole's letters being sent through Ballymacward instead of Glentane, Ballymacward being eleven miles from the duke's residence while Glentane is only three; and will he direct that a rearrangement of the postal service in this district should be made?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Post Office (Administration).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of promotions of assistant clerks to the class next above them in those departrnents of the Post Office where no second division clerks are employed during the last seven years, and the departments in which the promoted men had served as assistant clerks?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures are: Secretary's office, 2; Stores Department, 10 (including 5 officers who have not yet obtained the necessary Civil Service certificates). In each case the officer concerned was promoted in his own department. Two assistant clerks in the Engineer-in-Chief's office, and four in the Superintending Engineers' offices, have been offered promotion to third class clerkships in the Superintending Engineers' offices, but have declined or up to the present have not accepted promotion.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Postmaster-General why the Enniskillen Post Office has been reduced in classification; if he is aware that, according to the latest Board of Trade Return, Enniskillen is the fourth dearest town in Ireland with respect to food and coal, that rents in Enniskillen are abnormally high, and that the Secretary to the Post Office stated before the present Parliamentary Committee that the scales of pay are based upon the units of work and cost of living; whether he is
    1490
    aware that the work disposed of at the Enniskillen Post Office has increased since 1908, and new duties involving additional responsibility have been thrown upon the staff; whether, seeing that the postmaster's salary has been increased within recent years from £220 to £270 annually owing to the increase of work at Enniskillen, he will explain why the scales arranged for the indoor officials under him are less than they were twenty years ago; and whether he will have full inquiry made into all the matters complained of, with a view to reclassification of the office if the complaints are well founded?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The reduction in classification at Enniskillen was made five years ago on principles settled after an inquiry by a Select Committee or Parliament. The increase in work which has since taken place at Enniskillen has not been sufficient to warrant a higher classification on the basis then approved, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the whole question of scales of pay for Post Office servants is now under the consideration of another Select Committee.

    Voluntary School Rate (Ashton-in-Makerfield).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the demand notes for a voluntary rate of 8d. in the pound now being sent out by the collector of rates from the overseers' office of the township of Ashton-in-Makerfield; whether he is aware that demand notes so sent out are calculated to mislead ratepayers to believe that the amounts demanded therein have been officially levied; and whether he will take immediate action to have the demand notes issued at Ashton-in-Makerfield withdrawn and the amounts already collected returned to the ratepayers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter, but I have now communicated with the overseers of the township on the subject. I find that applications for payment of a voluntary rate to meet the cost of school improvements have been issued from the overseers' office in the name of Mr. James Livesley, who is the assistant overseer of the township. The application for the second collection is not described as a demand note and seems to show quite clearly that payment

    1491
    of the amount asked for is entirely voluntary. I am of opinion, however, that the issue of these applications from the overseers' office is open to some objection, and I have informed the overseers accordingly. I have no authority to take the course suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these papers have at the top in large print the words "Demand Note," and that they are calculated to deceive the unwary?
    Mr. LEWIS: There is the heading "Demand Note," but it is made quite clear that the payment is of a voluntary character.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the note states in four separate places that the rate is purely voluntary, that it has been subscribed entirely by Church people with two exceptions, each of whom was well aware that the rate was purely voluntary, and does he not consider that the people of Ashton are entitled to raise a voluntary rate for their own schools without asking the leave of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King)?

    Colonial Petroleum (Trinidad).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the United British West Indies Petroleum Syndicate, Limited, is a private company; whether, although it was registered on 18th July, 1912, the names of shareholders and directors were not filed until 23rd May of this year; whether in the meantime it had conducted negotiations with Colonial authorities and had secured an option to purchase the properties of the Trinidad Oilfields, Limited, and had concluded an agreement with the Colonial authorities concerning the pipe-line and other business in Trinidad; whether the fact that two of the four companies of which the syndicate is composed are partly under foreign control is in agreement with the covenant that the lessees shall at all times remain a British company, and that the chairman and a majority of directors shall at all times be British subjects; whether he has any means of knowing who the directors are when appointed under the terms of the secret agreement; and, if not, how will he ascertain whether they are British subjects or not?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The United British West Indies Petroleum Syndicate Limited, is a private company, registered on 18th July, 1912, to take over an agreement then being negotiated with the British and Foreign General Securities and Investment Trust, Limited. The text of the agreement will be found in Command Paper 6861. The third schedule to that agreement contains the form of lease which will be granted, if applied for on the expiration of the prospecting licence in the second schedule. As is the rule with leases of Crown Lands in Trinidad for oil mining purposes, Part VII., Clause 1, of the proposed lease provides that the lessees shall be a British company, registered in Great Britain or a British Colony; that the chairman and a majority of the directors shall be British subjects; and that the lessees shall not be directly or indirectly controlled by foreigners. It is usual to require provisions to this effect to be incorporated in the memorandum of association of any company holding a lease, and I have no doubt that this will be clone by the Governor when the time comes. The lease requires alterations to be reported to the Governor, and enables him to disallow alterations affecting the British character of the company and to cancel the lease on breach of the clause. In these circumstances I see no reason to anticipate any attempt at evasion of the clause, but, if such an attempt were made. the Governor has ample power to deal with it.
    Mr. POINTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman knowledge as to the exact method by which the directors are to be appointed, and under the secret agreement will he be able from time to time to keep a check on any change in the directorate?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Oh, yes, I will take care to check these matters from time to time.
    Mr. POINTER: May I ask how that is going to be done?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot say exactly.
    Mr. POINTERasked whether, in the recent agreement entered into with the United West Indies Petroleum Syndicate, Limited, to explore, prospect, and to take out mining leases for oil in Trinidad, the syndicate have secured rights to take out mining leases for oil over 100,000 acres of land; if so, what is the limit of land

    1493
    over which they can prospect for oil; whether the usual royalty in Trinidad is 10 per cent., and, if so, what are the reasons for granting this syndicate the privileges contained in the agreement at a royalty of 2s. per ton, which at present prices is only equivalent to 5 per cent.; whether after a lapse of five years it is arranged that a rental of £10,000 per year is to be imposed with an arrangement that if the royalty at 2s. per ton exceeds the rent the latter is to be wiped out; and what are the reasons which induced the Colonial Office to agree to these terms for a period of fifty years, with a further option of thirty years?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Part IX., Clause 7, of the schedule to the lease provides that the total area to be held by the lessees at any one time shall not exceed 100,000 acres. The Government have given the syndicate an exploring licence over 198,555 acres. Any further area which the syndicate acquires from the Government or from third parties can be included in this or the prospecting licence. The usual royalty on oil won from Crown Lands is 2s. a ton, but a reduction is allowed on large quantities to encourage production on a large scale. The provisions as to the fixed rental of £10,000 a year, which is really a minimum royalty, not a rent, will be found in Part V., Clause 2, of the schedule to the lease in Cd. 6851. As regards the period, I saw no reason to object to the syndicate's request for a lease for fifty years, with the right of renewal for thirty years, subject to the provisions as to increased royalty which will be found in Part VIII., Clause 2, of the schedule to the lease. I may add that I hope shortly to arrange another lease on the same terms as regards areas, royalty, etc., with a different corporation.
    Mr. POINTER: Does not that answer in fact mean this: in effect the prospecting royalty has been given extending over fifty years over this 190,000 aces; and that Crown Lands are going to be closed for agricultural purposes for that limit of time?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that is the case at all.
    Mr. POINTER: Have not the company the right to keep this land during prospecting, and, if so, how can it be used for agriultural purposes?
    Mr. HARCOURT: In the agreement the conditions under which land can be taken up are laid down.
    Mr. POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentlenian aware that the local opinion in Trinidad is that they do not want to let out land for agricultural purposes until after the prospecting has taken place, because it always leads to disagreement, especially when the question of compensation for disturbance conies along?
    Mr. POINTERased the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction and doubt in the minds of the members of the chamber of commerce and others in Trinidad as to the exact meaning of paragraph 3 of the pipe-line agreement entered into by the United British West Indies Petroleum Syndicate, Limited; whether he can give any assurance that the words inserted in brackets, not being a combination of owners for this purpose only, do not in reality constitute a practical monopoly of oil-carrying and will not prevent smaller companies from combining together to lay down their own pipe-lines; and, if so, will he give such assurance without delay?
    Mr. HARCOURT: My attention has been called to certain questions asked in the Legislative Council, on the 21st of May, and to the replies, which appear to me satisfactory. The third clause of the agreement referred to does not, in my opinion, constitute a monopoly of the construction of main trunk lines as common carriers, still less of the carrying of oil. The clause is intended to prevent wasteful duplication of the main trunk system of transport, and so to secure the assumption by responsible undertakers of the obligations of common carriers, to which existing companies objected as an onerous lability when the Pipe Lines Ordinance was passed. My hon. Friend will sec on reference to Cd. Paper 6861, that it contains nothing to prevent owners piping their own oil to the seaboard or to a refinery, that a combination of o-Nners not formed for the purpose only of laying a pipe line is not necessarily excluded, and that if it is established that a main trunk line is not working satisfactorily, competition is not precluded. Applications to lay pipe lines will be considered on their merits, but I can give no assurance that any person will be allowed to lay a pipe line in contravention of the agreement.
    Mr. POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local opinion in interested circles is distinctly of opinion that the words quoted in the question, namely, that the persons concerned were not a combination for this purpose only—for the laying down of a pipe line—hardly bear out the purport of his answer, and are causing a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction; and can he not give some further assurance that a monopoly will not in effect be created beyond what is in the agreement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: If my hon. Friend will study the terms of my answer I think he will see that the assurance is given.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what, according to the last completed accounts, is the total cost of old age pensions; and what relief in the aggregate has accrued from the imposition of this charge upon the taxpayers to the ratepayers of the United Kingdom
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total expenditure out of the Votes for old age pensions in the five years ended 31st March last has been (in round figures) £44,000,000. I am endeavouring to obtain the information asked for in the last part of the question, and will communicate further 'with the hon. Member.

    Income Tax Claims.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardship resulting to Income Tax payers when, owing to the non-receipt of a form, they are time-barred in respect of a claim to be assessed at the lower rate in respect of earned income, His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of legislating in order to give local surveyors discretionary power when the omission to make a timely return is due to negligence or failure on the part of the officials of the Inland Revenue to provide the taxpayer with a form?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think it advisable to legislate for giving to District Commissioners the power which the hon. Member apparently desires them to exercise on the advice of local surveyors nor to lessen the present responsibility of the taxpayer in the matter of claims to be assessed at the lower rate in respect of earned income.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Gordon Hewart, esquire, K.C., for the Borough of Leicester.
BILL PRESENTED.
  FARM SERVANTS' HOLIDAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate the hours of labour of Scottish agricultural labourers and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. BARNES; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
  That Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Ponsonby be nominated Members of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Procedure). —[Mr.Illingworth.]
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES).

  MONEY RESOLUTION.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the advance, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums necessary for payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners, and guaranteed by His Majesty's Treasury, under any Act of the present Session to terminate the establishment Of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As the Committee know, under this Bill no part of the expenses of the Commissioners, or, in other words, no part of the cost of bringing the Act into effect, is borne by the public funds. It has been said from time to time that the public are being taxed in order to bring into operation a Bill devised for the benefit of Nonconformists. Let me say at once that there is not the smallest ground for that charge, and that not a single penny of public money will be devoted to the purpose of
  1514
  bringing this Bill into effect. I see that even so acute a critic as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) who, if he will allow me to say so, has shown himself throughout these discussions so exceedingly well informed in matters relating to them, seems to have fallen into the error in assuming that the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners are payable out of the taxes. Let me assure him that is not so. The salaries of the Welsh Commissioners and other expenses of the Bill will be paid out of the alienated funds of the present Established Church. That being so, it seems almost to be unnecessary to have a Financial Resolution at all. But in the early days of bringing the Bill into effect the Commissioners will undoubtedly have greater demand upon them than their revenue at the time will enable them to meet. If the representative body avail themselves of the opportunity which the Bill affords them, and accepts the principle of commutation, then it is obvious that the Commissioners will be obliged at once to borrow a large sum of money in order to make the commutation Clauses operative. The Commissioners can, no doubt, borrow money upon the security of the alienated Church funds, but it is proposed in the Bill that some assistance should be given to the Commissioners, not by way of Grant of money, but by way of guarantee by the Treasury of such loans as the Commissioners may have to make. If hon. Members will look at the Bill and turn to Clause 30, they will see that in the first Sub-section of the Clause the Welsh Commissioners are empowered with the consent of the Treasury to borrow such sums of money as they may think expedient for carrying into effect any provision of this Act, and Sub-clause 3 of the same Clause says:—
  "The Treasury may, if they think fit., guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners."
  And, further, Sub-clause (5) says:—
  "For giving effect to the guarantee aforesaid, the Treasury in aid of any money applicable under this Act for payment of "principal and interest for the time being accrued due in respect of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of this Act, may cause to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, such sums as may be necessary for the pay-

  1515
  ment of the said principal and interest, or of any part thereof respectively."
  In the first place, let us consider what the probable extent of the Treasury guarantee may amount to. We have to take two alternative cases. We have to suppose that there is no commutation, and that there is commutation. Assuming in the first place that there is no commutation, what will be the charges that will fall upon the Commissioners for which the Treasury may give a guarantee? The Commissioners will have to pay a compensation to lay owners of tithe-rent charges. In any event that cannot amount to a large sum. They will have to pay their own salaries; that also cannot amount to a large sum, and they will have to pay such other expenses, as the management of their own office, which will probably be covered by a few hundreds a year.
  Mr. HEWINS: What about the legal expenses?
  Mr. McK EN NA: I very much doubt whether the legal expenses will be heavy. I admit there will be some legal expenses, but they will not amount to a large figure. The hon. Gentleman thinks they will. Probably we are not agreed as to the meaning of a large figure. I am dealing now with the possibility of a loan that may have to be raised by the Commissioners on account of their expenditure exceeding their income. Assuming commutation does not take place, what are the possible limits of that loan? Such a loan could not in any circumstances exceed more than few thousand pounds, and the loan would necessarily only be for a short period. Of course the Committee will understand that immediately after Disestablishment the revenue of the Commissioners would be practically confined to the amount which was paid under the old Queen Anne Bounties, originally the whole charges of first fruits and tenths, and that will be the sole revenue of the Commissioners immediately after Disestablishment. As life interests fall in, the revenue will increase, and consequently some few years after Disestablishment takes place, the Commissioners will be in a position to pay, not only the annual cost of their office, but they will be able to repay any loans that they have incurred. The Committee will see, of course, that it is quite impossible to give a definite figure. As the revenue of the Commissioners will depend upon the period when the life in
  1516
  terests fall in, we cannot give anything more than a rough estimate, that is to say, a rough estimate of revenue, but as to the expenditure of the Commissioners, the limits are known apart from commutation, and all we ask the Committee to do is to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the loan which, if commutation is not accepted, must be of a trivial kind.
  4.0 P.M.
  The second alternative—the alternative of commutation—is much more serious, and I do not wish to disguise from the Committee for one moment that the amount of money which the Commissioners might have to borrow in order to buy out the life interests of the clergy would be a very large suni. We must take our second alternative now, and we must assume that the governing body of the Church decides to accept commutation. I have had some very interesting figures worked out by a most competent actuary. With assistance given to him by the actuary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he has been able to work out some very important figures. It will be remembered that the principle upon which commutation is to be settled is laid down in a Schedule to the Bill. This principle provides that in estimating the value of the life interest we take not merely the latest life tables, but we take the latest life tables as applicable to the clergy and to make a further allowance for the prospective increase in longevity of all classes, including the clergy. The actuary I have mentioned has taken the latest tables of the Clergy Mutual Assurance Society for May, 1911, and I believe they show a greater longevity than any tables which have yet been worked out. We have, first of all, to estimate the number of years' purchase which 'would be payable upon the life tables of this society We propose, however, as a reasonable allowance, to make for the increasing longevity of the clergy, that every individual should be taken as being ene year younger than he actually To justify this assumption we have 1:o go back. If we had taken to-day the tables hich were made up twenty-five yeas s ago we should have found by actual verified experience that the clergy lived longer than was anticipated in the tables made up a quarter of a century back. We expect, and the world expects, that the process which has been going on now for a great many years, showing a tendency towards an increase in the length of life will continue, and consequently it is not enough, we hold, in order to do justice in

  1517
  this case merely to take the latest tables, but we have to anticipate what would be the tables fifteen or twenty years hence, and upon that anticipation we have come to the conclusion that a proper estimate to make is that each individual is one year younger than in fact his burial certificate shows.
  I wish also to make this statement. In the figures which I have hitherto given to the House in dealing with this Bill I have always founded myself upon the Report of the Royal Commission, which gives the figures for the year 1906. I have always stated that those figures would be found subject to alteration whenever the Bill passed, because we should have to bring them up to the last year or the last year but one before the actual passing of the Bill. The increase for 1912 would not agree altogether with the figures for 1906. The revenue of the Church has increased in the interval, and consequently two things have happened. The total amount of property alienated has increased, and with that increase there has been an increase in the total amount of the life interest. That is to say, each clergyman on the average now has got a life interest in a larger income than was estimated in the year 1906. Making allowance for these two factors, increased longevity and increase of income, we estimate that the amount required to affect commutation would he about £2,160,000, or upwards, at any rate, of £2,100,000, and that sum represents twelve and three-quarter years' purchase of the income from the alienated property.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does that include the expenses of administration?
  Mr. McKENNA: That includes everytl-ing.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does it include the 2½ per cent?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it does not include the 2½ per cent., but it represents simply the life interest. It represents twelve and three-quarter years' purchase of the existing income and it amounts to £2,100,000. If I may complete my statement on this matter I would like to make a brief comparison with what was done in the case of the Irish Act.. In the case of that, Act, in calculating the value of a life tenancy, interest was reckoned at 3 per cent., and we propose to reckon the interest at 31 per cent.. In the case of Ireland the 12 per cent, was described as bonus, and
  1518
  that was added to the life interest, and of that 12 per cent. 7 per cent. represented an allowance for greater longevity of the clergy and 5 per cent. was estimated to represent the cost of working commutation. We propose to give no additional bonus, but we propose to allow 2é per cent. for working expenses, se that upon those two items it would appear that we are giving much less favourable terms to the Church in Wales than was given in the case of Ireland. How does it work out in the Irish case? In the case of Ireland the number of years'purchaseworked out altogether at 12.8 years' purchase, and that included the bonus and the reckoning of the life interest upon a 3 per cent. table. We propose to give 12.75 years' purchase and in addition we propose to give 2é per cent. towards the cost of working the commutation.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Does that include the additional one year?
  Mr. McKENNA: We are not adding the one year's purchase.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is it equivalent to one year's purchase?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no. You must not assume that. We assume that the total life interest is worth one year's purchase, but it is really only worth just a few months more. It will work out at about four months, but in spite of this we give twelve and three-quarter years' purchase and an additional 3é per cent., and another three or four months, and we give altogether over thirteen years' purchase. The true difference arises in this way. In all life payments of which we have experience sufficient allowance is not made for the increasing longevity of the rest. By taking the latest life tables, which are the only tables we ought to take, and allowing for a similar factor in the future, we get at the true basis of calculation, and on that we take 3é per cent. as the proper rate, and thus we give to the House a real basis upon which the calculation can be properly founded. This is twelve and three-quarter years' purchase throughout. If commutation is accepted, the Welsh Commissioners will have to borrow a. sum exceeding £2,000,000, and unless they borrow at a prohibitive rate of interest they would have to have a Treasury guarantee. It is not certain that the loan ever will be raised, because itis not certain that the governing body of the Church will determine to accept commutation, but, if

  1519
  they do accept it, then undoubtedly the Treasury would be asked to guarantee a loan of this kind. I am asking this Committee to sanction something which is not a merely trifling matter upon the basis I have argued, the first alternative. It would be a serious matter, and I submit to the Committee that it is a matter in which the Exchequer may be fairly called upon to assist in settling this difficult matter. Unless the Commissioners could borrow from the Treasury with a Treasury guarantee, they could not hope to offer to the Disestablished Church anything like the same commutation terms. It is a fact that they will get the benefit of the State guarantee which enables them to do so, and I submit to the Committee that if with the sanction of the House we approve loans representing millions for the development of our Colonies, as we have recently done in the case of Soudan, we must on an occasion of this kind endeavour to avail ourselves of Government credit in order to settle a long outstanding cause of difficulty and resentment amongst the Welsh people. With these few words I beg to recommend to the House that this Resolution should be adopted.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The Home Secretary has attempted to draw a distinction between taxation and using the credit of the Government in order to raise a loan on more advantageous terms. Although there is a distinction between direct taxation and giving a Government guarantee, yet, in principle, you are really dealing with the same thing and using the Government credit, and that could not be done without a Resolution such as the Home Secretary has now proposed. It is necessary to follow the Home Secretary to see in what respects Government credit might be necessary under the terms of this Resolution, and if I am right—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—in every case it will depend, directly or indirectly, upon the action of the Welsh Commissioners. It may for legal or official expenditure or in connection with the loan raised under the commutation scheme. What I want to say is that if we in this House are going to give authority to a body of Commissioners to pledge the Government credit, we ought to know who those Commissioners are. We ought to know now, because, if there is one time at which we ought to know the names of the Com
  1520
  missioners, it is when we are giving that body power to use the Government credit for the purposes of this Bill. The question whether the Government credit ought to be so used or not must surely depend in all cases of this kind upon the constitution of the body and to whom you are giving the power to use that credit. I say quite frankly, and I think I am speaking on behalf of other members of the Committee, that I object strongly to giving Government credit to a body without we know in what way that body is to be constituted and who the members of it are to be.
  I am not going into matters of precedent to any great extent, but I am not aware of a blank cheque of this kind having been given to a body whose names were not known and which was not constituted at the time. It is a blank cheque, because the amount depends upon the action which the Welsh Commissioners take. The question whether the credit of the Government is to be subject to a larger or to a less extent depends upon the action of those three gentlemen, whoever they may be. Would anyone in private business give a blank cheque credit to a body of Commissioners, none of whose names had been revealed? Surely we ought to be specially anxious to get proper guarantee when we are giving Government credit. I cannot imagine anyone in private business saying, "We want credit on behalf of the action of certain gentlemen whose names are going to be disclosed at some subsequent time." The answer would be, "Disclose the names first; then we shall be in a position to consider whether they are entitled to the credit asked for or not." The Home Secretary, in dealing with this question of commutation, unwittingly, no doubt, created what I think I must call a false impression by his reference to the Irish precedent. He said himself that the commutation is to be assessed on the comparatively unfavourable 3é per cent. table. If we are to have commutation on fair terms, that 3é per cent. table, to my mind, is entirely inadmissible. I may quote on that point what was said more than once by the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker). He said that although the offices with which he was connected had given up business of this kind because pensioners lived so long, he thought that the proper percentage to take was 3 and not 3é. He expressed his view quite strongly

  1521
  that the 3é per cent. table was unjust and not right, and he said that in his experience nobody could embark upon this commutation without risk with such a high percentage.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is only part of what he said.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Without any discourtesy, I do not take any notice of what the hon. Member says, nor shall I. The expenses here are given at 2é per cent. That is an entirely inadequate amount. If you arc to have commutaion, and I think you ought to have it in a case of this kind, you cannot expect the new representative Church body to take risks. It ought to be put on such a basis that it is tolerably certain it will work out without loss to the new representative body, because in case of loss they have no funds on which they can rely. Let me deal with what was said with regard to the Irish precedent. In Ireland it was 3 per cent., as against 3é per cent.; there was a bonus of 7 per cent., whereas in this case there is no bonus at all; and in Ireland the expenses were put at 5 per cent., whereas in this case they are put at 2é per cent. Yet the Home Secretary tells us that commutation in this case is more favourable than in the other. He himself pointed out the fallacy. Longevity has increased, and the only reason why you get an apparent benefit here is that longer tables as regards longevity are taken now than in the Irish case. What is the just thing to do? You ought to take longevity according to the most modern tables, and, having got the right tables as regards longevity, why should we not; have the 3 per cent. given the same as in the Irish case?Of course, it will work out at a greater number of years purchase, because longevity is longer, but that only means that as regards longevity you are using an accurate table and not an inaccurate one. But so far as the 7 per cent. bonus and the 5 per cent for expenses are concerned, there is obviously nothing given here at all equivalent to what was given in the Irish case.
  It is useless for the Home Secretary to say, "We have better terms here, because the table, as regards longevity, has altered in the two periods." It only means that there is a heavy liability, because there is a longer period of life. No one who sufficiently understands matters of this kind can doubt that the commutation, so far as life interest is concerned, is far more unfavourable, I think unjustly unfavour-
  1522
  able, in the Welsh Bill than the provisions of the Irish Bill, and to say that you get over that because you take now what is the actual table as regards longevity is really begging the question altogether. It means that you have more to compensate for when you draw up your commutation table. It does not mean that you are to draw up your commutation table on less favourable terms than were used in the Irish case. I therefore submit that what the Home Secretary said as regards commutation terms in this Bill being more favourable than in the Irish Bill is really not carried out when we analyse the conditions in the two cases. The next question is as regards the capitalised sum—that is, the income on which the calculation is to be made. Of course, a great deal depends upon that point. I have already said that. the 2é per cent. deduction for collection was much less than the 5 per cent., and I am not quite sure whether the rates and land taxation are charged on the three years' average in the case of Ireland as in the case of Wales. The Home Secretary perhaps will tell me whether the three years' average is more favourable to Wales than the average taken as regards Ireland, because, apart from that, every condition shows that the commutation table is drawn up less favourably in this case than in the Irish case. We are no doubt discussing this Financial Resolution under great difficulties. Owing to the terms of the Parliament Act, there is to be no Committee stage in one sense, and this whole discussion appears to me to be nothing more than a farce and a mockery. The terms of the Resolution are quite broad. They are simply—
  "for payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners, and guaranteed by His Majesty's Treasury, under any Act of the present Session."
  The Resolution was first passed in that form, so that it would allow within certain wide limitations alterations in the Committee stage. It was passed in this wide form to prevent Amendments in Committee being out of order. Of course, that was a most valuable principle when the Resolution was first debated, but what is the good of it now? We are not going to have any Committee stage, and the Home Secretary or those responsible for the Financial Resolution ought, instead of asking for a blank cheque, to have said, "Now the Committee terms are fixed as

  1523
  far as we are concerned, we ask the Committee to authorise the issue of such sum, a specified sum, as may be necessary." That is a very important point, and I think the right hon. Genteman in putting down this Resolution must have forgotten the effect of the Parliament Act. We cannot discuss its terms in Committee, because under the Parliament Act there is going to be no Committee stage. Under those circumstances, is it not quite wrong, as a matter of procedure, to introduce a general form of Resolution of this kind which is only allowable in the first instance in order to admit of drastic changes in Committee? If we are to have a Resolution now, we ought to have its terms before us. The The Home Secretary has put it, as regards glebe and other matters, as though it was something in the nature of an adjustment of old and new Parliamentary Grants. But what is the good of leaving a matter of that kind open when there is going to be no Committee stage at all? We protested as strongly as we could against the monstrous injustice of not giving any compensation to curates, but none of those matters are open now. When the question of compensation to curates was open, it was very important that we should have a Money Resolution in these terms, but what is the good of it now? It is a mockery and a farce. It is brought in in the old form, whereas under the Parliament Act we do not get a Committee stage at all.
  It is very difficult under those circumstnces to say much as regards this Financial Resolution, because we cannot, in the absence of a Committee stage, follow up what we say now by any effective discussion. I can only say, speaking on behalf of Churchmen, that we do consider and have considered every financial provision in this Bill mean and petty as regards the Welsh Church, quite irrespective of the main principle to which everyone knows we are opposed out-and-out. If I thought we were dealing with the funeral expenses of the Bill. I really should not mind in what form the Resolution had been brought before this Committee so long as the expenses were sufficient to bury it once and for all. I would, indeed, have voted in addition for a memorial effigy of the Home Secretary, and to meet the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), I would have added effigies of the private secretaries. The
  1524
  Home Secretary might have been in the centre of the group with the private secretaries weeping tears of sorrow around him. From any other point of view this procedure is a farce. The House has no specific figures before it at this stage. The Resolution is brought forward in general form, although it is well known there will be no Committee stage; the Resolution as framed does not give the House the information to which it is entitled, while it suggests the possibility of a future discussion which cannot arise. Under these circumstances, I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will express their disapprobation of procedure of this kind and their disapprobation also of the terms in which the Resolution has been drawn.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am not a private secretary and, therefore, without incurring the displeasure of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on the Resolution, and in reply to the observations which have fallen from him. He told us he spoke under great difficulties. I venture to think he has overcome those difficulties with reasonable skill, for he has made a speech of considerable length which, judging from the silence of the Chair, appears to have been absolutely in order. And as far as I can gather the hon. and learned Gentleman has got in quite an eloquent peroration in the sentence or two which indicated very much the attitude in which he approaches all the financial proposals of this Bill. With regard to the substance of his speech— and I know the hon. and learned Gentleman would never have arisen unless he had something substantial to say.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We all do that.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I accept the words of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). whose election to a Committee upon the procedure of this House was achieved recently under circumstances in which we all assented. I was saying that the point of substance, which I gathered from the speech of the hon. and learned Member, was this, that, owing to the fact that under the procedure of the Parliament Act, the Clauses of this Bill may now be regarded as settled Clauses, any discussion upon the Financial Resolution must be a waste of time.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Apart from the actual figures.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right, "apart from the actual figures." That is the first point he was making. He said that, seeing that the Clauses are settled, the Debate on the Financial Resolution becomes a mere farce. But that is not a result of the Parliament Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been a Member of this House a long time, and he must know well that the Financial Resolution is often postponed until the greater part of the Committee stage of a Bill has been gone through. If he attends a Standing Committee upstairs he will find that that is the case, and that it is by no means unusual to postpone all Clauses requiring for their support a Financial Resolution until the other Clauses of the Bill have been discussed. Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that one of the consequences of the Parliament Act is that the procedure now adopted is novel.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: In the case of Bills that go upstairs you have a Report stage.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: And you get a specific sum at the same time.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman who first interrupted me is right in saying that whenever a Bill goes upstairs to a Standing Committee there is a Report stage in this House, but that is not in any way relevant to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks. Then says that hon and learned Member, you do not put in the figures here. But there would be no advantage in doing that. What advantage could there be?
  Sir F. BANBURY: It would prevent the Government spending more.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Then the Government need only put in a larger amount than is absolutely necessary. It is purely and simply a mere matter of form. Nothing could be more clear than the limitation as to the amount of the charge that can possibly fall upon the Treasury as a result of this Bill. It is a very odd thing that, during the Debate- on the Report stage last Session, the point that was taken by some hon. Gentlemen opposite was that this expenditure was being cast upon the Welsh Church instead of on the Treasury. Now, as I understand it, the point taken is that the Government are, under this Bill, imposing an improper
  1526
  responsibility on the Treasury. Other points of criticism made by the hon. and learned Gentleman turned upon the details of the commutation scheme, and the Home Secretary, to my mind, performed what might be called a work of supererogation in once more explaining the details of that scheme. As far as I can understand it the scheme has been slightly improved in the interests of the Church. The right hon. Gentleman told us that, having looked into the matter, he had come to the conclusion that in future the life of the Welsh clergy would be a little longer than in the past. Alhough not an actuarial expert, I think the new method of assuming that a Welsh clergyman is a year younger is rather to the advantage of the actual holders of benefices than the reverse. I am ready to admit that the life of the Welsh clergyman, once this Bill has passed, may reasonably be expected to have an increased average duration, not of one, but possibly, of two or three years. However, I entirely approve of this concession of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I have been trying to think what other relevant objections were contained in the hon. and learned Member's speech. There was an interjection made from the other side of the House in regard to legal expenses. As far as I can see the legal expenses of the Commissioners, like the legal expenses in similar cases, will be practically nil; the expenses in fact will fall on the unhappy suitors. Whether the expenses in proceeding before the Commissioners under Clause 11 of the Bill, or in reference to appeals will be great or small, I should think if the Commissioners, as I have no doubt they will, exercise some restraint on the duration of their proceedings, and in reference to the kind of procedure they will permit, they will be small. In any case the real expenses connected with any dispute that may take place under the Act will not depend on the will of the Commissioners, but will depend on the will of the parties. Where there is an appeal from the Commissioners, possibly some small sum may have to be provided to secure their representation before the Court to which the appeal is brought, but surely, seeing that by the provisions of the Bill the expenses will conic not from His Majesty's Treasury, but out of funds which we say belong to the Welsh nation, the point is really too small and too trivial to occupy the attention of this House at any great length. I have thought it right to make these observations. I do

  1527
  not indeed complain of the criticisms made on the other side, but I thought it only courteous to my hon. and learned Friends opposite to say that there is some answer to the objections they have taken to this Motion.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I agree in some measure with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, that the discussion upon this Motion, if it is to be kept strictly within the limits of order, must necessarily be very restricted. I hope the Home Secretary will not, when he goes to the country and makes speeches on this Bill, assert that the details were not discussed, notwithstanding the fact that there was an opportunity of discussing them on the Financial Resolution. I wish to refer to some statements contained in the speech of the Home Secretary, which I think went very nearly outside the Rules of Order. Of course we should like to discuss the terms of the commutation. We think them unjust and unreasonable, but it is clear we cannot go far into details, although, perhaps, I may be allowed to do so to the same extent as the Home Secretary. Let me, however, deal at once with the first part of his speech. In his opening sentence he said it had been stated that the expenses of the Commissioners under this Bill, which is for the benefit of Nonconformists—
  Mr. McKENNA: No, no.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Ostensibly.
  Mr. McKEN NA: No. My observation was, "It has been said that the expense of the Commissioners in bringing this Bill into operation, a Bill which is said to be for the benefit of Nonconformists, is being borne out of the Exchequer."
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. Gentleman's words then were, "It has been said." Apparently he will not commit himself to the statement that it is for the benefit of Nonconformists. I was going to challenge the statement that they got no benefit out of it whatever, except perhaps spite against, the Church. I do not know where this was said or when, but however that may be, this money is coming out of funds which you say are Welsh national funds, and these expenses are being borne entirely by Wales and not by the United Kingdom. We maintain that they are being borne entirely out of Church funds, out of money which, if we come back into office, we intend to return to the
  1528
  Church. In view of that fact, it is important that the finance of this Bill should be a little more business like than it is. What does this Resolution do? It says that these Commissioners, who are at present nameless, may borrow for practically any purpose and to any extent they may think lit.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Resolution says
  "under any Act of the present Session——"
  Who is to decide the amount?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Treasury.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I suppose the Treasury will sue the Commissioners if they borrow for improper purposes?
  Mr. McK E N NA: They may borrow.
  Mr.ORMSBY-GORE:I suppose that the Treasury will decide how much money the Commissioners may have, and that the Commissioners will have to state beforehand what the money is for? That is not the way to bring a Resolution before this Committee. The Home Secretary ought to have said, "There are the salaries of the Commissioners, the expenses of the offices, and, in a certain event, there is commutation, and the charge on the Treasury will be so much." The right hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to lay upon the Treasury and the Welsh Commissioners a burden of decision in matters which it is not proper for them to decide without a full knowledge of this House beforehand. I challenge altogether the Home Secretary's idea as to what the expenses of these Commissioners will be. They have to decide very difficult questions, and to go into the question which the Royal Commission said is exceedingly difficult—the origin of the Church property and the date when it was given. There is bound to be a dispute as to what is to be returned to the representative body and what is not to be returned to them. There are bound to be difficulties in dividing the spoil under this Bill. All these questions are to be decided by the Commissioners. If there is an appeal, and in a highly contentious matter like this there is bound to be an appeal, enormous expenses are attached. What will happen if the Commissioners lose their case on appeal? Who is to pay? I suppose the taxpayers of this country, or else it will come out of the funds, which under this

  1529
  Bill are supposed to be devoted to the Welsh University or the Welsh National Library. That is an unsatisfactory financial method. If you say the money is wanted by the Welsh University and the Welsh Library, how you can take it out of their pockets? It will be wanted more by them than it is by——
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill rather than the Money Resolution.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I realise that it is difficult to keep within the rules. I want to say that the Commissioners, during the first years at any rate, will not be able to get the money out of the Welsh Church. The first fruits and tenths referred to by the Home Secretary, which will form their sole income, will amount to something between £800 and £1,000 a year. That will not be sufficient to pay their salaries, maintain their offices, and enable them to indulge in those legal expenses which are bound to arise in a great controversy of this kind. The legal expenses are bound to be considerable. Apparently, under this Resolution, the Commissioners will have the money advanced to them by the Treasury, and it is to be paid back to the Treasury with interest. That will have to paid back from one particular source under the Bill, and will come not from the whole amount of the Church funds, not from the whole of the alienated money, but from one particular portion of the alienated money. That is an exceedingly had financial arrangement. I hope the Committee realise that that particular sum is likely to be considerable. The major portion of the Home Secretary's speech dealt with a very much larger loan which will be necessitated in the event of the commutation scheme being accepted. If the commutation scheme stands as it is now, it is not likely to be accepted. I do not believe the Home Secretary wants it to be accepted. I notice that in his speech this afternoon he said that under the Welsh scheme of commutation it came to 12.75 years' purchase, and that the scheme under the Irish Act came to a small fraction more—12.8.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is without reckoning in the ease of the Welsh scheme the 2é per cent. for expenses which was included in the case of the Irish Bill. If we worked it out on the same rate as the Irish Church, it would be thirteen years.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am glad to have that figure. Although the terms are said to be generous, several authorities have said that the Irish Church would have done better not to accept those terms, but to have retained the life interests and do all the business outside. What we want to know is whether the longevity has increased since 1869 more in proportion to the amount of increase which the Home Secretary states. He offers us thirteen years purchase, and says that the Irish terms were 12.8 years' purchase. He can only say that the figure he offers us is just if he can show that the increase in longevity since 1861 is represented by the fraction of difference between 13 and 12.8. I am certain that it will be fairer if, instead of reducing us to these fractions, he will give us, as was given in the Irish case, the genuine annuity basis of 3 per cent., with 5 per cent for expenses. That will be found far fairer than all this jugglery with elaborate tables and all these explanations. I do not speak with any authority upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) does. He made a valuable contribution to the Debate last year, and no doubt will tell us whether or not the commutation scheme as suggested by the Home Secretary is a fair one. From the speech he made last Session upon this point we were led to think that unless the Home Secretary gave us a 3 per cent. basis, the commutation scheme would be impracticable. Let us suppose that the terms of the commutation scheme are altered in some way, and that the scheme is accepted. In that case these nameless Commissioners will come down upon the Treasury for a very large sum of money. It will be something like £2,500,000 in the first year of the working of this Bill. Upon financial grounds the Committee ought to pause before sanctioning in this manner a loan of £2,500,000 to the Commissioners. It is no use the Home Secretary saying that when the time collies, if the House objects, they can always move a Resolution in this House. If that is the case, why have a Financial Resolution at all now? This Committee ought not to be in the position of being asked to enable the Commissioners, whose names are not not known, to borrow a sum of £2,500,000 from the British Treasury in order to work this Bill upon the security of the small proportion of the Church funds that are to be alienated to the uses of the Welsh

  1531
  University and the Welsh Library. That is not the way it should be done, and I hope the Committee will pause before they sanction a Financial Resolution of this kind. I should have liked to have gone further into the details of the commutation scheme, but I gather that further details would be out of order. It ought to be clearly understood that unless there is some alteration in the commutation scheme, that scheme need never have been suggested. Unless you give us fair working expenses and a fair basis, it is most unreasonable to expect the Church to accept anything of the kind. The Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) interrupted the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) when he said he would move a reduction, and said, "Starve the parsons!"
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I said nothing of the kind. I said it, would have the effect of starving the parsons.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I say that this commutation scheme is one which would tend not to starve them, but to reduce the fair amount of compensation to which they are entitled, even upon the principles you have laid down in your Bill. I hope I have not transgressed the rules in what I have said. I hope the Committee will reject the Resolution on financial grounds, and also because I think the commutation scheme outlined by the Home. Secretary this afternoon is unsatisfactory.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir A. Cripps) has made one or two references to myself. It is quite true that I did express an opinion in this House that the commutation scheme would be better upon a 3 per cent, than a 3é per cent. basis. As the position then stood, in my opinion that was undoubtedly so. The Government did not see their way to alter the basis to 3 per cent., but they did make further concessions, and I expressed the opinion, later on, that in my judgment those other concessions did balance the difference between a 3 per cent. and a 3é, per cent. basis. The Government had agreed, first of all, to take the very latest mortality tables. That is better than taking the old mortality tables. The next point is that they are taking the ages as one year younger. That is a very important matter indeed. When you get above fifty years of age it means about a 3 per cent. increase in the capital sum. They are also making another
  1532
  concession, which is that the annuities will be paid for the whole life of the annuitants.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Is the concession as to the last mortality table in addition to that?
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is in addition. This is taking the clergymen as being one year younger than they really are. That is a concession equivalent to a 3 per cent. increase in the capital sum. The one to which I was referring is this, that the capital sum paid for the annuity is a capital sum to provide an annuity for the whole of the life, right up to the death of every one of them, but in any cases where these men do not remain in the active service of the Church, if they retire, or in any way cease to draw that annuity, the capital sum which has been provided in order to enable the body to pay them an annuity for the whole of their life will be a gain. The 2é per cent., while just about the ordinary working cost in the ordinary way, seems to me to be quite sufficient. I do not think the actual cost of the working of this body will be increased beyond that, and perhaps not up to that. Then there is another point which has been accentuated somewhat since we last debated the Bill, and that is the rate of interest at which you can now invest money, which is higher than would have been the case for very many years past. You can get a 2é, per cent. more for your money than you could have got last year. May I make a suggestion to hon. Members opposite? Pass this Bill this year and get the advantage of the per cent. I have only intervened in this matter before purely from a business point of view. I was anxious that there should be a fair commutation scheme, fair not only to the Church, but to the Welsh people. I felt that a bare 3é, per cent. on the ordinary terms was cutting it too fine, but I am satisfied that the concessions which have been made make that basis a fair, a reasonable, and a workable one.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in stating that the rate of interest which can be obtained now is higher than it was a year ago, and no doubt if the Government stays in much longer it will be still higher, but what we are dealing with is quite a different matter. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) says 3 per cent. Was

  1533
  the rate which was allowed under the commutation scheme of the Irish Church Act. That took place in 1869. At that time the rate of interest was considerably higher than it is at present, and if the Irish Church Act is taken as an analogy for the commutation scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, the rate of interest ought to be below the 3 per cent. and not above. The hon. Member (Mr. Edgar Jones) made some reply to an interjection which I made. I have handed in an Amendment to limit the amount which the Treasury may sanction. That in no way starves the clergy. It will merely be a limit upon the powers of the Treasury. I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the guarantee of the loan is in fact placing a charge upon the taxpayer for the benefit of the Welsh Church, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that. He said that without the credit of the Government the Welsh Commissioners could not borrow at a reasonable rate, and no doubt that is true. The Welsh Commissioners, if they could borrow upon the security of the property which they are going to appropriate, would have to pay a higher rate of interest than if principal and interest were guaranteed by the State, but if that is so it is self-evident that it is the credit of the taxpayer which is being used to facilitate the money which has got to be borrowed in order to pay for the commutation scheme. I want also to emphasise the request made by my hon. and learned Friend for the names of the Commissioners. That seems to me to be a very reasonable request, and I am at a loss to understand why it has not been complied with. After all, this Resolution is not upon the Paper for the first time. It was on the Paper last year, and during that time there must have been plenty of opportunities for the Home Secretary to consider whom he intended to appoint to this very onerous position. The only reason which suggests itself to me for refusing to give the names is that when they are given they will command such little confidence that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid to give them for fear that even the allegiance of hon. Members behind him will be strained, and that when they know the names they will vote against the Resolution.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Baronet in order now in discussing the inclusion or non-inclusion of these names in the Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN:I think it is stretching the point rather too far. The power of the Welsh Commissioners to borrow does
  1534
  not arise under this Resolution at all, but under the Bill. What is authorised here is that the Treasury may give a guarantee.
  Mr. HEWINS: Is not that affected by the nature of the security the Commissioners are able to give? Does not the existence of the Commissioners affect that security?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: These three Welsh Commissioners have power to incur various expenses which entirely depend upon their discretion. If they are people who are likely to abuse that power it would not be possible to give them a blank cheque.
  The CHAIRMAN: All these powers are given them under the Bill. The only additional thing authorised here is to authorise the Treasury to enable them to borrow at a lower rate of interest. Without this Resolution they would only be able to borrow on such security as they themselves had.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think the question of the names is in order, because we are asked to allow the Treasury to guarantee the principal and interest of certain funds. That is the effect of the Resolution. I might be induced to vote for it if I knew that the names of the three Commissioners would command my confidence. On the other hand, if they did not command my confidence, I might be induced to vote against the Resolution, and therefore I should like to ask your ruling as to whether an argument upon these lines would not be in order.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Surely upon a Financial Resolution, when you are backing up the credit of certain bodies, such as the Welsh Commissioners, by Treasury assistance, it must be material whether those Commissioners are named or not.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman will observe that I did not interrupt him when he asked for the names. I was appealed to, and gave what I think was a sound ruling, that any development of an argument which refers to another Clause of the Bill altogether would be out of order, but as far as it has gone both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Baronet have been entitled to ask.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will defer my argument on that till a little later.
  Mr. HOARE Mr. HOARE rose——
  The CHAIRMAN: It might save the hon. Member trouble if I refer to his Amendment to insert the words, "salaries of the Welsh Commissioners and the." That Amendment cannot be taken until the hon. Member is a Minister of the Crown. It requires to come from a Minister.
  Mr. HOARE: I am sorry to think the moving of that Amendment will be put off for some indefinite time. I did not rise to attempt to move it at present because there are one or two questions I should like to have answered before we go to a Division. It seemed to me that the Home Secretary used the opportunity of this Resolution chiefly for bringing out again the Irish precedent. In two material points the Irish case differs altogether from the case outlined by the Home Secretary with reference to this Financial Resolution. In the first place, as far as commutation went, there was a considerable number of clergy in Ireland who had no wish to remain in Ireland after Disestablishment passed. They took a lump sum and left the country. That in itself made the conditions much better for the clergy who remained in Ireland. That cannot happen in Wales, where no one would say there is an excessive number of clergy in the four dioceses. Secondly, in another respect the Irish finance differed altogether from that outlined in this
  Resolution. Curates were compensated, and in some cases were actually given an annuity. It is sufficient to mention these two facts to show how entirely the precedent which the Home Secretary cited breaks down when applied to the Welsh Bill.
  With reference to commutation, I should like to ask a question which I feel sure the Under-Secretary for the Home Department will answer when he comes to speak. I remember that in the Debate we had on the subject of commutation we pressed that the matter should be referred to an impartial actuary or a number of actuaries. The Home Secretary just now said that he had come to the conclusion which he described to the Committee after consultation with an impartial actuary. I shall be very much obliged to know who this impartial actuary is. Secondly, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary why we are having this Debate at all; not so much because it raises so small a point that an hour or two is unnecessary, but because I wish to know why a Financial Resolution is necessary at all. The Home Secretary
  1536
  devoted most of his speech to quoting the Irish precedent. I believe I am right in saying that in the Irish case, although there was commutation, and although the terms of compensation of the various freehold officers were much more generous than under this Bill, with the result that a much greater charge was put on the Irish Church Fund, there was no Financial Resolution at all. If no Financial Resolution was required in the Irish case, why is one required in this case? Thirdly, I wish to support the request which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has just emphasised, namely, Why is it that no specific sum is put into the Resolution? I will not elaborate that point, because we shall have an opportunity of doing so when the hon. Baronet moves his Amendment. It is sufficient to say that it ought to be reasonably possible for the Home Secretary to put in a definite sum. He told us that something over £2,000,000 was necessary for commutation. I suppose he has some estimate of what will be necessary for compensation. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary why no definite sum has been put in this Financial Resolution.
  Lastly, I should like to emphasise what has been said by several hon. Members on this side as to the great danger of giving the Treasury guarantee to three Commissioners about whom we know nothing. The case is even stronger than that stated by the hon. and learned Member for South Buckinghamshire (Sir A. Cripps) and the hon. Member for the City of London, for it comes to this, that under this Resolution the Treasury will be guaranteeing the credit of men whose names, in the first place, are not known, and secondly, whose administration will not come under the purview of this House at all, so far as I can understand. I understand that owing to the payment of their salaries corning out of the Church Fund and not out of the Consolidated Fund, there will b3 no opportunity when the Bill passes for this House to criticise their administration at all. If their salaries were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, then there would naturally be an opportunity in due course of moving a reduction in the salaries, or a reduction in some particular item of their expenditure, but under this Resolution no such opportunity will arise. We are in this position: We are asking the Treasury to give its guarantee to these-unknown gentlemen for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, while their subsequent action will not be criticised in this

  1537
  House. If we were going to appoint impartial judges, that might not be so bad as it actually is, but these gentlemen are to be appointed to carry out simply a political transaction. They will be nothing more than political agents to carry out a transaction which creates the greatest discontent among a large section of people in the country, and, in addition to that, their duties will be attended with the greatest difficulties. 'These men who are to carry out a political transaction, and who will be faced with difficulties of great complexity, will be removed by your financial Resolution from all subsequent, criticism by the Committee or the House itself. In view of these three points, I shall certainly vote against the Resolution.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hoare) has complained that it is rather difficult to speak on this subject before hearing the reply on behalf of the Government. We have heard the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) dealing with the question of commutation. He rather suggested that if the rate of interest charged was reduced from 3½ per cent. to 3 per cent. they, on the other side of the House, would be willing to accept the proposal. I am rather curious to know how far the hon. Member is entitled to speak for the Church in Wales. I find that there is another hon. Member opposite who takes an interest in this question, and I hope we shall hear from him whether the statement made by the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs is accepted or not We understand on this side that under no circumstances would the Church accept the Bill, with or without commutation. We understand, further, that they will have nothing to do with what is called onside, if not in this House, the "unclean thing." It appears, however, that on the other side the real objection to compromise on the Bill is not at all on the question of principle, but because the financial proposals will be to the disadvantage of the Church. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quote."] I will be very pleased to quote a speech made by Lord Selborne on 30th May last. He is reported in the "Times" as having said:—
  "If the Liberals were [at the next election] returned to power, the Church would he far stronger, far more enthusiastic, and in a far better position to find the money required for the spiritual purposes of the people of Wales if there had been no compromise."
  The suggestion contained in that statement is that if no compromise is accepted, the public will be more ready to help the
  1538
  Church in Wales. The terms now offered by the Home Secretary with regard to commutation are rather more liberal than before, but I notice that not one word of gratitude has been expressed on the other side. I hope the Home Secretary will take that into consideration when pressure is brought to bear upon him to make further concessions. There is only one point on which the 'Committee are agreed, and that is, that there is great reluctance on the part of clergymen to go to heaven, because the whole of the available statistics go to show that they live longer than ordinary mortals. They show considerable reluctance to leave this world. As to the terms on which commutation should take place, we have to bear in mind that the commutation tables are not the tables which apply with regard to the general public. They are tables of insurance companies with regard to a particular class of life, namely, the life of clergymen; and not only are they the tables which apply to clergymen in general, but they are even more advantageous, because they are the tables with respect to selected lives. Reference has been made to what was done in the case of the Irish Church, and it is suggested that the terms given to clergymen of that Church were more favourable than those which are to be granted to clergymen in Wales. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) that it means an addition of 3 per cent. to the capital value. It is the equivalent of 3 per cent, on the capital value of the price of commutation. I think it ought to be pointed out again, that while in Ireland the average number of years' purchase was 12.8, in this case it is 12.75, and, in addition, there is to be allowed a further sum of 2½ per cent. In any case the proposed arrangement is one with respect to which it is not for the other side to complain.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope I shall sail under no false colours. I wish to make it abundantly plain, so far as I am concerned, that I do not desire to express any gratitude for anything that has been promised. The hon. Member opposite referred to compromise, but I really do not know what the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs said. I am not prepared to compromise with those who are promoting this Bill. I think that a majority of them themselves know that they are doing an absolutely wrong thing to us, and, therefore, they are not in the least surprised

  1539
  that we do not meet them and thank them for the small portion given back to us. I think I have made that absolutely clear on every occasion on which I have addressed the Committee on this subject. There is one thing I am grateful for. This is a, Motion to spend public money. There is no doubt about that.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: No.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If there is the slightest doubt about that, I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Resolution, which says:—
  "That it is exp3dient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners.…"
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: The Treasury does not lose a halfpenny. We have to make it up.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member says that this is not public money because they have to repay it on some other occasion, but they get the advantage of borrowing money on Consols which, after all, even now, are better security than the private credit of three Welsh Commissioners. The hon. Member contends that although you are using Consols to pay for a thing, that is not paying public money, because you are going to pay it off, but, of course, it is using public money and public credit.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: They hand over the money to the representative Church body.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: They have got to pay their own salaries and a secretary of some kind. It is idle to talk about it not being public money. We have no passive resistance over this Bill. No one has got any conscientious scruples against public `money coming out of the taxes being devoted to the payment of commutation.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken. Not one penny of public money is used in that way.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech was so clear about it that I thought it unnecessary to go over it again. When the Welsh Commissioners borrow the £2,000,000 the Treasury have got to raise £2,000,000, and that, of course, is public money. But leav
  1540
  ing the more contentious point, let us come back to the proposition that is put before us. We are asked solemnly to grant an absolutely blank cheque to the three Commissioners whose names have been asked for already, but so far they have not been given. But even assuming that we knew who they were, is there any precedent for allowing three Commissioners to borrow such an amount as they think right for two different purposes? For one thing the Home Secretary tells us that he does not expect that many thousands of pounds will be required. That is for the expenses of carrying the matter out, including the salaries of the Commissioners and their secretary and other officers. There is no limit as to the amount which they are to be allowed to borrow for that purpose. Directly they borrow the Treasury is empowered under this. Resolution to issue Consols to that amount without any check from this House. Ta begin with there is a blank cheque as far as that is concerned. A similar sort or blank cheque is to be given to them in the case of commutation, and again the amount is unlimited. He told us of certain specific things which he proposed that the Commissioners should do. In what way are the restrictions to be enforced? Are the Commissioners bound-to take the 3 or 3½ per cent. table as the case may be? Are they bound to grant this extra year on the life of every. person? They have power, of course, in that part of Schedule III. to make such allowance as they think right. The Home Secretary says that they are going to give these terms. What are these terms?
  We are told by the hon. Member, who has just sat down, that the tables from which they are taken are the latest tables. That is quite right. The hon. Member for Spen Valley told us that same thing. Is there any great virtue in that. When you carry out any kind of insurance is it likely that you are going to take a table of fifteen years ago Is it not most likely that you will take the last available. tables? The hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, told us that these tables only apply to clergy. It is the Clergy. Mutual tables.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Not the average life of the clergy, but their experience with regard to selected lives, that is the insured life of the clergy.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: That is exactly the point on which I beg to differ from the, hon. Member.
  Mr. McKENNA: The actuary speaks of it as a process of readjustment from the actual experience of that society in respect of the lives of the clergy during the twenty-four years ending the 21st May, 1911.
  Mr. RAWLI NSON: If that is so the hon. Member is right, and I am wrong, but T presume that it will be laid on the Table of this House so that we may be able to check it. I had no idea that there was any such table drawn up by the Clergy Mutual. They do a very large business with a very large number of lives besides those of the clergy, and it does seem odd that they should take out separate tables for the lives of the clergy.
  Mr. BOOTH: Every office does it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. We know the tables perfectly well. The right hon. Gentleman purported to quote from that and no doubt he will lay it on the Table of the House so that we may be able to examine it. Does he suggest that it is the lives of the clergy which you propose to take, and that then you are to add one year, that is to give them one year of youth which they do not possess? Are the Commissioners bound to do that? What possible guarantee is there to this House that the Commissioners are going to do that? I do not doubt the bona fides of the Home Secretary, but here you have power given in an Act for the Commissioners to do certain things. The Home Secretary tells us to-day that the Commissioners are going to do this.
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that. I quite realise the point.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that that did give us an extra year.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite realise the force of the hon. and learned Member's point and therefore I carefully refrained from using language of the kind which he thought I used. I stated that in the Fourth Schedule certain principles were laid down for the guidance of the Commissioners. I have been through those figures and on those tables it seems to me chat a reasonable allowance would be to assume that, the clergy would be one year younger than they are now. I stated that clearly. On the evidence I have no doubt that the Commissioners will come to the same conclusion. I quite agree that they are
  1542
  not bound to do so. On the other hand, the clergy are not bound to accept the Commissioners' terms.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman really has given us his own private opinion and nothing more. He has gone into the figures and come to certain conclusions. He cannot bind the Commissioners any more than I can, or at least I presume that he cannot. Suppose that they come to a different conclusion. They might come to the view that they are not entitled to that year at all. In fact it might be said that there would be rather less than the average taken. There is nothing to bind them at all. Therefore what we are doing is giving this blank cheque to the Commissioners, and we are merely speculating as to what they will do. They will have power to borrow small or large sums. Is it business to leave simply in the hands of three Commissioners this power or discretion to borrow money in that way? But I submit, without affecting my hostility to the whole Bill in any shape or form, that there is a great objection to this House delegating what is its chief object—that is its control of finance. We must put some limit on these Financial Resolutions of the Government.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: This power is only for three years.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It may be renewed by the Treasury.
  Mr. MASON: Only for two years.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It is extraordinary the amount of borrowing you can do in three years. With the Consolidated Fund behind the Commissioners it is wonderful what you can do in three years. You are leaving a blank cheque in this particular case to the Commissioners; that is not making the position any better, but is making it somewhat worse, and therefore I shall certainly vote against the Resolution and support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to deal with this one point, and that is really the ground of my being in the House during this Debate. The hon. and learned Member opposite quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), but only gave a small portion of a well-balanced argument. He was for a moment triumphant, but his downfall came

  1543
  when the right hon. Member for Spen Valley spoke in this House. The whole consideration is whether the basis of this Financial Resolution should take into account all these matters. The hon. Member for Spen Valley put his point very well, but the hon. and learned Member opposite made a complete burlesque of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. When you deal with the question of 3½ or 3 per cent., the calculation must take into account all the facts. Other conditions have been introduced, and the right hon. Member for Spen Valley has been led to finally agree to this particular Motion. My right hon. Friend agrees that the figures put in the Bill are perfectly fair to the Church. In regard to the Irish precedent, I submit that in this instance there is an advantage to the English Church as established in Wales, and I am very thankful for it, speaking as one who wishes to act with fairness to the Church. To listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me, one would think that instead of being thankful for this concession to the Church, he wants to make a point against it. Let us put aside party politics.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I say that the money has been taken away from us, and it is idle to expect me to pretend gratitude because a very small portion of it is returned.
  Mr. BOOTH: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that if the clergy of the Church in Wales have a larger sum by means of concession to finance their spiritual work, that it is to be despised? Surely they will welcome it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I never said that.
  Mr. BOOTH: Then is the hon. and learned Gentleman grateful for it?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that I am not. If he wants an untrue answer to be given he must get somebody else to give it. If a person comes and takes a large sum of money from me and I get some part of it back I am not at all grateful to him. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything of the Courts of Law, he must be aware that there are frequently cases in which money has been taken away, and, when the people from whom the money has been taken manage to get back part of it, they are not grateful for the portion they have just obtained.
  Mr. BOOTH: What has that got to do with it? There is being given to the Church a larger sum which they are glad to receive, not to speak of gratitude. The hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking as a party politician; he is not a Welsh clergyman. Welsh clergymen have probably a higher standing than that which is associated with those law cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I, like other hon. Members of the House, desire that the Church in Wales shall be successful in its spiritual mission, and this concession will be valuable to the Church organisation to conduct its spiritual mission; yet the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say, "Thank you." I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member might have taken up a more noble attitude. Surely this Financial Resolution treats the Church more generously than was originally intended, and, if that be so, while hon. Members opposite do not like Disestablishment or Disendowment or the Money Resolution, yet the Motion is in a better and more acceptable form than it was before these improvemnts were introduced. I really do not see why hon. Members opposite cannot be thankful. Surely in their own hearts they are grateful, but it seems to me that they will not acknowledge it.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I am not grateful for robbery.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. and learned Member introduced heat, party bias and prejudice, and said that on this business transaction he was handicapped. I have looked into this proposal as a business one, and have treated it solely in that aspect, and I must express to the Committee my view that the terms are much better than the Irish terms to which hon. Members opposite alluded. It is quite true that the statistics of mortality show an improvement in the general community compared with those of a former period, but I am not at all sure that they show an improvement in the longevity of clergymen. That is the point. I do not think there has been any appreciable difference. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was not so sure that there was an appreciable difference in the length of life of clergymen. They have aways lived to a ripe old age, and if they have appeared reluctant to go to Heaven, no one can blame them for that, for it is because they lead normal, healthy, and Christian lives. It would be a very lamentable thing if the

  1545
  dissolute part of the community were to live longer than those who are engaged in the higher callings of life. Reference is made to the Irish Bill, but no one can produce figures to show that there has been a greater increase in longevity among clergymen than there has been in the case of other sections of the community. In many districts the elder people have not lived to a greater age. Infants have been preserved for six, seven, or eight years, and therefore the death-rate has apparently gone down, but it does not at all follow that old people live longer for any considerable period.
  The Church is receiving much more generous terms under this Resolution, and I submit that it is a distinct gain. I refrained from speaking on the First, Second, and Third Reading of the Bill, because I desired not to introduce into these discussions a heat which I think ought not to be imported into these matters. But, to-day we are dealing with a business question and with insurance terms, and I defy right hon. Gentlemen opposite to show that any injustice is done in this case. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, last year, was in a disturbed frame of mind in regard to certain points, and he spent some time with me in going over the financial proposals of the Bill. I went into the point, and I satisfied myself that the basis of the scheme was sound, all things taken into account. That was the position then, but now it has been improved, and the bargain is still better. The hon. and learned Member based his final argument on the fact that the three Commissioners are empowered to borrow this huge sum of money, but I would point out that this is an optional scheme, and it rests with the Church authorities whether they take it or not. So far as I understand it, the Commissioners are empowered to grant these improved terms with a view to coming to an amicable settlement. That is one reason why I thoroughly approve of the proposal. Surely the object is to promote the interests of our common Christianity, and I do not think that Debates of this kind do any good to the principles of Christianity. We are increasing the bargaining power of the Commissioners, and enabling them to make a better proposal to the Church organisation in Wales for a peaceful settlement. Every section of the House should rejoice, and I thank the Government for the suggestions they have made to-day.
  6.0 P.M
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member thanks the Government for making a sort of happy dispatch, or as short a dispatch as can be made, of the Church
  with as little offence and with such decency as is possible. As to this Financial Resolution, the wrong doing of which the party opposite has been guilty with regard to the Church in Wales, may be hushed up in some degree if they can convert the property of the Church in Wales into a sort of asset of the Commissioners of the Consolidated Fund, and so entangle the public interest with the interests of the Church in Wales that at some early date the people will say, "There is nothing more to be said on these matters; the Church property is so much concerned with public interests that there is no way back." So far as I am concerned, I do not desire that there shall be no way back. One hon. Member referred to what he called this business transaction. The only parallel which I can recall is a business transaction disclosed in some old law reports. Two gentlemen proposed to engage themselves in carrying on the business at Hampstead Heath and Blackheath, and other spots, of acquiring watches and jewellery and other property: but when the time came to settle, they found themselves very much involved in the criminal law. The "business transaction" is the depriving of the Church in Wales of the property which has been bestowed on it in past generations for religious uses. To speak of a business transaction of returning a percentage of it in consideration of being allowed quietly to walk off with the remaining percentage does not at all convey to me anything of the ordinary character of a business transaction. I do not approach it from the business standpoint, and nobody except a politician would call this a business transaction, or would refer to the spoliation of the Church of Wales as being a thing which you should describe in terms of addition or subtraction. We are reproached for the want, of a sense of gratitude. The only such sense we have is to the instinct of honesty amongst the English people which prevents this Government from doing what it proposed to d3 with the Church. That is the sense of gratitude we have. We are thankful that the ordinary feelings al out religion and fair play prevent. even this despotic Administration from carrying out its mere arbitrary will in a

  1547
  matter of this kind. That is our sense of gratitude, and I do not think hon. Members will find any other sense of gratitude amongst those who feel that a great injustice is being done to the Church in Wales. Hon. Members opposite rather pride themselves upon the large inducements which are being held out to the clergy to join them in making an easy end of the Church in Wales. To my mind anything more discreditable than to try and secure the co-operation of the clergy in disestablishing the Church in Wales by making it easy for every incumbent at present, it would be exceedingly difficult to find.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: May I ask if it is in order to have a Second Reading Debate on the principles of the Bill on this Financial Resolution?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not inclined to interfere with a simple phrase, but I think the hon. and learned Member is going too widely over the Bill. This Resolution deals with the supplementary provision for the Bill.
  Mr. DUKE: I conform absolutely to your direction, and I will come to the consideration of the terms proposed in this Resolution which are to be used to inspire our gratitude and so secure our co-operation in the process which is in hand. So far as the immediate financial operation is concerned, it is an operation to enable three gentlemen whom we do not know to draw upon the Treasury for an amount to which we do not set any limit. That does not seem to me like finance. We are challenged to discuss this matter as a business transaction, and while it may be that we have had new light thrown on matters of finance in recent times, it is not business.
  Mr. McKENNA: Nor is it the Bill.
  Mr. DUKE: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman can name his three Commissioners, then it will not be the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be so good as to look at Clause 30 he will see he has not accurately described the position.
  Mr. DUKE: I am quite willing to read Clause 30, but I am quite sure from a study of the Bill so recently as the last occasion when this Motion was on the
  1548
  Order Paper there were no names in Clause 30, and, if there are names now, they must have been inserted in the meantime. What I was speaking of was the power imposed upon gentlemen, whom we do not know and I suppose nobody knows, to borrow sums of money, and such sums as they think will be expedient.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has left out some very material parts, "The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury and upon such terms as the Treasury may approve of." That is a very material point.
  Mr. DUKE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is the very thing I was complaining of. I have no more confidence in His Majesty's Government, whom I do know, than I have in the Welsh Commissioners, whom I do not know. I have seen the works of His Majesty's Government with regard to this transaction and they do not commend themselves to me. I will read the words and see whether I was at all unjust in my statement of the effect:—
  "The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury and upon such terms as the Treasury may approve, borrow such sums of money as they think expedient. to carry into effect any provisions of this Act."
  That is what I said it was, to enable a body of gentlemen whom we do not know to cooperate with the Government for putting an end easily to the difficulties connected with the Welsh Church by borrowing a sum of money to which we do not set any limit. I venture to say that is a perfectly accurate statement of the powers contained here. As a financial operation I protest against that proceeding. I protest against it far more because of what is proposed to be done—because it is intended to identify the public exchequer with the transactions of the Welsh Commissioners with a view to the easy Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. As I look forward to the time when this proposal to Disestablish the Welsh Church, whatever happens to it this year, may be made an end of, I strongly oppose this proposition of the Government which is intended to facilitate it.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I, for one, did not expect any gratitude from hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, because I know what their contention is. They have always said, and as was said

  1549
  just now by one of the hon. and learned Gentlemen, that the concessions that have been made—enormous concessions, as I call them—in the course of this Bill, are but the return of a small proportion of their own money. That being their view, I did not expect any gratitude from them. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), when he cross-examines an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, with the view to getting an expression of gratitude from him for returning a small proportion "of his own money." I confess I was rather uneasy while my hon. Friend was talking. He seemed to think that if we did not return a great amount of money to the Church in Wales
  that the Church would suffer. That is not our view at all. Money has nothing to do with the success of religion at all.
  Mr. BOOTH Mr. BOOTH rose——
  The CHAIRMAN: The whole point is far from the present question.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: If I misapprchencled my hon. Friend I withdraw. I did not expect any gratitude, and I' do not expect any gratitude now that it is discovered that the terms of commutation are more generous than any of us anticipated.
  Mr. McKENNAwas understood to indicate dissent.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I must say I came down in a very placable frame of mind this afternoon. I had so much confidence about the concessions that I thought it was quite safe not to hear the right hon. Gentleman make his statement. I confess when I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) bless the Government and beam satisfaction for the generosity of the treatment from an insurance point of view, then I began to inquire whether we stood now in the same position as we stood last February when the matter was under discussion. I find there are two great distinctions. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for one of them. In February last it was pointed out that commutation would be based on a 3½ per cent. basis. Though I thought it was a very generous provision, I agreed to that because, on the whole, I felt it was better to err on the side of generosity than of parsimony in these matters. But what do we find to-day? I remember the Home Secretary saying in February last that investment in Irish Land Stock would bring in about
  1550
  £3 12s. 6d. per cent., or half-a-crown more than the three-and-a-half basis. I believe I am right in saying, though I am a child in these matters, and would appeal, if I might, to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, that an investment in Irish Land Stock to-day will bring in something like £3 15s. or £3 17s. 6d. per cent., which means that the price of the security has fallen during the six months. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for that. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am not going into questions of party politics, but I do not think that he or the Government are responsible. At all events, my right hon. Friend, as the protagonist of this Bill, cannot be blamed because by the accident of fortune the Church is making better terms for herself than she would have made six months ago. But on that one point alone the commutation scheme is more generous to the Church by thirty or forty, or fifty thousand pounds than it was last February. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for that, but there is one matter which I must say came upon me by surprise. Last February we understood that the commutation scheme would be taken on the average life of the clergy.
  Mr.MckENNA: The precise terms are in the Schedule.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I am sorry I took an interruption to represent the position. I have been very free from care in this matter as my right hon. Friend was down at Cardiff and Holyhead making speeches, saying that there would be no further concession, so that I confess I have not been looking into the question. There is, however, one matter which has been brought out to-day and which was not mentioned before. I was not here when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said not only were we to take the latest mortality tables and that annuities would be paid for the whole life, but he also said the scheme would be taking one year off the age of the clergyman who came within the commutation scheme. He pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has mentioned that that ought to be done, and that that is in the nature of a direction to the Welsh Church Commissioners when they are appointed as to how they ought to proceed in this matter. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley, who cannot be accused of being too friendly to the interests of the Welsh people in this matter, has computed that this additional fact

  1551
  which has emerged from this discussion is equivalent to 3 per cent. on the capital sum —that is to say, if the figures of the Home Secretary are correct, and the commutation sum will be £2,100,000, the additional fact which has emerged to-day means another £63,000 to the Church in Wales at the expense of the Welsh people. All this is to be done, not as hon. Gentlemen opposite say, at the expense of the British taxpayer, but at the expense of the people of Wales, whose property this is. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] If you accept our hypothesis—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" I have always accepted the hypothesis of hon. Members opposite in considering their arguments. They say that this is the property of the Church. I ask them, when listening to our arguments, to go on the assumption that we argue from our point of view that. this is our property. Therefore I say that all this is going to be done at the expense of the people of Wales, and not at the expense of the British taxpayer. It is true, as the hon. Baronet say, that there will be a Government guarantee, and to that extent British credit is involved. But not one penny piece will be taken out of the taxpayers' pocket——
  Sir F. EANBURY: So long as the Welsh meet their obligations, certainly.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I suppose that the commutation sum will be based on the amount of property transferred to the Welsh nation. No one ever proposed that this should be what the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University suggested. The sum will be raised on the credit of the property transferred to the three Commissioners, and the loan will be guaranteed by the British Treasury. What will happen? If £2,000,000 is raised on the guarantee of the British Treasury, the interest will be paid by the three Commissioners out of the income of the realised property in Wales. I do not wish to make any captious criticism on these matters, but I urge that my right hon. Friend either ought to have told us last February of this new development or he ought not to have made the statement he has made to-day. Why should the hands of the Welsh Commissioners be tied as to the terms of commutation? Next year I suppose the Commissioners will be appointed. It is true that they will have to place before the Welsh Church a scheme acceptable to the Church,
  1552
  but although it is optional for the Church, it is compulsory on the people of Wales. If the Church accepts the commutation scheme, the people of Wales will not be consulted. Therefore, I deprecate that the right hon. Gentleman should in any way prejudge the matter. He should leave the whole question free and open for the Welsh Commissioners to decide next year. I do not wish at this late moment to do more than draw attention to this new factor. It is, in my opinion, a very serious one. It shows that the commutation scheme is far more generous than even we had anticipated. It is more generous than the Irish scheme. The 12 per cent. bonus in connection with the Irish scheme is, in a different way, included in the present scheme, and now we get further sums added in order to induce the Church to enter into the matter. One would have thought, from the way hon. Gentlemen, opposite speak, that commutation had' been proposed by this side. Commutation has never been proposed by this side.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It was proposed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone).
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: An unofficial Member; and it was seconded by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). It was perfectly well understood that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested it, not because he was a Liberal, but because he was a keen Churchman. The cry for commutation has come entirely from the Church) This Bill was drafted without any proposal for commutation at all. So also was the 1909 Bill. The Welsh people have never been asked to sanction commutation in any shape or form. It is true that no one on these benches is opposed to commutation as a business proposal pure and simple; but we do object, when we are willing to discuss commutation merely as a business proposal, that elements of prejudice and passion should be introduced. I shall not divide against this proposal, even though I am rather staggered at what has happened this afternoon. I feel greatly concerned that my right hon. Friend should have made the announcement he has made, and tied beforehand the hands of the Welsh Commissioners in dealing with the' subject.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has made a very serious statement. He alleges that I have now made proposals

  1553
  other than those contained in the original Bill. But my hon. Friend on this occasion, I regret to say, has not informed himself so thoroughly as he usually does, and has fallen into a grave error. The error partly arises from the fact that he does not remember the terms arranged, and partly from the fact, that he was not in the House when I made my statement. Under these circumstances my hon. Friend runs away with the opinion that a proposal has been made wholly inconsistent with or greatly in excess of what the House was asked to sanction last February. As a matter of fact, nothing new has been proposed to-day. Nothing has been suggested which is in one single iota outside or beyond the precise and exact terms of the Bill as it stands. My hon. Friend, however much he may desire to stand as the unsparing and privileged champion of "No concessions," will be unable to find any case for himself in the present instance. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the actual terms. This is necessary also in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University. Under the terms of the Bill it is proposed that allowance shall be made on two grounds: first, on account of the greater longevity of the clergy as compared with other classes of the community; and, secondly, on account of any prospective decrease in the death rate. My hon. Friend omitted the last factor from his account. He did not propose to attach any meaning to those words. Is it a concession to the Church if any meaning is given to them?
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Welsh Commissioners should decide.
  Mr. McKENNA: I stated to the Committee—my hon. Friend was not present—that upon evidence which I had received from the actuary whom the Government had employed, it appeared to me that a year's allowance would be a proper estimate to be taken—not a year added to the number of years' purchase, but that a person should be estimated to be a year younger than he actually is. The Bill itself prescribes the authority to decide the point. It is not the Commissioners; it is not the Home Secretary; it is not the governing body of the Church. In the event of any dispute between the authorities, the question is to be determined by an actuary appointed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. These points are all provided for by the Bill. The hon. Member for Cambridge University was
  1554
  just as much in error as my hon. Friend in his description of this Clause. Certain, questions have been asked which I wish to answer. The first was as to the name. of the actuary. I have not the least objection to giving it. He is a gentleman who has assisted the Government very greatly in the matter of the Insurance Act. His name is very familiar to hon. Members—Mr. Wyatt. It must be clearly understood that Mr. Wyatt has not advised on the question of policy. I am quoting him only for his figures. On the question of policy the Government takes the responsibility itself, and nothing which I have given as my opinion must be taken as founded upon the representations of Mr. Wyatt. All that can be taken is that the figures I am giving are the figures provided by Mr. Wyatt.
  The second question was why a Financial Resolution is necessary now when none was necessary in the Irish case. A Financial Resolution is necessary now because we propose to give the Treasury power to guarantee the loan made by the Commissioners, and we could not raise the loan except that power were given. The third question was why no definite sum is mentioned in the Resolution. If commutation is undertaken, I have mentioned a definite sum. I have given £2,100,000 odd as the amount which the actuary has represented to me as being the figure upon the principles upon which the Government have framed the Bill. I do not say that those figures are precise, or that the authorities who will have to construe the Bill would come to that exact amount. But whoever construes the Bill will be bound to come to some conclusion of that nature. If there is no commutation, it is impossible to put any figure in the Bill. The amount to be borrowed would cover the expenses of the Commissioners, and the items would necessarily be small—the salaries of the' Commissioners, the expenses of their. office, and the cost of compensating the lay owners of tithe. These items cannot be estimated, but they will be small. Nor can the revenue of the Commissioners, out of which they will pay these items, be estimated, because it depends upon the falling in of life interests. The only assurance that can be given is that the amount of the loan which the Treasury will have to guarantee will be small, and' that it can only be guaranteed on such terms as the Treasury approve. When the hon. Member opposite tries to make

  1555
  a point by saying that the Treasury is the Government for these purposes, he must have very little acquaintance with the methods of the Treasury if he does not know that in matters of this kind they proceed on precise and definite rules. I hope the Committee will not be misled by any such suggestion. I trust that after this statement the Resolution may be allowed to pass.
  Mr. MOUNT: I understood that we were getting better terms than in February last. Now we hear that no change whatever has been made in regard to this question of commutation. There is one point that 1 should like to deal with with regard to commutation. The right lion Baronet the Member for the Spen Valley Division, in the first speech that he made, supported us on this side in our contention that 31 per cent. was not a right figure to take. He based his argument on the fact that we would have to provide for the sale of stock upon this commutation scheme. That difficulty still continues. We shall have to provide for the first year of the commutation scheme, after its coining into operation, for stipends, etc., to the extent of £150,000. With the addition al amount adumbrated by the Home Secretary we shall not get more than £70,000 in interest. We shall therefore have to sell something like 60,000 worth of stock in order to meet our liabilities. It is therefore very important that there should be no risk whatever taken in the matter of depreciation of stock. There are two other questions which I do not think have been dealt with. It has been assumed all through that the only way in which there can be any call upon the Treasury, or upon public funds, is in the event of the scheme of commutation being adopted. In any case it is almost a certainty that there will be some call upon the public funds. What are the objects on which this money can be spent? It must be spent, in the first place, upon the salaries of the Commissioners and their staff, and, in the second place, upon compensation to lay patrons. In regard to the salaries of the Commissioners, the Commissioners will have to be appointed as soon as possible after the passing of this Act. They have got a good deal of work to do before the date of Disestablishment.
  But it is also an extremely probable contingency that between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment a 'General Election will take place. I do not think I am unduly sanguine if I say that
  1556
  the result of that General Election would probably be in opposition to this Bill, and that therefore this Bill would be repealed. What will be the effect on the Commissioners? They will require to be paid, but no property is to be invested until the date of Disestablishment; and if the date of Disestablishment never comes, the result will be that the Treasury will have -to guarantee the funds for the payment of the Commissioners. Take the other point, the question of compensation to the lay patrons. I dare say the amount for this does not sound a very large sum. If I read the Bill aright, the Commissioners cannot use any of the sums in their hands until the last of the lives which have an existing interest in the tithe rent-charge have passed away. At any rate, they cannot use their money until the last of those who have an interest in the capitular estates have passed away. The Home Secretary, as I understood, suggested that there are provisions in the Bill which make the tithe rent-charge vest at once in the county council and in the clergy funds. In any event, the capitular estates do not vest in the University of Wales, except subject to the payment of existing claims. If hon. Members will look at Clause 16, Sub-section (4) they will see it reads:
  "The compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act, other than burial grounds, and the preperty to be transferred to the representative body, in such manner that the burden thereof may be distributed amongst the University of Wales and the several county councils in proportion to the value of the property transferred to them, respectively."
  It is difficult to ascertain what the proportion is that is to be borne by the University of Wales and by the county councils, and I venture to say that the Welsh Commissioners cannot part with a penny of the money until that is done. Money will therefore have to be found out of the funds with the guarantee of the Treasury. For these two reasons I do say that though on these two heads it may not be a very large sum, still there will be a certain charge upon the Treasury. I should like to strengthen and support what was said by the hon. Member for Chelsea, that we ought not to give power to raise this money to the Welsh Commissioners until we know who they will be. It is a very

  1557
  strong order, and a new departure, this giving a blank cheque to people we know nothing about.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: This Debate has been going on for over two hours, and 1 can see no reason why any party should divide against this particular Financial Resolution. I do not see how the party opposite can divide against it. There seems to have been a good deal of misunderstanding during the whole of this Debate. If I may say so, personally, I think my hon. Friend here is the subject of that misunderstanding from a different joint of view to that of the misunderstanding of hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I point out to hon. Members opposite that what they will be dividing against, is they divide against this Resolution, is—— [An HON. MEMBER: "A blank cheque."] No, no! If it were not for the commutation proposals of this Bill no Financial Resolution would be necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Let me ex-plain. This Financial Resolution would not have been necessary, assuming that the Money Clauses had been put in the Bill, because there is power for the Commissioners to borrow on their own security without referring to the Treasury at all. Therefore, so far as the work and expenditure of the Commissioners, apart from commutation, is concerned, it is not absolutely necessary to have any resort to the Treasury. It was the commutation proposals that ma-de the resort to the Treasury advisable, and therefore made this Resolution necessary.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, no.
  Mr. E. JONES: I think the Home Secretary will agree that it is possible for the Commissioners out of their own money——
  Mr. POLLOCK: Commutation was not in the Bill. The Financial Resolution had to be proposed, and was proposed.
  Mr. E. JONES: It was not absolutely necessary, as the hon. Member will agree, when the Commissioners have full power. There was no need at all to resort to the Treasury so far as the ordinary expenses of the Commissioners were concerned. It is the commutation proposals which have made this Financial Resolution necessary. I take it that hon. Members opposite, subject, of course, to the terms of the commutation proposals, are not going to divide against the arrangement that will enable the Commissioners to borrow money
  1558
  for commutation purposes on as favourable terms as possible. I want to point out another misconception that seems to have prevailed in regard to the commutation proposals. First of all, so far as I am concerned, I do not know—and I gathered last year that this applied to a majority of my hon. Friends amongst the Welsh Members also that we were opposed in any way to the commutation proposals. I take it the Chairman of our party agrees with me—we were quite neutral in the whole matter—provided that a satisfactory business arrangement was arrived at. We regard it as a purely business matter. At any rate, it was only a question of deciding what was the actuarial equivalent. We have been perfectly disinterested in the matter. I think I can say without cant or hypocrisy, and from my own knowledge, that it is the view of the majority of the Welsh Members that so long as we are persuaded that a fair business transaction was being carried out in accordance with the ordinary rules of such transactions, then we have no interest at all in opposing or even cavilling at the provisions for commutation of this Bill.
  I am very glad the Home Secretary made his second speech, so as to remove a misconception which seems to have arisen. An impression had arisen that the Home Secretary had come down here to-day with this Financial Resolution outlined, and with some new proposals; that he had come down to make some new concessions to the Church about commutation. The right hon. Gentleman, in his second speech, made it quite obvious that he had been merely illustrating what would be the method of operation under the Bill, and what probably would be the character of the tables and the character of the amount that would emerge. The Home Secretary's figures are not final at all. The whole business that we have been transacting today has been simply an endeavour to elucidate what was in the Bill itself. As the Home Secretary has said, this matter will be, first of all, in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners. If they and the representative Church governing body can agree mutually upon the tables, then the thing is done. The terms of commutation, subject to a fixed figure at 3é per cent. interest and 2é per cent. working expenses, could be settled mutually between the Welsh Commissioners and the representative body. I am prepared to agree with hon. Members opposite that before this Bill actually becomes law it

  1559
  is important that we should know who the Commissioners are, because they will obviously have very great interests in their hands. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite we shall be as interested as they are to see who these Commissioners are. We shall hope that the Commissioners will be persons of perfect judicial impartiality, who will work this thing out impartially on an absolutely business basis, without any politics or anything else of that nature coming into it. If the Commissioners or the Church cannot mutually agree, then an actuary will require to be appointed as a kind of referee by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is laid down in the Bill that the actuary has to follow two principles; the one that he has to consider that he is dealing with clergymen and not the ordinary fry of human life, and, secondly, he has to take into account that factor that the Home Secretary referred to to-day, namely, not merely the greater longevity of the clergy, but also the prospective decrease in the death rate of the clergy during the years following commutation. It does not follow that the actuary will take that prospective decrease as one year. The Home Secretary has had the opinion of one actuary whose name he has given us, a gentleman who, I think, commands general assent. He has taken one year. Perhaps the actuary appointed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may take six months, or some other period. We have in all these matters to get into the hands of experts. I know there is a certain suspicion by many people of experts, but I think that, on the whole, the Home Secretary's explanation to-day has simply cleared the matter up, and his second speech at any rate made it perfectly clear that these commutation proposals are not a concession but a business arrangement for committing interests which have to be dealt with.
  Mr. HEWINS: I rise to comment upon one or two observations made by the Home Secretary in reference to an interruption of mine in connection with the question of legal expenses connected with the administration of this Bill. I said they would be large and the Home Secretary corrected me. Of course, I did not mean large in proportion to the sum the Treasury is to guarantee, or to the resources of Wales where you have a single industry producing many millions of
  1560
  pounds. I meant larger in proportion to the resources of the Church. Like many hon. Members, I have been carefully through the Bill, and I have tried to picture to myself what the items of expenditure are that would fall upon the Welsh Commissioners in the discharge of their duties, and I have come to the conclusion that there are very few Clauses in the Bill that do not involve legal expenditure of one kind or another. There will be great expenditure in tracing out the intricate questions they have to deal with, and I doubt very much whether Me Home Secretary is right in putting it at the low figure he did. If the hon. Member who has just sat down will go into the question of 'surplus with that perspicacity that characterises all Celtic intelligence he will 'see this Financial Resolution is necessary not for the reason he alleged, but because it is absolutely impossible in the long run to carry out this measure of the spoliation of the Church without throwing expenses upon the British Treasury. There is no doubt whatever about that.
  I agree entirely with what my hon. Friends have said about the vagueness of this Financial Resolution. There is no limit, no figure, no sum put down, and we do not know the different items. We do not know how long the Commission is going to last. We know none of those items which ought to be taken into account in sanctioning a Resolution of this kind. I do not believe that this House has ever before sanctioned a general vague Financial Resolution of this kind. We know nothing about conditions it will have to satisfy. I should like to impress upon Members, and I should like to impress upon the Welsh people that the first charge upon the resources of the Welsh Church is the expenses of a very indeterminate Commission appointed for a very indefinite time with absolute powers and with no limits to the expenditure they may impose. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, some time ago in a public speech, advocated the Disendowment of the. Church in Wales because he said there was money in it. It is perfectly true there is money in it, but the money is not for the Welsh people; the money is not for the Welsh farmers who have been deceived. It is not for the support of religion.
  It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Resolution, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd

  1561
  June, successively to put forthwith the 'Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution.
  Question put, "That it is expedient to authorise the advance, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums necessary for payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the 1Velsh Commissioners, and guaranteed by
  His Majesty's Treasury, under any Act of the present Session to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 193.

  Division No. 127.]

  AYES.

  [6. 49 p. m.

  Abraham. William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Doris, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Duncan, J. Hastings(Yorks, Otley)

  Keating, Matthew

  Adkins, Sir W Ryland D.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis(Radnor)

  Kelly, Edward

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kilbride, Denis

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  King, Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas(Wexford, N.)

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lambert, Richard(Wilts, Cricklade)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Falconer, James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Leach, Charles

  Barran, Rowland Hurst(Leeds, N.)

  Ftrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barton, W.

  Field, William

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Fltzgibbon, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lundon, T.

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lynch, A. A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay(Leicester)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Boland, John Pius

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  McGhee, Richard

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bowerman, Charles. W.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

  Boyle, Daniel(Mayo, North)

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

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Gulland, John William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hackett, John

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Manfield, Harry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Markhiam. Sir Arthur Basil

  Buxton, Noel(Norfolk, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Millar, James Duncan

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hayward, Evan

  Molloy, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clough, William

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Arthur(Durham)

  Montagu, Hon, E. S.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J,

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hewart, Gordon

  Morison, Hector

  Cowan, William Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Muldoon, John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hinds, John

  Crooks, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Munro, Robert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hogge, James Mules

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

  Cullinan, John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Murphy, Martin J.

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

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nannetti, Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nellson, Francis

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiganshire)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Delany, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick(Kilkenny)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  O'Connor, John(Kildare, N.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dillon, John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Dowd, John

  O'Grady, James

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Malley, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wadsworth, John

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

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  O'Shee, James John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wardle, G. J.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Rowlands, James

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Webb, H.

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Scanian, Thomas

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Sheehy, David

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Williams. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Radford, George Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Winfrey, Richard

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wing, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hunt, sir Charles H.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Charles H.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Ashley, W.W.

  Dension-Pender, J.C.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Joyson-Hicks, William

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Doncannon, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Eyres-Monsell, B.M.

  Knight, captain Eric Ayshforrd

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

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Fell, Arthur

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm ts, Mile End)

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

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Lewsham, Viscount

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Gastrell. Major W. Houghton

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  MacCaw, Willam J. MacGeagh

  Bird, Alfred

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Blair, Reginald

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Boyton, James

  Gretton, John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Butcher, John George

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

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

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cator, John

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Cautley Strother

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University.)

  Henderson. Major H. (Berkshire)

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Orde-Powiett, Hon. William

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hill-Wood, Waller

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Craig, Charles James (Down, E.)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Craig, Sir Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  1564

  1565

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Ronaldshay Earl of

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington. North)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Swift, Rigby

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Younger, Sir George

  Sandys, G. J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution to the House."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 193.

  Division No. 128.]

  AYES.

  [7.1 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cullinan, John

  Hayward, Evan

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Adamson, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eflion)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Delany, William

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

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  He wart, Gordon

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hinds, John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dillon, John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Barnes, G. N.

  Doris, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Barton, William

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jardine. Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boland, John Pius

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Falconer, James

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ffrench., Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Field, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fitzgibbon. John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glanville, H. J.

  King, J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  Leach, Charles

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gulland, John William

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hackett, John

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Clough, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Lycll, Charles Henry

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hardle, J. Keir

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  McGhee, Richard

  Cotton, William Francis

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cowan, W. H.

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

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

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Crooks, William

  Havelbck-Allan, Sir Henry

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Parker, James (Halltax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Snowden, Philip

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Manfield, Harry

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Meagher, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Molloy, Michael

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Verncy, Sir Harry

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wadsworth, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Radford, G. H.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Morrall, Philip

  Reddy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Morison, Hector

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Munro, R.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Webb, H.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Neilson, Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Grady, James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wing, Thomas

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheeny, David

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gastrell, Major W. Hough ton

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Cator, John

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cave, George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Gretton, John

  Banbury. Sir Frederick George

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Barnston, Harry

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cralk, Sir Henry

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bigland, Alfred

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bird, A.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Blair, Reginald

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

  Boyton, James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bull, Sir William

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Campion, W. R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  1568

  1569

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Nield, Herbert

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hunt, Rowland

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Swift, Rigby

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Knight. Captain Eric Ayshford

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Royds, Edmund

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

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

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Winterton, Earl

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sandys, G. J.

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

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Younger, Sir George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Newman, John R. P.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland,—
  To authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into the Irish Exchequer or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer—

  (a) of a fixed sum based on the cost at the time of the passing of the said Act of the branches of Government to be administered thereunder by the Irish Government and, in the case of the future transfer of any other branches of government to the Irish Government, of further sums based on the saving to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom resulting from the transfer; the amount of the said fixed sum and any such further sums to be determined in manner provided by the said Act, with power to make payments on account of those sums pending that determination; and

  1570

  (b)of a sum of five hundred thousand pounds, diminishing in each year after the third year of payment by the sum of fifty thousand pounds until it is reduced to the sum of two hundred thousand pounds; and

  (c) of sums equal to the proceeds of any taxes imposed by the Irish Parliament in pursuance of the powers given by the said Act, the amount of those proceeds to be determined in manner provided by the said Act:

  And to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into Great Britain from Ireland or into Ireland from Great Britain, and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles, as may be provided for by the said Act, in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied in Great Britain:
  And to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or Irish officers, or officers or constables of

  1571
  the Royal Irish Constabulary or of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force, provision may be made in pursuance of the said Act, and also of any sums for the payment of which out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament provision may be made by the said Act in the event of the failure of the Irish Government to make any such payment."
  Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 23rd June, to put forthwith the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 187.

  O'Dowd, John

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Grady, James

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh!)

  Wadsworth, John

  O'Malley, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy P. J,

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ward, John (Stoke upon-Trent)

  O'Shee, James John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wardle, George J.

  Outhwalte, R. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Rowlands, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Webb, H.

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Phillips. John (Longford, S.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Sheehy, David

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Allsebrook

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Snowden, Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Winfrey, Richard

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wing, Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell, (South Shields)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Division No. 129.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Doris, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Adamson, William

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York. Otley)

  Keating, Matthew

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kelly, Edward

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kilbride, Denis

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  King, J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Esmonde. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Baring. Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Falconer, James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Leach, Charles

  Bare an, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barton, William

  Field, William

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lyell. Charles Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Boland, John Pius

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hackett, John

  M'Kean, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Manfield, Harry

  Baxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Chapple. Dr. William Allen

  Hayward, John Evan

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Millar, James Duncan

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Molloy, Michael

  Clough, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cotton, William Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hinds, John

  Morison, Hector

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crooks, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Muidoon, John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Munro, R.

  Cullinan, John

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hudson, Walter

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hughes, S. L,

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Neilson, Francis

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Dawes, J. A.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Delany, William

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Denman, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Donneli, Thomas

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Croft, H. P.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Law son, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Barnston, Harry

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Glimour, Captain John

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bird, A.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Blair, Reginald

  Grant, J. A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Denis Fortescue

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gretton, Gohn

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

  Boyton, James

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

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Butcher, John George

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Newton, Harry Kotingham

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Campion, W. R.

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Norton-Griffithe, J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Cator, John

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Henderson, Major H, (Berkshire)

  Paget, Almertc Hugh

  Cave, George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hills, John Waller

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchln)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Chalonel, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Clive, Captain, Percy Archer

  Hohler, Gerald Fltzroy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Cralk, Sir Henry

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Winterton, Earl

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandswortn)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Sandys, G. J.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Touche, George Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tyron, Captain George Clement

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, Sir George

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Sanders.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, notwithstanding anything in the Order of the House of the 23rd day of June, that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament, and the second dealing with the alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
  This Motion, of course, brings in an exception to the procedure arranged by the Order which the House passed on 16th June, but I am sure that the House will welcome the reopening of the discussion of this important and fundamental point, because it is a fact that the Imperial and British side of this question is too often overlooked. There are two sides to this Bill. The Bill has its Irish side and it also has its British side, and it is certain that both in the discussions in this House and elsewhere that, I will not say an undue amount of attention, but a very great amount of attention has been directed to the purely Irish side, and its bearing upon the future government of Ireland and upon parties in Ireland. Its bearing upon the Constitution of the United Kingdom and upon the prosperity of Great Britain have been rather overlooked. In saying this, I am very far from saying that my hon. Friends from Ireland have been wrong in devoting special attention to the Irish side. I fully admit that they have an exceedingly strong case, as I was very glad to testify on the public platform at Leeds with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) the other day; but I do not want that case to overshadow the Imperial side and the constitutional side as it affects this Parliament, with all its history and its traditions, and the working of the Imperial machine at large. Therefore, I hope that my hon.
  1576
  Friends from Ireland will bear with me when I say, if it is not so imminent, though it does not arouse such passions, and though happily it is not likely to lead to the tragic consequences to which the purely Irish provisions of this Bill are likely to lead, still in the end, considered in its historical perspective, it is likely to be important too. There are two Clauses which affect the Constitution of the United Kingdom. There are other provisions intertwined with the Irish Clauses, but there are two Clauses in special which do make grave and fundamental alterations in the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The first is Clause 13, which says that until another Bill of this description is passed:—
  "After the day of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament the number of Members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two."
  At the same time, it places no limitation on the powers and rights of those Members when they come here to take part in our discussions. Their powers are in no way limited, as it was proposed in former Bills by Mr. Gladstone to limit them to special matters affecting Ireland. Obviously, this is a very great change, and it is a change which, I think, has prejudicial effects in two ways. From the Imperial point of view I say that the number of Irish representatives is too small. As long as Irishmen are taxed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom it may be argued, when we come to this Clause, that they ought to have a proportionate numerical representation. Therefore it affects the Parliament of the United Kingdom in this way, that on Imperial matters it deprives us in our councils of the advice of the full number that hitherto came to this Imperial Parliament. On the other hand, as regards our local affairs, it

  1577
  enables the representatives from Ireland, though in a reduced number, to exercise control over the local affairs of Great Britain, while at the same time it withdraws Irish local affairs from the ordinary jurisdiction of this Parliament. That will make a very great and very important change in the Constitution of the Imperial Parliament. I may point out that the Members coming from Ireland will be to a very great degree irresponsible in these matters. Knowing that they have entire control of their affairs at home, they will only vote on matters in this Parliament in pursuance of and as part of some plan in furtherance of Irish interests.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled now to discuss the Clause. He is only entitled to give reasons why the Bill should be divided into two Bills in the manner suggested in the Instruction. He must reserve the discussion of the merits of the Clause until his Resolution is carried.
  Mr. HOPE: I quite appreciate that. My remarks were gradually being focussed on the point that the provisions of Clause 26 were of such importance, and were so far-reaching and so special in their consequences, that they did deserve to form a separate Bill, with the intention that at later stages in this House, and in the discussions in another place, these matters should be dealt with separately and should be brought under the notice of the Legislature as separate considerations. I will now turn to Clause 26. I do not propose to discuss it, though it is necessary to remind the House of its provision. It provides that, if it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that certain matters have happened, then the Joint Exchequer Board shall specify in what proportion the Irish Members sent to the Imperial Parliament shall be increased. That would bring a very great change about, as was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends who moved a similar Instruction last year. It gives a body not responsible to Parliament the power of interfering with its constitutional mechanism in a way certainly without precedent in our Constitution, and I should say without precedent in any other Constitution, because I do not think that any parallel can be deduced between the decisions and proceedings of this body and those of a judicial body like the Supreme Courts of the -United Kingdom or elsewhere.
  1578
  This irresponsible body will have power to interfere with and to interrupt and dislocate Parliamentary proceeding by giving the Report mentioned in Clause 26. and if such a Report is presented it will be necessary to alter the whole numerical quota of Members from Ireland. The additional Members will come not empowered to vote upon all matters, but only on certain matters. There will be forty-two Members who will take part in all our discussions, and there may be thirty more who will have power only to take part in some. That would obviously produce an entire revolution in our constitutional machinery. It was Mr. Gladstone, think, who described it as passing the power of human ingenuity to devise any possible means of distinguishing between Imperial and local matters under such circumstances. Undoubtedly the effect of introducing this extra number will be to create a position of peculiar difficulty with regard to the Rules of Order; it may offer to the occupant of the Chair in the future very great difficulties, and it will lead to great dislocation of, and great confusion in, all our proceedings. No doubt I shall not be in order if I attempt to point out what I consider to be the main evils attaching to this Clause; but it is enough for the Motion I make this afternoon to point out the very great transformation which it foreshadows in our Parliamentary proceedings. It will be a great and vital change. If I were able to comment further on the duties of this Board I should be able to show in detail, as indeed I hope to do when my Motion has been accepted, that the Clause extends to an extraordinary extent the powers given to this Board.
  I pass from that to the position of the Lord Lieutenant. Here again we have a great change affecting the status of Ministers. The Lord Lieutenant has hitherto been a Member of the Government, understood as such, a politician siding with his' political party, assuming office with his political party and relinquishing office with his political party. Now he is to have a dual position. He is, as regards Ireland, to be a constitutional sovereign in the same way as the Governor-General of Canada or of the Dominions of Australia is a constitutional sovereign. But at the same time he is to be the servant of the Ministers at home. The Governor-Generals in the Dominions, though they may nominally, do not practically occupy that position, because it is

  1579
  understood that, in all internal affairs, the Governor-General will act on the advice of his Ministers. But it is contemplated in this measure that the Lord Lieutenant shall not always do so. He is sometimes to act under the direction of the Government at home. But there is nothing specified in the Bill, as far as I remember, providing that he is not to have his life coterminous with that of the Ministry which appoints him, as at present.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that the position of the Lord Lieutenant is raised in this Instruction, neither do I see how it is relevant to the Resolution.
  Mr. HOPE: I had thought it was relevant, because his position as regards the Imperial Government undergoes a change. However, I will not further deal with that point. But I do ask the House to consider these Clauses and these provisions, not merely as to the effect that will be produced by the Bill as a whole, but that they should be separately considered, and that the attention of both Houses of Parliament shall be directed to their effect on the old traditions and usages of the House. I should be sorry indeed, even if it were possible, to go into the many provisions of this Bill as relating to Ireland, and the effect of my Instruction, if carried, will not be to do that, but I do think that the purely British case, the purely constitutional case, whether it related to Ireland, Scotland or Wales, in this Bill was somewhat overshadowed by the more dramatic and lurid side presented by my hon. Friends from Ulster. It is to take back the discussion to those calmer constitutional reasons, and to allow the proposals to be put separately before both Houses of Parliament and to be presented separately to the electors, that I move this Instruction.
  Mr. SANDYS: The proposals contained in my hon. Friend's Instruction were before the House last year when this Bill was for the first time under consideration. I do not propose to recapitulate the arguments then employed in support of a similar Instruction moved on that occasion, but, speaking for myself, so far as I am concerned, my view is that the reasons which occurred to me at that time as extremely adequate and weighty reasons for dividing the Bill in the way suggested by my hon. Friend, have been very much strengthened by the events which have
  1580
  taken place since the time when the Instruction was originally moved. For instance, we are now in the fortunate position of being able to review the whole situation of the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think it must be apparent, even to hon. Members opposite, who time after time told us that every facility would be afforded to this House for the proper discussion of this important question—it must now be apparent to them that in considering these great questions in one Bill they undertook a task far larger than they were really able to tackle. Clause after Clause of this important measure was absolutely unconsidered——
  Mr. SPEAKER: These considerations are not relevant to a proposal to divide the Bill into two parts.
  Mr. SANDYS: Owing to the fact that this Bill contains two proposals, one dealing with the establishment of a new Government in Ireland and another reconstituting and remodelling the British Constitution, I think it would be better to divide the Bill into two parts. The argument I was endeavouring to put before the House, but which I am afraid I did not make quite clear, was that the attempt to deal with it in one Bill has been a complete failure, because we have had no opportunity of adequately discussing important questions dealing with these two different subjects during the Committee stage of the Home Rule Bill. My argument is, therefore, that this is an additional reason why we should adopt the plan suggested by my hon. Friend and divide the Bill into two portions, so that, at the subsequent Committee stage, we shall not be under a similar disadvantage.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only question is whether the Bill should be treated as a whole or split into two. The Motion does not propose any alteration of principle laid down by this House on the Second Reading.
  Mr. SANDYS: No, neither do I propose any alteration. But I do suggest that it would simplify any discussion which may take place, and which will probably take place if this Instruction is passed, and it would facilitate discussion if the suggestion of my hon. Friend was adopted and the Bill was divided into two parts, one dealing with the constitution of the Irish Parliament and the other dealing with the alterations in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is

  1581
  not necessary, I think, at this stage of our proceedings, to emphasise the extreme importance of both these proposals. Each of these questions appears to be of such paramount importance, both to the people of Ireland and to the people of this country, that they absolutely demand that they should be treated in separate and distinct Bills. Several hon. Members on this side, at the time of the original discussion, urged that it would be far better if two Bills were drafted instead of one, and I still think so. One reason why I think so is that because we have, time after time, been told by lion. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that this Home Rule proposal is to form the basis of a new Federal system which is ultimately to be extended—I am glad to see from the cheers just given that I have the approval of hon. Members for Scotland —to all parts of the United Kingdom, and that while this proposal only deals with the establishment of a new Parliament in Dublin, ultimately, if things go all right, we are to have a new Parliament established in Edinburgh, and another new Parliament established in either Cardiff or Carnarvon —I am not sure whether the selection has yet been made—and, I suppose, when all these subordinate Assemblies have been decided upon we shall begin to think about a Parliament for England, although there has been very little enthusiasm displayed, so far, in regard to the position of the predominant partner.
  We have made some progress since the first discussion in connection with the question of Home Rule for Scotland, and, as the situation is rather different from what it was before, I think that is an additional reason why we should make the division I suggest, so that we can consider the position of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, both in relation to the new Parliament which is to be established in Dublin and also with reference to the new Parliament that is now foreshadowed for Scotland. The point I desire to emphasise is that if we proceed under this haphazard method, so much favoured by the right hon. Gentleman in the Home Rule Bill, the result, will be that the poor British Constitution will come out as a thing of shreds and patches. It is not to have an Act of Parliament to itself. It is to be a curious conglomeration of little bits of Acts of Parliament dealing with other parts of the United Kingdom. If the Irish precedent is to be followed, it is to be built up out of a Clause here and a Clause there in the
  1582
  Bill for Ireland, in the Bill for Scotland, in the Bill for Wales, and in the Bill for England. I think we shall do far better to stick to our own Constitution, that old system which has served us so well for so many generations. If we are going to have a new Constitution for the United Kingdom, which seems to be the ultimate intention of the right hon. Gentleman, let us have it in an Act of Parliament to itself, so that we can see how it stands and the people—I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not attach much importance to this—whom we represent in this House may have some idea of what is actually going on. To treat the Constitution of the United Kingdom in this contemptuous fashion is an outrage upon the past history and the traditions of this country. Under the provisions of the Home Rule Bill forty-two Irish Members are to come here to represent Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That sounds fairly well so long as we are only dealing with the question of Ireland, but we must know the whole position of the representation it is desired to allocate to Wales, Scotland, and England before we say that forty-two is the proper number.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of Clause 13. That is not relevant.
  Mr. SANDYS: I was endeavouring to point out that it was difficult for us to allocate the proper representation, say, from Ireland, until we were in a position to know what was going to be the representation from the other parts of the United Kingdom. That question could be dealt with if we had a separate Bill dealing with the Constitution of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be affected in the least, because all that the hon. Member proposes is to cut Clause 13 out of this Bill and put it in a separate Bill. That would not affect what was done in Clause 13.
  Mr. SANDYS: I am quite aware of that.
  Mr. J. HOPE: On a point of Order. If this proposal were carried, there would be two Bills, upon each of which a Motion might be made on Third Reading to recommit. Therefore, it would be relevant to allude to the considerations which might arise upon such Motions for recommital.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will wait until the Motion for recommittal comas.
  Mr. SAN DYS: As to the argument regarding the number of representatives from the different countries under the new proposals, I may point out that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), in a very interesting speech he made upon the occasion of the original moving of this Instruction, did deal with this question, and was allowed to do so when you, Sir, were in the Chair, and was not ruled out of order. Had that not been so I should not have dealt with it on this occasion. The Instruction being similar, I thought similar arguments would be allowed. It is obvious that the question of the Constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the great changes in it foreshadowed in these proposals are of such vital importance that they demand separate treatment in a separate Bill. We shall then let the people of the country know how the matter really stands, because my impression is, and it is one generally shared by hon. Members on this side of the House, that although the people of this country may perhaps understand that proposals are before us for the purpose of establishing a new Parliament in Dublin, I am perfectly certain that the vast majority of the people have no idea whatever of the far-reaching changes which are being made in the Parliament and Constitution of the United Kingdom. I may point out that the Prime Minister himself has admitted the desirability, nay, the necessity, of the people of this country being fully informed as to what is going on in the case of any constitutional change. He made a very strong statement to that effect in speaking in this House on the 6th May. He said:—
  The House of Commons in my opinion, is perfectly competent to determine this question as it thinks fit, but that does not in the least degree preclude me or anybody else from asking the House, if it is to preserve its authority, and if it is to retain the confidence of the country, to think twice, to think thrice, before it takes a step unprecedented in its extent "—
  This is the point to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—
  without a full and assured conviction that it has behind it in taking that step the deliberate and considered sanction of the community. These are general considerations which are applicable, in greater or in less degree to any constitutional change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th May. 1913. col. 1907. Vol. LII.]
  I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in assuming that he has behind him in this vast change in the Constitution of the United Kingdom the deliberate and considered sanction of the community. I attach great importance to
  1584
  the argument that the people of the country are not fully aware of the great changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make in the Constitution of this country, and I believe that they can only be put into a position of greater knowledge, which is most desirable in dealing with important questions of this kind, by adopting my Friend's suggestion and embodying these changes in our Constitution in a distinct and separate Bill. This Bill, which my hon. Friend suggests should be drafted——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is labouring under a mistake. The principle of this Bill and everything contained in the Bill has received the assent of the House upon Second Reading. The only proposal before us now, is that the Bill which the House has already sanctioned should be divided into two parts. The hon. Member is labouring under a mistake if he thinks that a fresh Bill win have to be introduced.
  Mr. SANDYS: I am sorry if I have not made my meaning clear. The point I desired to make from the quotation I read from the Prime Minister's speech, was that the people of the country did not fully appreciate what was going on, and that it would be far easier to explain to them the changes that were being made in our Constitution, if that part of the Bill which deals exclusively with the changes made in the Constitution of the British Parliament were embodied in a separate measure. There is another point which I think is of particular interest to hon. Members specially engaged in dealing with the question of Home Rule for Scotland. It is that the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted upon several occasions that this Bill is to form the basis of a Federal system, that is to say, that these two Clauses out of the Irish Home Rule Bill, which I now propose to be embodied in a separate Bill, are to form a basis of an Imperial Parliament and a Federal system for the whole of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman made that perfectly clear in a speech which he delivered upon the 6th May last year, to a deputation of Scottish Liberal Members, when he declared:—
  "Home Rule for Ireland would leave the Constitution lobsided, incoherent, illogical and inconsequent."
  Time after time he has said, in the course of Debates and in speeches he has made in various parts of the country, that this

  1585
  Home Rule Bill was to form the basis for a new Federal system, which was ultimately to be extended to all parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, these two Clauses with which we are dealing this afternoon, and which my hon. Friend proposes to embody in a separate Bill are, as we understand them, to form the basis for a new Federal system which is to be extended to different parts of the United Kingdom. My point is this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I had to recapitulate these arguments because hon. Members opposite, when it is inconvenient to discuss the Federal system in connection with the Home Rule Bill are rather anxious to back out of it—I think it is admitted that this Bill is to form the basis of a new Federal system. If that is so, it requires the most careful consideration and demands that it should be embodied in an absolutely separate and distinct piece of legislation. If this portion of the Bill is going to form the basis of a new Federal system, if it is going to be drawn up in this haphazard, lobsided manner, it is not going to give us a proper system of administration in this country in the future. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman what difficulties there are under a Federal system which has not been carefully and thoughtfully considered beforehand. Within the last few weeks we have had a very striking example of the dangers to which a Federal system may expose a great nation. We saw that legislation brought forward by the State of California had the effect——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now wandering into the merits. We cannot discuss the merits upon this Motion. We are now merely discussing a matter of precedure.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. SANDYS: I shall endeavour to avoid a discussion in regard to the merits. My object was to show that a Bill of this kind, embodying a new Federal system for the United Kingdom, required very careful consideration, and that we could not give it that consideration unless it were embodied in a separate Bill. I was trying to show that a Federal system which had not been carefully considered and drawn up was a source of very great danger to any nation. I maintain that, unless our new Federal system receives the most careful consideration by this House in a distinct and separate Bill, we are liable to expose ourselves to exactly the same dangers as
  1586
  those to which the American Constitution has been exposed during the last few months, and on these grounds I sincerely hope that this House will give its most careful consideration to the proposal of my hon. Friend. I believe it will facilitate the discussion of this matter if the provision which my hon. Friend suggests is carried into effect, and what is even more important, it will make it clear to the people of this country that we are dealing by means of this Bill, not merely with proposals for establishing a new Parliament in Dublin, but that we are also endeavouring to make far-reaching changes in the British Constitution itself.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The words "notwithstanding anything in the Order of the House of the 23rd day of June "are unnecessary, because there is nothing in the. Order of the House relating to this stage. Therefore I will put the Instruction without them.
  Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament, and the second dealing with the alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I assume, from what you have just said, that the fact that you did not intervene before indicates that in your judgment this Instruction is not inconsistent with the Order made by the House a week ago in regard to the Committee stage of the Bill. I would not venture to do anything but defer to that ruling, but it is very difficult to see how, if the Instruction were carried,. any effect could be given to it consistently with the Order which must regulate the proceedings of the Committee, because when we go into Committee the Chairman is directed to formally put the Question that he report the Bill without any Amendment to the House, and no other Question. That is a matter which I have no doubt they have carefully considered, and to my-mind it seems to raise primaâ facie rather startling difficulties of procedure.
  Mr. J. HOPE: I did consider these difficulties, and therefore I put the words in, basing myself on the precedent of the famous Motion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Division on my hon. Friend's. (Sir F. Banbury) Amendment should be rescinded last year.
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing so dangerous as to act on a precedent which is not in point. As regards the merits of this Instruction, they were most carefully debated a year ago, when it was proposed and, after full consideration, rejected by a majority of more than 100. The arguments which prevailed then are just as forcible to-day as they were, and the Motion the hon. Gentleman has just propounded, of splitting the Bill in two, which would, in some mysterious fashion that he has not explained, require greater sanction from the electorate and from public opinion for each of the two halves than if put as a whole, if the whole passed as one, is an entirely novel departure in our Parliamentary procedure. The arguments which I used upon that occasion seem to me as conclusive to-day as they were then. In the first place, there is a certain absurdity about the Instruction, because it proposes to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitutional powers of the Irish Parliament and the second dealing with the idea of the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but that leaves a great part of the Bill which does not fall either -within one category or within the other. The hon. Member, when he was called to order, was alluding to a very important topic, the position and functions of the Lord Lieutenant. That has nothing to do either with the powers of the Irish Parliament or the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So with the judiciary, and so with many provisions in regard to finance. So that if this Instruction were really acted upon by the House, something I calculate like a third of the Bill would not be covered by either of the two measures into which it is proposed to separate it. I do not know whether that strikes the hon. Member as a very logical proceeding.
  But, quite apart from that, it is quite impossible, I will not say to discuss, but even to consider the expediency of the proposals in this Bill which deal with the setting up of an Irish Parliament on the one side and those which deal with the necessary changes in the constitution of the Imperial Parliament on the other as if they were in two water-tight compartments. On the contrary, they arc inter dependent, as our discussions last year showed when we got into Committee. At every stage when you are discussing one, you inevitably discuss the other also. In fact, you cannot form any intelligent,
  1588
  certainly any trustworthy, opinion as to the merits of either unless you consider its relation to the other. So much for the merits of the question as they were last year and as they remain to-day. But, of course, there is a further point which comes in this year which did not exist last year. If this Instruction should be acted upon by the Committee, it is quite clear that the two Bills into which the present Bill would be split would neither of them come within the operation of the Parliament Act—the hon. Member is a very astute Parliamentarian and knows that very well—because each of the two, I will not call them twins; that physiological term has been very much abused in recent Parliamentary elections; but each of the two halves into which the present Bill was divided would clearly not be identical with the Bill which was passed last year as a whole and rejected by the House of Lords, and, therefore, neither of them could claim the privilege of the Parliament Act. In addition to the objections which were urged against it, which proved overwhelming, and which were approved by the House last year, the fact is that it is an attempt, perhaps an honest attempt, but a very obvious attempt, to exclude the Bill altogether from the operation of the Parliament Act. In these circumstances, I need not say that the Government must ask the House to repeat the decision it gave last week and to reject this Instruction.
  Mr. HEWINS: At a very early stage, if I remember rightly, in the Home Rule Bill of last Session the question was referred to you whether the provisions of the Bill did not go outside and beyond the title of the Bill, and the very important question on a point of Order was put to you, and I think at any rate the impression left upon us by that discussion was that undoubtedly the Bill did go beyond purely Irish questions and trespass upon English questions, and did go beyond the title of the Bill. I should not for a moment dream of commenting in any way upon the decision. I only refer to the incident to prove that there is something in this of very great importance, because, supposing the contention of my hon. Friend, who addressed the question to you had been upheld, the Government would have been in a position of the greatest possible difficulty, awing to the fact that they had introduced a provision in the Bill which was not consistent with the title. That case does not stand alone. We had a repetition

  1589
  ef the same sort of thing in regard to the Welsh Church Bill, where there are Clauses independent of, and outside and beyond the title of the Bill. If procedure of that kind is to be allowed to go forward without comment, we are getting to a very dangerous stage. The Prime Minister rather ridiculed my hon. Friend in regard to the use of the term "Constitutional." I cannot imagine a disquisition ever being written on the constitution of any country which would not include its financial powers and all the other things which are, as a matter of fact, included. It is simply a question of the proper, ordinary and common meaning of the term "Constitution," and the very narrow interpretation the Prime Minister chooses to put upon it. In these circumstances, I do not see the ground on which the Prime Minister criticised my hon. Friend. The course he suggested is perfectly practicable in the sense of splitting up the Bill.
  The next question is whether it is desirable so to split up the Bill and take two votes instead of one. I contend that it is extremely desirable that we should have two separate votes, in view of the great interest this question excited at the very beginning of the Home Rule discussion, when the question to which I have alluded was referred to you. In view of the fact that there are great changes brought about by this Bill, it is very desirable that we should have a separate vote. Hon. Members should, at least, have the courage to vote definitely on proposals to alter and disarrange the Constitution of this country. It is a very moderate thing. The Prime Minister said we cannot do one without the other. I contest that statement. I could not go into it without going outside the rules of order, but I protest against that statement. It is perfectly possible to draw up a Constitution for Ireland which does not affect it in the way the Prime Minister said. In fact, what he says about the impossibility of the interdependence of these two Constitutions merely gives one more proof that the Prime Minister is doing what he said all along he would not do. He is not creating a subordinate Parliament. He is creating a coordinate Parliament. I do not see that anything has been said by the Prime Minister which diminishes the great importance of this question in regard to the procedure of the House and the procedure which may be adopted in future Bills. The course my hon. Friend suggested is perfectly practicable, and it is
  1590
  desirable in the interest of this House and in the interest of sound constitutional government in this country.
  Mr. RONALD M`NEILL: At first I had a certain amount of doubt whether I could support the Instruction. I was not at all sure that the two parts of the Bill—that affecting Ireland and that affecting the United Kingdom—were not so inextricably mingled together that it really would not be possible to divide one from the other. But the speech of the Prime Minister was quite sufficient to convince us on this side of the House, if we had any doubts before, that the course proposed by my hon. Friend is a perfectly practicable one.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]— (By ORDER).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. WARDLE: I regret the necessity of having to rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. In order to explain my reason for doing so, I must go back to the events that occurred on 25th March last year, when a similar Debate took place in this House. I then drew attention to the unsatisfactory position taken up by the Great Eastern Railway Company in relation to their clerical staff. First of all, there was a reference made to the salaries memorial. I am glad to say that the promise made as to that matter on the occasion was kept. The memorial was received and a deputation was heard, though I am sorry to say the success of the deputation has not been very large. I have no desire to-night to go into the question of the salaries paid to the Great Eastern Railway clerks. I think they have had the matter put before the directors, and they have received a reply, unsatisfactory though it is. There was another question before the House on that occasion, namely, the Great Eastern Superannuation Fund. The Noble Lord the Member for South Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton) made a distinct and definite

    1591
    promise with regard to representation upon this fund for the salaried staff, but to-day, instead of having kept that promise, the position is very much worse than it was on 25th March last year. I would like to point out with regard to this matter that the promise which the Noble Lord made was very clear, explicit, and definite. I will allude to it later on. What is the position? All the clerks—all the salaried officers on the Great Eastern Railway are compelled as a condition of service to subscribe to this fund a certain proportion of their salaries, but they are entirely prohibited from taking any part whatever in the management of the fund beyond the right of attendance at the annual meeting.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. All contributing members of the fund are allowed to speak at the meeting if they desire to do so.
    Mr. WARDLE: They have no say whatever in the management of this fund. They have no power to elect any of the representatives on the committee, which consists of the chairman of the directors, the deputy-chairman, two other directors, the general manager, the secretary, the superintendent of the line, and the goods manager. Therefore, thousands of clerks who have to contribute have certainly no say whatever in the management of this fund. They have no right to elect any of the members of the committee. I may go further and say that the Great Eastern Railway fund is the only railway fund with respect to which the contributing members are excluded from any share at all in the management. It has been for fifteen years without any valuation, the committee preferring apparently that secrecy should be kept. When I raised this question last year I did not say in my speech that I was speaking on behalf of any of the members of this fund. What I did say was that I was speaking as a member of the Committee appointed to inquire into the whole question of railway superannuation funds. It was a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, which went fully into the question of the whole of these funds. They made certain recommendations to the House of Commons. I was the only Member of Parliament on that Committee. There was a railway manager on it, and the rest were actuaries and experts. I
    1592
    know that the Noble Lord holds a different view now on the subject of valuation from that which he held at one time. The Committee came unanimously to this conclusion:—
    "The absence of actuarial valuations in the schemes for guarantee of certain funds is regarded by us as an unsatisfactory feature, to which the serious attention of the railway companies should be directed."
    Another recommendation was:
    "We think that, even where the benefits are guaranteed by the company, it is an advantage to have a provision for election of representatives by the contributing members. Such a power tends to remove any feeling of suspicion as to the management of the fund."
    That was the unanimous recommendation by the Committee made two years ago. The Great Eastern Railway Fund does not allow such representation. The Great Northern Railway Fund had formerly no representation of contributing members, but the company have agreed that such representation should be provided. I called the attention of the House to the fact that here was the Committee's recommendation, and here was a railway company which had not carried out the recommendation seeking fresh powers. At the conclusion of his speech the Noble Lord said:—
    "I am ready to state on behalf of the company that the contributors should have wider representation. We are willing to accept it, and I think we will have to embody a proposal for that purpose in a future Bill.' —[OFFCIAL REPORT, 25th March. 1912. col. 126. Vol.
    XXXVI.]
    That is clear and unconditional, and I am sure every Member of the House who heard the promise expected it to be carried out in the letter and the spirit. The staff on the railway certainly expected that it would be carried out, and it is rather interesting to recall that in the very same speech the Noble Lord, referring to the staff, said:—
    "They believe in their board and in their chairman, because they know that their chairman never makes them a promise front which he goes —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March, 1912. col. 124. Vol. XXVI.]
    Up to the 25th March last year I certainly was prepared to accept that view of the Noble Lord's word, but I ant sorry to say that I cannot do so to-day. The matter rested upon that word. It was necessary that the Bill should be introduced, and nothing was done. It was allowed to rest in anticipation that the company would carry out the undertaking which they had given. When I found out that the Great Eastern Railway Company were proposing a Bill in the present Session, the first thing I did was to look at it to see what it contained, and whether it redeemed

    1593
    the promises the Noble Lord made. I found that no such provision was made in the Bill. I will not go into the whole conversation, but I do not think it will be denied by the Noble Lord that when I found there was nothing of the kind in the Bill I approached him on the subject and he said that the Bill was prepared hastily and that the superannuation question had been entirely overlooked. He expressed his regret and said that he had no intention of breaking away from any pledge. Shortly after that I received the following letter dated the 22nd January, and written from the Board Room, Liverpool Street:—
    "Dear Sir,—I tried to find you last week in the House in reference to the conversation we had in respect of the Great Eastern Railway Bill in the coining Session of Parliament and the question of making some change in the representation of the clerical staff upon the committee of the company's superannuation fund. Since last year's debate in the House of Commons I have not heard a word from any of the staff expressing a desire for change, hut in order to put the representation of the superannuation fund on the same basis as that of the pension and the pension supplemental fund my board will be quite ready"—
    —here we have a qualification for the first time—
    "if the members of the fund desire, to have two elected members of their body placed upon the committee, and these members will attend at the committee meetings once a month precisely in the same manner as the men upon pension fund committees. The present Bill was brought in at a moment's notice to meet the pressing demands of the trade at Ipswich, and contains nothing beyond the powers to execute the works desired and for the raising of capital. Therefore it is undesirable, as well as too late, to encumber the Bill with other matters, but we will undertake to deal with the superannuation fund on the lines indicated in our next General Powers Bill should the members desire such alteration."
    On 25th March the Noble Lord stated explicitly, definitely, and clearly that representation would be given, and on the 22nd January he interpolates a new condition, "Should the members so desire." When I first brought this question before the House I was not speaking on behalf of the members of the superannuation fund—although I had been requested by a few of them to raise the matter—and I never said so. Therefore, when the Noble Lord gave his promise across the floor of the House he was not doing it for me on behalf of his own staff, and, therefore, there was no question of their desire in the matter at that particular moment. He even expressed to me a desire that he should have some evidence that there was a desire on the part of the members of the Great Eastern staff for this representation. Accordingly, a memorial was prepared and sent to the various stations and offices of the Great Eastern Railway, and 564 signatures were
    1594
    obtained to this, asking the board to carry out their promise. Immediately this memorial was sent out to the offices and an attempt was made to get signatures to it, the officials of the company, and all the responsible officers set their faces against it and got up a counter-memorial that practically prevented this memorial from being the success which otherwise it would have been. The annual meeting was called, and notice convening that meeting was sent out with the statement that this question was going to be raised at the meeting. I am not going to contest the fact that the notice may have been sent to every member of the fund, and that all of them may have been invited, but anyone who knows anything about these meetings knows that at four o'clock on a certain afternoon it is absolutely impossible for the whole of the clerical staff of any particular railway company, or anything like the whole or any representative number of it to be present at a meeting to deal with a question of this kind. But they were told that at this meeting the chairman would make a statement and that the question of representation on the fund would be raised.
    The qualification of the promise made last year, which appeared for the first time in the letter of the 22nd January, became stronger at the meeting. This is what the Noble Lord said:—
    "I will confess that I was rather taken by surprise when this question was raised in the House, and I imagined that some special mandate had been given to a Member of Parliament to make the representation to me, and in replying I had in mind always the fact that on our two pension funds there are two members of the committee elected by the members of the respective bodies, and I think that hastily I said"—
    That is what he did not say—
    "certainly, if it is desired, representation shall be given on the committee of the superannuation funds…"
    He goes on to 'explain that he thought it would be better to have the various parties all in the same position, but he did not say in this House "if it was desired." Therefore, when he makes that representation, he is not telling the exact truth in regard to the matter, though I do not say that he is wilfully misrepresenting it. But my quarrel with the Noble Lord goes further than that. When he made the promise in the House, distinct, clear and emphatic, there were no conditions attached to it. When he gets to the meeting he tries to influence the mind of the members present against having any representation at all, but he tells them that if there is a revision of the bargain the shareholders may want,

    1595
    to revise the guarantee under which this fund now operates by Act of Parliament, and that if they raise the question of representation and a new Bill has to be put through, then the shareholders may want to go back upon their bargain, and, therefore, members might be worse off than before. I do not think that anybody will say that there is anything of the kind in the letter which I have read, and in the very clear and definite statement made by the Noble Lord on the 25th March last year. If anyone challenges, I am prepared to sumbit the matter for investigation and to show that I have not indulged in a single exaggeration with regard to what the Noble Lord did on that occasion.
    There were other statements made at that meeting with the object of influencing members against representation. For instance, they were informed that no other company's fund which was guaranteed had such representation. But this is not the fact. Indeed, all the funds which are guaranteed. the North-Western, the Lancashire and Yorkshire and various other funds, have elected representatives of the men on the committee, and I cannot see why there should be the slightest objection to the Great Eastern Company taking their men into their confidence and having their elected representatives on the committee, so that they may have some share in the management of the money which they contribute. I will not go into the proceedings of this meeting at very great length; I do not wish to do so, but it is a very curious thing that the resolution which was moved approving of the present position of the fund and of the way in which it had always been managed under the present constitution of the committee, was submitted by a member who Lad actually no right to be present at the meeting, because he was himself a superannuated member, and, according to the rules, was not entitled to vote at the meeting or to be present. In my opinion the people at this meeting who were in favour of representation on the fund did not get fair play. Some of them tried to speak but were prevented by other members of the meeting, who represented chiefly the head office in London. It is true the chairman appealed to the meeting to allow them to speak, but in doing so, he made this remark, that in this House he had been often very much more interrupted by the friends of those people than they had been interrupted at that meeting. I thought
    1596
    that a very curious way of trying to keep order.
    I have been looking at last year's Debate and I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) followed the Noble Lord and the Noble Lord interrupted him no less than eight times, and, so far as the Noble Lord's speech was concerned, he was interrupted twice. Therefore, I really think the Noble Lord ought not to complain in regard to his treatment in the House of Commons. So much for the position of the Noble Lord as to the fulfilment of his pledge. The House of Commons rightly looks upon a man's word as his bond, and it seems to me that the Noble Lord only needs the opportunity to fulfil his pledge, and to say to-night that be will fulfil it. Let me say here that in the discussion on the Railways (No. 2) Bill the Noble Lord had some very strong things to say about the word of an English gentleman, about the Prime Minister's word of honour, and about the fulfilment of his pledge. If the Noble Lord will only carry out what he said on that occasion on the subject of pledges, we shall all be satisfied. On 13th February he said—the quotation is so happy a one that I think I had better read it:—
    "I acquit the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, of any attempt whatever on his part to depart from the engagement into which the Government of which he is a Member entered with us in August, 1911, but after what he has said about the Prime Minister, I cannot acquit that right hon. Gentleman of an endeavour on his part to do that which I think is contrary to the honour of a statesman and the honour of an English gentleman—trying to depart [Hon. Members: 'Oh !']—yes. trying to depart from a solemn engagement—[Hon. Members: 'Withdraw.'] I withdraw nothing— a solemn engagement which he entered into during the discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and the railway companies in respect to the Trade Unions dispute in August, 1911…And now, because there is a show of opposition on the part of certain Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, and a few lion. Gentlemen on this side of the House, the Prime Minister, who had not felt it his duty to come here during these three nights of Debate in redemption of his debt of honour, not only to us, lint to the country as well—he has not seen that it was his duty to come here except for ten minutes. He now sends a message, and instead of coining here in person, he delivers it to the President of the Board of Trade, that he thinks a time limit which was never mentioned in these negotiations is a proper thing to insert in this Bill. I say it is a gross breach of honour on the part of the Prime Minister."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 13th February. 1913, cols. 1358–9, Vol. XLVIII]
    Then the Noble Lord had something to say about the Prime Minister not being present. I met the Noble Lord in the Lobby last Monday, and I should have been very glad if this thing could have been settled without its coming before the
    House at all, but I have not seen him since then until to-day. It. is a matter in which he is specially implicated, and it

    1597
    was on, that ground that I felt that I could not settle with anyone else but the Noble Lord himself. It may be said that this is a question of the wishes of the men, and it may also be said that they have had representation on the fund, and that it was discontinued in 1897, and the present arrangement made. Let us look at that matter, Is it now really a question of the wishes of the members of this fund? So far as the Noble Lord's pledge is concerned, can he say anything about those wishes when that pledge was made? If he desires to say now that the wishes of the members of the fund shoud be taken linto account, what I have to say is this: Had he said in January, before the meeting was held, that he was willing to take a free and open ballot in order to ascertain the wishes and desires of the members of the fund, that would have been gladly accepted, but that he can now say there shall be a ballot of the members of the fund as to whether they are willing to accept such representation is another thing altogether. What is the position? The position is that the members of the fund have already been influenced, and strongly and distinctly influenced. If they took a ballot now, they would know that in voting in favour of representation on the fund they would be voting against the wishes of the chairman.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: No, no.
    Mr. WARDLE: Against the wishes of the general manager and the high officers of the company, and that they would not have a free and fair chance of expressing a clear, open, and honest opinion as to whether they should have representation at all. If the Noble Lord says anything in this discussion, let us hear from him whether the company are prepared to make a statement to members of the fund that they shall have a free, open, and straightforward ballot if such a ballot is to take place. We have heard that the wishes of the members of this fund are to be consulted. In the year 1897, when the Bill was brought forward, the members of the fund were not consulted for months, arid it was practically not until the stage when it must become law that the members were consulted about the question. It is quite true that the officials of the company probably desired, and probably even asked for representation on the old fund. It was their stipulation in connection with the old fund that no pension higher than £500 a year should he given to any chief official or any official of the fund. They did not
    1598
    like that and therefore they did undoubtedly move to get a change in the fund. Was it because the fund was financially unsound that the change was made? In the last actuarial report, made in 1895, the actuary stated that the fund "is. in a solvent financial position, the deficit on 31st December, 1893, being: only £1,300," which was very small as those funds go. If it was not hopelessly insolvent at the end of 1893 when -the actuarial valuation was made, why was the change made in 1897, and the guarantee, of which the Noble Lord makes so much, given. It was simply because they wanted to extend the payments to the chief officials of the company that the guarantee became necessary, and there was no necessity for it from the rank and file, and it was never asked for by them. I defy the Noble Lord to prove that there' was any petition from the rank and file of the Great Eastern Railway Company's servants, that they should have the opportunity of electing their representatives on the committee taken away. What is all this about. Really, I am sorry that this matter has come before the House, and I am astonished that at this time of day this company should refuse to allow—for that is what it comes to—their clerks to elect half, if you will, for that is what other companies do—of the representatives on this committee, and give them a fair and reasonable opportunity of taking part in the management. Remember that the money that is contributed to that fund at present is all contributed by the staff. The company give a guarantee, it is true, but they do not pay into the fund. Therefore, I venture to say, it is really too much, after the solemn pledge which the Noble Lord gave to the House in March of last year, that he should have taken all this time and gone into these devious ways in fulfilling his promise of getting representation on the fund on the present basis.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I have no, complaint whatever to make with regard to the manner in which the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) has presented his case to the House, though I am bound to say there are one or two slight inaccuracies—I am sure not intentional—in the speech he has just delivered. I am afraid, in order to put myself and the clerical staff of the Great Eastern Railway Company in the position they ought to occupy before this House, I shall be compelled to detain the House much longer than I should desire, but it is absolutely

    1599
    necessary that I should reply to the remarks and the strictures made by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to refer, first, to the establishment of this fund. It was established originally in January, 1879, on an actuarial basis, and the representation then was the chairman and three other directors and three elected members from the contributing members. That went on for many years, giving satisfaction, on the whole, to the staffs, but at the same time causing great anxiety both in the minds of the staff and of the directors as to the future solvency of that fund. It was here where the hon. Member, I think, was in error in the speech he made. It was in 1897 a special general meeting of all the members of the fund was called to consider the draft scheme, and the chairman—that was myself—stated:—
    "That the continued annual expense to the company of this fund and other funds of the company had been a source of considerable apprehension to the directors. They felt, too, that there must always be a considerable degree of uncertainty as to what the character of the actuaries' reports might at any time be and, although the shareholders had cheerfully acceded to the request that had been previously made by the directors to contribute a special grant of £1,500 per annum, which the actuaries pronounced to be necessary to ensure the solvency of the fund, the directors felt it would be impossible to ask the shareholders to render any further assistance towards the fund. The result would be that the members would either have to increase their contributions or have their benefits diminished. The chairman also stated that the directors had felt for some time that the benefits members received under the old fund were not commensurate with the expense to which the company had been put with regard to the fund, and they had therefore long been considering whether the fund could not be on a basis which would afford fuller security to members, and be less costly to the company, and at the same time enable the committee of the fund to largely increase the benefits."
    I added that the matter had been -brought to a head by the re-establishment of the Railway Clearing House Fund. I happened to be chairman of the Supeannuation Fund of the Railway Clearing House, with a membership of something like 15,000 clerical members, and I was very much struck by the disadvantage under which the clerical staff of the Great Eastern Railway Company stood as compared with the clerical staff of the Railway Clearing House in their fund. I went on to say that:—
    "The directors, when agreeing to accept the com pany's share of any additional financial responsibility which the change of basis with the Railway Clearing House Fund might involve, felt that having undertaken this…they must be prepared to place their own servants on an equally favourable basis."
    At that conference all the speakers expressed their entire approval of the new scheme, and the resolution proposing its adoption was unanimously carried and
    1600
    unanimously confirmed at a later meeting. What was the new basis of the fund? Instead of being on an actuarial basis it was placed by the company on the basis of a guarantee, and instead of four directors and three elected members, the Act of Parliament provided four directors and four statutory members, and the members who were adopted by the House of Commons as statutory members were the very men who had been always elected in previous years by the members of the fund, namely, the general manager, the superintendent, and the goods manager, with the addition of the secretary, Therefore it shows that the members in acceding, and they were delighted to accede, to the scheme giving the company's guarantee instead of an actuarial basis to their fund, were only too glad to accede the statutory position to those very men who in open voting had been returned as their representatives. Now, and this is the strong point, I want hon. Members to bear in mind that for sixteen years since the establishment of this fund I as its chairman presided at monthly meetings of the committee and at the annual meetings of the members. I may have been absent from one or two, but, generally speaking, I have always been there as chairman, and not once during the sixteen years has a word come from any member of the fund, or even the whisper of a word animadverting upon its administration or asking for a change in the basis of the committee. That is a very strong point indeed. Why is it we have never heard a word of complaint in regard to the administration of the fund? It is because the benefits afforded by the fund under Act of Parliament cannot be reduced, and the contributions on the part of its members cannot be increased. Therefore the fund works automatically, and gives the maximum amount of satisfaction and security to the 4,500 members who now form the contributors to it. What are the benefits? I should like hon. Members to hear what they are, because I maintain there is no other superannuation fund in England which gives equal benefits to its members. A clerk can retire at the age of 60, and on his retirement claims as a right one-fiftieth of his salary for each year of his membership of the fund, calculated not upon the average of his salary during that period, but upon the average of the last seven years. That is a most liberal and generous provision. It is further provided

    1601
    that the pension shall not exceed two-thirds of the salary which the beneficiary has been receiving, but it must not come to less than £30 per annum. The House will see, therefore, that members of this fund, upon their retirement at 60 years of age, can obtain almost two-thirds of the salary which they have been enjoying. That, I think, is the reason why the fund has given such immense satisfaction to its members.
    The hon. Member talked about an actuarial calculation. The Great Eastern Company guarantees the pension to every member of the fund, and the charge for that guarantee is a pre-debenture charge. It is part of the working expenses of the company, and therefore ranks before the debenture interest. I put it to any Member of this House: if he desired, as a trustee of a fund, a debenture stock for its beneficiaries, would he consult an actuary as to the value or solvency of the debenture stock? He knows perfectly well that that debenture stock has behind it an enormous amount of preference and ordinary stock, and that it is absolutely as sound and good a guarantee as any fund of the kind can possibly have. As regards what took place last year, the hon. Member stated the case from his point of view quite accurately. I may say that when in the course of that Debate the hon. Member mentioned this subject, I was very much taken by surprise, because previously I had not heard a word from any member of the fund expressing a desire for any change in the composition of the committee. I, therefore, thought that the hon. Member had a mandate from a considerable portion of the clerical staff of my company to make that request. The hon. Member will excuse my saying so, but I think he rather laid a trap for me, and I confess I fell into it. I do not usually fall into traps, but I did so on that occasion, and I said that I thought the basis of the fund might be enlarged, and that we would give effect to it at some future time in one of our Bills. When I said that, I thought the hon. Member was speaking on behalf of a majority of the members of the fund. I say again now, so far as I am concerned, from the theoretical point of view, I see no reason whatever why the members of the Great Eastern Superannuation Fund should not have elected members on the committee the same as other funds have.
    9.0 P.M.
    Members below the Gangway are always most courteous to me in this House, but outside they sometimes indirectly suggest
    1602
    that I am a bit of a tyrant, and a little hard on those who serve me so well. I do not think anyone can say that I have ever knowingly done an unkind thing to any member of the Great Eastern staff, though I have always been, and always shall be, a great stickler for discipline when discipline is necessary. What do hon. Members want me to do? They want me to coerce a large majority of the members of the Superannuation Fund to adopt a course which they honestly believe to be contrary to the interests of themselves and their families. That places me in a very difficult position indeed. I am quite willing, and so would my board be, to give effect to what I said last Session, if I felt sure that a fair majority of the members of the fund desired such a change; but can any member ask me deliberately to coerce a majority of the members of the fund at the dictation of a small minority? It would be contrary to the spirit of fair play which generally animates Englishmen. Therefore, I feel that so long as the majority are opposed to this change it is exceedingly difficult for me to give effect to the promise that I made to the hon. Member. The hon. Member referred to what took place on the occasion of the annual meeting of members of the fund. I must correct a slight inaccuracy in his remarks on that point. I stated what had taken place in this House, and I said that as chairman I was desirous of knowing whether the members really wished for this change. When those desirous of the change rose to speak I admit that they were subjected to very considerable and continuous interruption. On three or four occasions I interceded on their behalf, and, finally, when the interruption had become very great, I said that it was nothing compared with the interruption, not that I was subjected to, but to which Members in this House were occasionally subjected. I kept myself out of it altogether. At that meeting there were about a thousand members present, or nearly one-fourth of the whole membership of the fund, and when the resolution was nut from the chair only twelve voted in its favour. I gather from that that a very large majority of the members are opposed to any alteration in the present basis of the fund.
    I quite admit that some members may have been influenced in their voting by what I said to them, not only as chairman of the company, but mainly as chairman of their fund. I take an enormous interest in that fund, and feel bound, so far as I

    1603
    can, to safeguard the interests of its members. I used words to this effect "The frame of mind of a shareholder when his stock is above par is very different from what it is when the stock is at 60 or 63. The shareholders were very generous in granting you their guarantee when I made the proposal many years ago, when the stock stood above par; but they may take a different view now, when it is at 63. You have got a splendid bargain which cannot be interfered with except by mutual consent. Do not give the shareholders an opportunity of interfering with that bargain, or they may possibly endeavour to withdraw their guarantee." I was in a most difficult position as chairman of the company, guarding the interests of the shareholders, and as chairman of the fund, guarding the interests of the members, but I did not in the least endeavour to improperly influence anyone.
    I did not think it my duty as chairman of the fund to point out the possible danger which might take place if they opened the question with the shareholders. I do not think the hon. Member charges we with any breach of faith in respect of it. I have seen a circular, a most misleading circular, which has been sent to hon. Members, which charges me with deliberately omitting from this very Bill any mention of this subject. As I have informed the House, my board decided to have no Bill in Parliament this Session. I went to the United States and to Canada in that belief, and did not return until October. In the middle of October representations were made from the borough of Ipswich that the traffic arrangements, the arrangements for sidings, and the facilities for the removal of goods, were not commensurate with the vast increase—I was very glad to hear it—which had taken place in the trade of Ipswich. It was clear that we had to do something to remove this grievance, the presence of so serious a barrier to the future progress of the town. I immediately went down to the place. I met the mayor, who is, I believe, a political friend of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners. After going over the ground, and hearing all the different points, we proceeded to the Town Hall. I stated what, generally speaking, I thought we should be able to do. This was accepted by the merchants, the representative of the corporation, and the Dock Commissioners, who were present in the room.
    1604
    I came back to town, summoned the board and the solicitor of the company, who had only ten days in which to prepare the Bill, specifications, notices, and everything else. It was, therefore, absolutely impossible to include in that Bill anything beyond the requirements of Ipswich, or to do more than to raise the capital to carry out this and other improvements of a similar character elsewhere. I go further, and say that when I said we should include a provision for this matter in a Bill of the company, I meant an Omnibus Bill, a term which is, I think, familiar to Members of this House, and which includes all the sweepings up of different items, where everything is put in in which pledges have been given, promises made, or expectations raised. When we gave orders to the solicitor to prepare this Bill I confess I had absolutely forgotten all about the superannuation matter. It would have been impossible, even if I had remembered it, to introduce anything of the sort into the Bill when at the same time the annual meeting of the members of the superannuation fund had not taken place. I gather the House thinks there has been no breach on my part of the undertaking which I gave. The great majority of the members of the fund were not desirous of any change, and that has placed me in a very difficult position. But I am going to make this proposal to the hon. Member. I am perfectly prepared, either by an open vote or by a ballot vote, or by any mode, or in any way suggested by the hon. Member, to ascertain the opinion of the members of the superannuation fund, and if a majority be in favour—he may circularise the members if he likes—of altering the representation and embodying that in a Bill, I, on behalf of the company, will take the earliest opportunity when next we have a Bill, which probably may be next Session, to give effect to that wish. I do not think I can say more than that, because I am sure hon. Members will not wish us to dragoon our clerical staff. The clerical staff of the Great Eastern Railway is an educated body of gentlemen fully capable of taking care of themselves. If they have strong views in regard to the excellence of the superannuation scheme, why on earth should their views be disturbed? They are able to think for themselves, and to work out calculations. They know perfectly well how the thing stands. I think it would be a great error of judgment for me to be a party to coerce them to alter their views in that respect. But if hon.

    1605
    Members opposite think that a ballot vote will give them the opportunity of expressing themselves, I shall be very happy to give effect to any change of views in the first Bill we introduce into the House of Commons.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Noble Lord has made a frank speech, as he always does. But there are points raised this evening that certainly are important in regard to recent events in this House. In the first place, there is the issue raised in a definite form as to the position that Members of this House find themselves in a matter of this sort, the exact relationship of the particular Bill that we are discussing to the position of any individual Member. I want to say at once that so far as the Noble Lord is concerned if the statement that he has made now had been given effect to following his promise, there would not have been anything to complain of this evening. The real difficulty that we are in is this: That already the staff have been threatened; already the staff have been told that if they go on in this way they unquestionably will suffer. Already the general manager has intimated to a man who is prominent in this as he was prominent in another matter affected by what was called the "salaries memorial," that if he took similar action in future on behalf of his fellow clerks it would be detrimental to his interests. The real position is that whilst it may be assumed that a ballot would be a fair opportunity for a legitimate expression of opinion, whilst it may be understood that it is a real way to test these men's opinions and to give effect to them, I do submit to the House with the greatest possible respect that the case is altered when the general manager has already given expression to the opinion he has; and when the Noble Lord himself says that he would have the committee of management in no other hands, and he ventured to say "that the shareholders will not agree to its being otherwise." That was the statement made by the Noble Lord at the committee meeting in 1897 to which he referred. The Noble Lord quoted that. I am quoting from the same minutes. The Noble Lord having quoted that statement, we are brought to this situation. That was his opinion on that occasion. He says that he was trapped into giving the other pledge. Therefore I submit that he had to choose between the pledge on that occasion and the pledge given to this House. It is apparent that he decided
    1606
    that the pledge given in 1897 was more important than the pledge given on the last occasion. There is this analogy. He says quite frankly, "I admit giving the pledge; I admit you are entitled to put the interpretation that you have placed upon this pledge; yet I have to choose between fulfilling this pledge and doing something that I do not believe will be in the interests of the staff." I think that is a fair statement of the Noble Lord's case. Let the Noble Lord remember——
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: I think I should be coercing the staff to do something which they believe to be contrary to their interests.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Very well. Let us see where the coercion comes in in a moment. Let us assume it is coercion that will be applied. What is the difference in the position to-night and the position mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. When the Noble Lord accused the Prime Minister of a breach of faith he said, "It was a solemn undertaking given to us who represented the railway companies." Supposing the Prime Minister had said—as he might have said on that occasion, "That after considering the interests of the public, and all that was involved by the public; after realising that the public would have to pay—which he did not anticipate when he made this promise—that he had decided that it was his duty to stick to the public interest." Would not that have been precisely the same answer as the Noble Lord has given here this evening? That would have been precisely the situation if the Prime Minister had made that answer on that occasion. The Noble Lord said, "This pledge having been given we intend that you must fulfil it." Therefore I submit that it is not fair to throw this position back upon the staff. I put this question to the Noble Lord. What would happen if he called a meeting of the staff at four o'clock in the afternoon if every member of the staff decided to attend? Is it suggested that the Great Eastern is to stop; that the whole of the work should be dislocated? Does he not know perfectly well, as everyone knows, that in a matter of this kind it is impossible for each member of the staff to attend. Unfortunately whether the Noble Lord knows it or not it is a fact. What happens is that at this particular meeting men would be whipped up by the officials, encouraged by the officials, and a few people come there to

    1607
    voice opinions that they think would be favourable to the Noble Lord, and others and those who might fully express their opinions, keep back for fear of the events I have mentioned.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: It is the statutory annual meeting of members of the fund. Every member has leave to attend if he wishes to attend.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That may be so, but does the Noble Lord say that while it is true they can get leave, that when the meeting is called for four o'clock at Liverpool Street Station it is not practically impossible for the staff to come up? I say it is obvious they cannot. It is useless to assume that it is open to every man to come and attend. Here is the other point. When the Noble Lord talks of the benefits of this particular fund, is it not true to say that joining it is made a condition of service? These men have no choice. Whatever other provisions they may have made, whatever may be the position of the men with regard to their domestic relationships, the fact of the matter is that the Great Eastern Company says to them, "Unless you join this particular fund we will not employ you." Having made that a condition of service, having compelled these men to join and stopped from their salaries periodically a certain amount of money, is it unreasonable that we, on the men's behalf, should claim they are entitled to some particular representation upon this committee?
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: If they wanted to, certainly.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That is exactly the position, and, that being so, are we not justified in saying that, seeing it is the committee that spends the money and that the officials are included, surely the great bulk of the staff ought to have equal representation with the official side? Let me put this further point. Is it not true that the Noble Lord has repeatedly stated in public and to the staff that in calculating the wages of the employés they must have regard not alone to the weekly wage, but to many of the privileges that the men enjoy? Did not the Noble Lord go further and say that, in addition to the privilege tickets and free passes, "there is the superannuation fund, for which we are responsible?" If that is so, and if the company calculates these privileges as being advantageous to the men and as something
    1608
    the company have taken into account, I submit it is not fair to suggest in this House or anywhere else that this is a free gift from the company when, as a matter of fact, it is part and parcel of the wages. I submit we are entitled to go further. The Noble Lord has made a fair offer, much fairer now than prior to this Debate. I think we are entitled to ask something more and to say, seeing you have already shown a bias in favour of this fund, seeing you went so far as to say that if any change took place the shareholders would have to reconsider the position——
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Might.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Noble Lord said that if any change did take place the shareholders might have to reconsider. their position, and, in addition to that, it is well known that every official takes the view of the Noble Lord—if not, what becomes of the claim that everyone is in favour of it?—and, having regard to that I submit it has created in the minds of the men a feeling that if they had shown any opposition whatever they might be running foul of the official view of the manager. I do not think it is unfair to say that, and I think if the Noble Lord would add to what he already stated, a definite statement that there is to be a free and independent expression of opinion, and that so far as he is concerned he will not look with disfavour on any man who, works or votes in any way, I think it would go a long way to meet our objection. I think we are, at least, entitled to ask the Noble Lord to say that. His expressed opinion is already on record, and surely now, if he is prepared to say." We are prepared to have a free ballot of the members," we are entitled to ask him to say, further, that whatever his former opinion might have been, he is now prepared to view the position from a free and unprejudiced standpoint, and with the one desire to take the majority of opinion on his staff. I do say that it is a mistake—and this is my last word—in the twentieth century to assume that the old relationship, between employer and employed must continue. Whatever may have been the position of the staff on the Great Eastern and on other railway companies, we must now have democratic control in these matters. The staff are going to say, "We will have a voice in the management of these matters," and I ask the Noble Lord to declare what I think is due to this House namely, that the men should have a free;

    1609
    choice, and if he does so, I think my hon. Friend would be prepared to accept that suggestion.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: The proposition which is made by the hon. Member, I am bound to say is not particularly complimentary to myself, because it is a suggestion to the effect that I coerce and intimidate my men, and that they are afraid, knowing my views, to express their free and unfettered opinion upon any subject which may come before us. I think any suggestion of that kind is absolutely unfounded. If it were correct I should not be able to get on so well as I do with every section of the staff of the Great Eastern Railway, and I think sometimes that those representing the men are jealous that this should be the case. I am perfectly prepared to give an assurance in reply to the hon. Member that every member of the clerical staff will be entitled to vote exactly as he likes, and express a free and unfettered opinion, and in no way will any member of the staff suffer for having done so. I cannot say more than that. I trust, however, that the House will not go away with the idea that I, or any member of my board have ever endeavoured to influence unduly any member of our staff, or that we have played the part of tyrants; because that is certainly not the case.
    Mr. WARDLE: I should not have accepted the Noble Lord's undertaking without his second statement, and under the circumstances I beg to withdraw my objection to the Second Reading.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    Postponed proceeding on Question, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament, and the second dealing with the alteration in the constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. James Hope.]
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: At the time when the business was interrupted I was expressing the opinion that any doubts which may have been felt on this side of
    1610
    the House as to the practicability of the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend for Central Sheffield (Mr. J. Hope) had been entirely removed by the very short and perfunctory reply made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman contented himself by pointing out that this Instruction was moved when the Bill was before the House last year, and he said that on that occasion it had been rejected by a considerably majority. The Prime Minister has frequently told us in this House and elsewhere that the whole purpose of the procedure of the Parliament Act, by which Bills brought before this House in the Second and Third Sessions, is intended to enable the House and the country to revise the proposals of the Government, and if revision means anything it must mean the power of going over old grounds and reconsidering them and coming to a conclusion as to whether or not an argument which prevailed with the House last year must necessarily prevail again. Under these circumstances, surely, it is open to the House to consider the whole matter de novo. It is true that this Instruction did not commend itself to the House a year ago, but on reconsideration of the whole matter arguments might be adduced for and against, and the House might be prepared to come to a different conclusion. It is hardly treating the House quite fairly or respectfully for the Prime Minister to brush aside the proposals made by my hon. Friend merely on the ground that it had been rejected last year.
    The Prime Minister adduced what he thought a crushing and conclusive reply when he pointed out that under the precedure adopted this Instruction could not take effect because there would be no effective Committee stage, and there could be no discussion in Committee of the various details of the two parts into which my hon. Friend's motion would divide the whole Bill. It is quite true there is to be no effective discussion in Committee, but we have been given to understand that there is to be a new fangled stage in the proceedings on these Bills called the Suggestion stage, and it has been held out by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet that the Suggestion stage, to all intents and purposes, is to take the place of the Committee stage, and that if there is any doubt about the details of the Bill as passed last year, although we are precluded from proposing Amendments, we are to be given the opportunity of bringing those proposals forward again in

    1611
    another form, namely, the form of suggestion which the House of Lords might adopt, and then they would be embodied in the Bill just as if they had been passed in the Committee stage under the old system. It has repeatedly been held out as a safeguard, or at all events as a recommendation of the procedure which the Government have forced upon the House, that under that Suggestion stage we should be in just as good a position as we should be in the Committee stage. Supposing that statement is taken at the face value put upon it by the Government, surely it does become quite as effective for us to divide this Bill into two parts, as proposed by my hon. Friend, with a view to the discussion of the suggestions bearing upon the two different portions of the Bill either before or after the Third Reading. I think the Prime Minister told us that it was to come after the Third Reading, but that is a matter of detail. It is, however, a very important thing that if these suggestions are to have any real practical effect they should be discussed as fully and openly as possible.
    Mr. SPEAKER:What has that got to do with this discussion? I fail to see any relevance in the hon. Member's arguments.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL:My argument is this: When we were discussing this Bill last year we had a Committee stage in which the details might be discussed and Amendments proposed. We know that under the procedure which governed the proceedings of the House last Session very large portions of the details of the Bill were not allowed to be discussed at all. My argument is that under the Suggestion stage which this year is to take its place we shall very likely find ourselves in the same position. The Prime Minister has intimated in the House that we are not to have a free and open discussion, and that only such suggestions will be allowed to be discussed as the Government or the Prime Minister himself choose to allot to the House. Therefore, it is important that the division made by this Amendment as between the different parts of the Bill should be very fully considered, and that we should not find ourselves, for example, being allowed to discuss a number of suggestions bearing upon the constitution of the Irish Parliament and possibly be precluded altogether by the discriminating action of the Government from discussing any proposals bearing explicitly or mainly
    1612
    upon the constitution, not of the Irish Parliament, but of this House.
    Mr. SPEAKER:That might happen whether we divide the Bill or not, and I cannot see the relevancy of that argument to the proposal to divide the Bill into two parts.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL:If we have the Bill divided into two portions we shall be much more likely under the fair treatment we shall receive from the Government to have a fair amount of time allotted to the discussion of these matters which bear more particularly on the constitution of this House, and not so mach upon the constitution of the Irish Parliament. Therefore, from the point of view of getting a fair discussion covering the whole field of the Bill in its two main divisions as applied to Ireland and Great Britain, the Suggestion stage would be more effective if the Bill were divided into two portions. There is this difference. We know that in the discussion of the details of the Bill the decision of the House is mainly governed by the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I am not complaining of that at all at the present moment. It is quite natural that those hon. Members should take a very active and lively interest in all the details of the Bill, but it is quite clear that the interest of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is much more exclusively devoted to those portions of the Bill which are strictly connected with the question of Home Rule; in other words, those portions of the Bill which more affect the future government of Ireland. The interest of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, on the other hand, is relatively mild when directed to the portions of the Bill which concern not Ireland but Great Britain. Therefore, when matters mainly interested from the British point of view, as distinguished from the Irish point of view, come up for discussion they are much more likely to get a free and independent opinion from those chiefly concerned unhampered by the strong views, or possibly the prejudices, of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It is obviously in the interests of Great Britain and the representatives of Great Britain that those portions of the Bill should be discussed unhampered by that weight of opinion below the Gangway. The Prime Minister said that so far as he can see two-thirds of the present Bill would not fall within either of the two Bills into which we propose to divide it. I do not profess to have examined the Bill in the

    1613
    light of the words of the right hon. Gentleman spoken an hour or two ago, but I have a fair recollection of the provisions of the Bill, and I must say that it would have helped me very much to judge as to the justice of the Prime Minister's contention if he had thought fit to point to some examples of such portions of the Bill as would not fall into one or other of the two divisions. I am entirely sceptical as to there being any portion of the Bill which would not fall into one or other of those two divisions.
    What was only the example which the right hon. Gentleman gave? He took the position of the Lord Lieutenant, and he said that the position of the Lord Lieutenant would have nothing to do either with the constitutional powers of the Irish Parliament, or the alteration of the Constitution of Great Britain. I respectfully venture so far to contest the validity of that proposition as to say that on the contrary it would fall into both portions of the Bill. The powers, the position, and the constitutional status of the Lord Lieutenant affect Great Britain, in so far as he is a Member of the Government, and usually of the Cabinet of this country; but, on the other hand, so far as he is the Viceroy and exercises the Royal prerogative under this Bill in Ireland, his powers and status are obviously part and parcel of the powers and constitution of the Irish Parliament. There is another very strong reason for the Instruction. In the Debates which have taken place upon this lengthy controversy, the Prime Minister has always based himself, almost exclusively, upon the proposition that because during a number of General Elections there has been a consistent demand from the Irish Members for what is called Home Rule; the constitutional doctrine requires a concession to that demand. If that argument is sound, surely it is equally true that there has been no such demand from England or from Great Britain for a radical alteration of their Constitution. Therefore, if it is right that the Irish demand should have exclusive attention, you should give the same amount of attention to the constitutional demand of Great Britain so far as Great Britain is affected by the provisions of this Bill, and it is clear you can only do that if you divide the Bill into two portions, so that the Irish Constitution on the one hand, and the English Constitution on the other can receive adequate and full consideration and discussion by those representatives who particularly speak in the name
    1614
    of those two different portions of the United Kingdom.
    There is another reason which I think is equally strong, and which has already been touched upon by one of my hon. Friends. We have been told time after time that this Bill, after all, is only the foundation of a large system of federation, and that we are to have Bills dealing with local government, or Home Rule for Scotland and Wales, and one Cabinet Minister, speaking I suppose with responsible authority, has propounded the proposition that the number of Bills may be much more numerous than those confined to Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England. If you are to have a great number of different Bills of this sort, there is only one part of the United Kingdom which is really fundamentally concerned with all of them, and that is England. In a Home Rule Bill for Ireland, of course, Ireland and Great Britain are concerned. Scotland as a separate entity is not specially concerned with the question of Home Rule for Ireland. Similarly, if we ever come to discuss the question of Home Rule for Scotland, England would be very vitally concerned with them all. It therefore appears to me to be very desirable that at the outset, when laying the foundations which may be coming before us in the future dealing with the question from a Federal standpoint. England is the one partner in the confederation which will be concerned with them all. It therefore appears to me to be very desirable that at the outset, when laying the foundations for this scheme, the position which Great Britain, and especially England, is to hold in relation to these other bodies should be constantly kept in view, independent of the special provisions of the Bill we may have under discussion. It is quite clear that cannot be done if the Bill as it effects England is to be lumped in with the Constitution of Ireland. You can only do that by treating England as a separate entity from the, very first.
    You must lay down general lines and principles with regard to the position which England is to hold, not merely in relation to Ireland under this Bill, but with a view to proposals which may come hereafter for giving similar Grants to. other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, if we are really to have any scheme of federation such as the Government and their supporters have constantly held before us, it does surely seem essential, if we are not in the end to arrive

    1615
    at an incoherent and chaotic scheme of government of the United Kingdom, that we should begin by laying the foundations and making it clear as to the position England is to hold in relation to them all. Then I come to a consideration which weighs to a certain extent with me in the discussion of this particular proposal. We have very often been told by hon. Members below the Gangway that when we discuss the question of Home Rule for Ireland religious intolerance and animosity enter very largely into our views. Speaking for myself, I entirely repudiate the notion that I have ever been influenced by religious animosity in this matter, and I think it has been very much exaggerated; but, at all events, those parts of the Bill which refer, not to the Irish Constitution, but to the changes which will necessarily be effected in the government of Great Britain, could from first to last be discussed in a spirit of complete detachment from any sort of religious animosity. It is very desirable if there is any truth whatever in the complaints which have been made by some of our opponents on this score, that we should get a discussion of the British side of this question in a more detached and a rarer atmosphere removed altogether from passions of that sort.
    The whole controversy, as contrasted with the controversy of twenty years ago, has proceeded far too exclusively on the questions which relate to Ireland and especially to Ulster. Of course I am very largely interested in the question of Ulster, and I should be the last to maintain that that is not almost a governing consideration. But it is very desirable that other aspects of the question should not be lost sight of, and it is very deplorable that, during the discussion which has proceeded since this Bill was introduced, the people of this country have been far too inclined to imagine that the question before the House of Commons was one in which they had only a sympathetic interest so far as it affected their fellow countrymen across the Channel. They did not regard it as a matter which vitally affected themselves. We have been told that we are to have opportunities of reconsideration and delay, and, therefore, it is not fair that when we bring forward proposals, these questions should be treated as if they had already been settled. It is surely very important that the English people should realise how
    1616
    far this great question affects not merely Ulster and Ireland, but themselves, their interests, their financial interests, and their constitutional interests, and, to give an opportunity for the discussion of those interests, there is no way so opportune as would be provided by the division of the Bill in the manner we now propose. If that were done, we should have all English constitutional questions, questions of defence, questions of finance, and those other matters which entered very much more largely into the discussions of 1893 and 1886, we should have them discussed in the detached atmosphere to which I have referred, and we should have a better opportunity of elucidating how far they affect England, and England alone. At the present time we are under this great difficulty party discipline is very strong. We have a weight of Irish opinion pressing for Home Rule, and there are numbers of people in this country who, in considering this matter, feel impressed by the necessity of granting Home Rule to Ireland. If the Bill were divided—
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member is really trespassing very much on the indulgence of the House. He is dealing with the merits of the question and is not confining himself to the question of procedure, which is the only question for discussion.
    Mr. R. M`NEILL:I apologise. I am sorry I have been so much in error. I will endeavour to amend my ways. I certainly had no intention of discussing the merits, except in so far as it was necessary to show that the division of the Bill would enable the people of this country to take into their own consideration the merits of the Bill so far as it affected them as distinct from its effect on Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER:That is an untenable proposition, and the hon. Member is constantly repeating that argument.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL:I certainly will not trespass any more in that direction, but I hope I shall not be out of order if I say this: Without at all going into the merits of the question, one of the matters which has been most consistently discussed, not merely during the Debates on the present Bill, but throughout the whole controversy on Home Rule, has been a matter affecting British interests as distinct from Irish interests, I mean the question whether or not Irishmen are to come to this House, and in what numbers.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member must be aware that that is a point which has been decided by the House on the Second Reading. It is not a point for discussion now. I have warned the hon. Member two or three times. If he offends again I shall lave to call upon him to resume his seat.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL:I can only assure you that if I offend I do so unwittingly. I have no intention or desire to be out of order. What I want to suggest is this: although, of course, it is quite true the question of the retention of the Irish Members has been decided by the Second Reading, we have been told, time after time, we may put down suggestions, and, surely it would be open to myself or my
    hon. Friend to make a suggestion to the House of Lords that the number of Irish Members coming to this House shall be either increased or——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which it is not open to the hon. Member to deal with on this Instruction. I must now ask him to resume his seat.
    Sir FREDERICK LOWrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 125.

    Division No. 130.]

    AYES.

    [9.53 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kelly, Edward

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Adamson, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    King, J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Falconer, James

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barnes, George N.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Field, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Barton, William

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Ginnell, Laurence

    McGhee, Richard

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Brady, P. J.

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

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gwyrm, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Manfield, Harry

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Martin, J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

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

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

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Chancellor, H. G.

    HavelockAllan, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayward, Evan

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clough, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molloy, M.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hewart, Gordon *

    Morrell, Philip

    Cowan, W. H.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morison, Hector

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hinds, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hogge, James Myies

    Muldoon, John

    Cullinan, John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Munro, R.

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

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hudson, Walter

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Neilson, Francis

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Delany, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dillon, John

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Doneian, Captain A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Doris, William

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Duffy, William J.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Grady, James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furnass)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Malley, William

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Shee, James John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wadsworth, J.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wardle, George J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Rowlands, James

    Webb, H.

    Pearce, William (Limehousc)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    ScanIan, Thomas

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Pointer, Joseph

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sheehy, David

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

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

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Reddy, Michael

    Snowden, P.

    Wing, Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford).

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Richards, Thomas

    Tennant. Harold John

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    NOES.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Grant, J. A.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baird, J. L.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Bird, Aifred

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

    Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyton, James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Butcher, John George

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campion, W. R.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sandys, G. J.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Strauss. Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Swift, Rigby

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Fell, Arthur

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Weston. Colonel J. W.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mason, James (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Nield, Herbert

    F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Question put accordingly, "That is be Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the Constitution and powers of the Irish Parliament,
    1620
    and the second dealing with the alteration in the Constitution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
    The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 264.

    Division No.131]

    AYES.

    [10.2 p.m.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pease, Herbert (Darlington)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Baird, J. L.

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beach. Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peer

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Boyton, J.

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clivn

    Helmsley. Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clave!l

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Butcher, John George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanderson, Lancelot

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

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton).

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cator, John

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Starkey, John R.

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Swift, Rigby

    Coates. Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell. George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dixon, C. H.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mount. William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nield, Herbert

    Gastrell. Major W. H.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    F. Banbury and Mr. J. C. Lyttelton.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Adamson, William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Clough, William

    Falconer, J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ftrench, Peter

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Field, William

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fitzglbbon, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilton.

    Barton, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Cullinan, John

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

    Goldstene, Frank

    Birrell, Rt. Hon.' Augustine

    Dawes, J. A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Black, Arthur

    Delany, William

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Boland, John Plus

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hackett, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dillon, John

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Brady, P. J.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Doris, William

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Duffy, William J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    1622

    1623

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Molloy, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mooney, John J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hewart, Gordon

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rowlands, James

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Muldoon, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich)

    Munro. R.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hudson, Walter

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Neilson, Francis

    Sheehy, David

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    John, Edward Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Snowden, Philip

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Dowd, John

    Sutherland, John E.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Grady, James

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Malley, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Toulmin. Sir George

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    King, Joseph

    O'Shee, James John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Outhwaite. R. L.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wardle, George J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Webb, H.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pirie, Duncan V

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pointer,. Joseph

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    McGhee, Richard

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Radford, George Heynes

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Winfrey, Richard

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wing, Thomas

    Manfield, Harry

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rendall. Athelstan

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Martin, Joseph

    Richards, Thomas

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Richardson. Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

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

    Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bill considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the chair.]
    The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the order of the House of 23rd June, procecded forthwith to put the Question, "That the
    Chairman do report the Bill without Amendment to the House."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 143.

    Division No. 133.]

    AYES.

    [10.12 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Barton, William

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Adamson, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Bethell. Sir J. H.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Boland, John Pius

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Clough, William

    Barnes, George N.

    Boyle. Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Phillipps, Colonel lvor (Southampton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cowan, W. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cullinan, J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    King, J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Richards, Thomas

    Dillon, John

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Doris, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs,

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Maclean, Donald

    Robinson, Sidney

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford. 'N.)

    Mac Neill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Rowlands, James

    Falconer, James

    M' Curdy, Charles Albert

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M 'Kean, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Field, William

    M 'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Manfield, Harry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sheehy, David

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Martin, Joseph

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ginnell, L.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Snowden, Philip

    Greenwood Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Spicer, Rt Hon. Sir Albert

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molloy, Michael

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Griffith, Ellis J

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, Wes)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sutherland, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, John J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hackett, John

    Morgan. George Hay

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morrell, Philip

    Thomas, J. H.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hardie. J. Keir

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Muldoon, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

    Munro, Robert

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wadsworth, John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Neilson, Francis

    Wardle, George J.

    Hayward, Evan

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradestony

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hewart, Gordon

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

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

    Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Malley. William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O 'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wing, Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    O' Shee, James John

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

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Astor, Waldorf

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    1626

    1627

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Blair, Reginald

    Hamersley, Alfred St George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyton, James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Butcher, John George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

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

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Campion, W. R.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cator, John

    Hoare. Samuel John Gurney

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

    Cave, George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Starkey, John R.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Jardine. Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Swift, Rigby

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell. George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Terrell. Henry (Gloucester)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Locker-Lampson; O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lytteiton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Walrond, Lionel

    Fell, Arthur

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Worthington-Evans. L.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nield, Herbert

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Peel, Lieut-Colonel R. F.

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow (Tuesday).

    APPELLATE JURISDICTION [SALARIES AND PENSIONS].
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salaries and Pensions of every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect. to the number and duties of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary."—[Sir Refus Isaacs.]
    Mr. MARTIN: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to add the words, "provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed the. sum of £10,000."
    I endeavoured in a general way on the Second Reading to point out the objec-
    1628
    tions to the principle of this Bill that are so manifest. I did not care very much what judges were appointed in the House of Lords. It is the gross waste of public money in connection with this Bill which, after all, I feel bound to prevent as far as possible. It is true that in speaking upon the Bill itself I submitted that if these judges were to be appointed, £6,000 per annum each was much too large a salary, and it may perhaps be suggested that I am inconsistent now in proposing that the salary of the judges shall he confined to £5,000 per annum. But I can allow no personal charges of inconsistency against myself to interfere with my protest against the passing of the Bill. The Government have not seen fit to explain to us why, while last year, in endeavouring to pass this Bill, they attempted to oil its way through this House by themselves reducing the salaries of these two Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary to £5,000, because the salary of the present Lords of Appeal is £6,000 a year each. That was the proposition last year. The salaries were to be £1,000 a year less in each case. There are

    1629
    already more judges in the House of Lords than are necessary for the business that comes before them. There are now between twenty and twenty-five judges available in the House of Lords, most of them receiving pensions from the Government.
    The CHAIRMAN:This appears to be a rediscussion of the Second Reading of the Bill, or else to anticipate some discussion in Committee. The Financial Resolution simply empowers the Committee on the Bill to consider the proposals inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. MARTIN:I am trying to justify the proviso which I wish to add. I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I was directing my argument to the fact that the present Lords of Appeal each receives £6,000 a year, and this general Resolution provides money for other purposes of the Bill. If I am not in error, the result of passing that general Resolution is that the Bill would provide £6,000 a year for each of these judges. My proviso is that only £5,000 a year shall be allowed. Surely it is a proper question for the Committee at the present time to consider whether or not they will adopt my proviso. I have to go into the question of the number of judges to show that the addition to the Resolution which I propose is a proper one.
    The CHAIRMAN: This appears to be a xediscussion of the Second Reading of the Bill, or else to anticipate some discussion in Committee. The Financial Resolution simply empowers the Committee on the Bill to consider the proposals inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. MARTIN: I am trying to justify the proviso which I wish to add. I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I was directing my argument to the fact that the present Lords of Appeal each receives £6,000 a year, and this general Resolution provides money for other purposes of the Bill. If I am not in error, the result of passing that general Resolution is that the Bill would provide £6,000 a year for each of these judges. My proviso is that only £5,000 a year shall be allowed. Surely it is a proper question for the Committee at the present time to consider whether or not they "will adopt my proviso. I have to go into the question of the number of judges to show that the addition to the Resolution which I propose is a proper one.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is not the time to consider the salaries. The Financial Resolution simply empowers the Committee to consider the question which the hon. Gentleman is now raising. We cannot go into the details of the Clauses.
    Mr. MARTIN: My Amendment is not cut of order then?
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Mr. MARTIN: If it is not out of order, surely I can support it?
    The CHAIRMAN: It depends on the manner of the support.
    Mr. MARTIN: I can say nothing about the manner, but really my object is to prevent a waste of public money. I am willing to furnish some money, but not to give the right to get any money they may think necessary. If I am out of order in that, I shall have to sit down. I think I have the very best argument in the world for asking the Committee to confine the Government to £10,000, which is like dropping a capital sum of £300,000 for no
    1630
    purpose whatever, except it means some arrangement between the Front Bench opposite and the Government Front Bench. The Opposition are always talking about hordes of officials, but they never fail to vote in favour of any addition, especially if they happen to be in some profession. I understand there is an arrangement between the Front Benches of both sides by which one of the new Lords of Appeal will be a Tory, and the other a Liberal, and that is the— reason[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I might be able to give the names, but that would be betraying a confidence. I suppose that is the reason so far why we have been unable to wake up any hon. Members opposite with regard to the throwing away of this money. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) and other hon. Members are quite accustomed to move Amendments of this kind, asking to have the money placed at the disposal of the Government, limited in some way. I do hope in spite of any such arrangement if there be one, I shall have some support from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who make such large claims to be economists. Last year, when this measure was before the House, we had a very large measure of support from the Labour party, but on the Second Reading this year we had no help from them whatever. I think there is a misunderstanding in the Labour party. The Government appointed a very able Member of that party, the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), on a Commission, which is still sitting, with regard to the question——
    The CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member is dealing with the Bill as a whole, and had better keep to the Amendment.
    Mr. MARTIN:I was really trying to follow your ruling. I have been trying to do that all the time. My point is simply that the Government shall not have an unlimited amount of money for the purpose of appointing judges to the House of Lords. I was endeavouring, when called to order, to interest the Labour party. I hope and expect, before the discussion is over, some Member of that party will join me in supporting this very simple provision that the amount should not exceed £10,000 per annum. That is a large sum of money. One thing certain is that once we pass this Resolution providing the money, the Bill will never be repealed, but these Gentlemen will be there for all time to come, and this sum of

    1631
    £12,000 per annum, which the Government propose to waste in this manner, will be a permanent annual charge upon the nation. When that is appreciated, I am satisfied the Committee will agree that even at this late stage in the Session, when there is so much pressing legislation waiting to go through the House, I am justified in urging the necessity of imposing this limit. Apart from the arguments which have induced me to come to that conclusion, I think from their own standpoint the Government ought at once to accept this very moderate proposal. It is all they asked for last year. A very noticeable feature in the proceedings of the House at the present time is that in connection with a large part of our work we have no explanation from the Government of their reasons for taking any particular course. We have certainly had none in this case. I expected that as soon as the Order was read the Attorney-General would explain why he wanted an unlimited amount this year, when last year he was willing to do with £10,000. This afternoon, when a similar Resolution was before the Committee, a Minister of the Crown gave more or less elaborate explanation of the reasons for it. Why has that not been done in this case? I am in great difficulty in arguing the question, because I really do not know why the Government have departed from the more righteous course which they pursued last Session of limiting the salaries of these judges to £5,000.
    The CHAIRMAN:I would point out that the hon. Member has already repeated the same statement four times. As he is aware, that cannot be allowed in our Debates.
    Mr. MARTIN:I will endeavour not to transgress again. I have dealt so far with the proposed amount, and given my reasons. There is another and perhaps a better reason for economising in this way. We know very well that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is depending a great deal on chance. He has taken the chance of an increase in different items of revenue, instead of imposing additional taxation to raise the immense amount of money required by this Government to pay the nation's expenses. In that contingency am I not right when it has not been shown that these judges are necessary at all, to call upon the Government for an explanation? If it is doubtful that the revenue
    1632
    will be sufficient to meet the charges it is most important that we should be very very careful indeed in giving the Government this unlimited money that they ask for. The people of the country have been told that the Government cannot take off the taxes on tea and sugar, because they need all the money that these taxes wilt bring into the Treasury. They come down to this House knowing that there will be a deficit at the end of the present financial year, and propose to spend another £12,000 per annum. No provision has been made for it. This House is not, and can never be justified, in passing a Financial Resolution until they are satisfied that the money wilt be in the Treasury when it is wanted. We have no proposals as to how this money is to be raised.
    The CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member appears to think that on each Financial Resolution he can discuss the whole Budget of the year.
    Mr. MARTIN:I do not say that.
    The CHAIRMAN:Unless the Member is able to make his remarks more applicable to this particular Resolution, I think he must not continue them.
    Mr. MARTIN:I do not wish to continue longer than necessary, but I feel very much the importance of opposing this. When we are asked to pass a Resolution of this kind we are entitled to put on some limiting Amendment. If it was clear that there was going to be a large surplus this year there would not be the same reason for scrutinising so closely this financial transaction of the Government. If the Budget had shown us that there was going to be a large surplus——
    The CHAIRMAN:I must call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    Mr. WATT:I desire to support——
    Sir F. BANBURY:On a point of Order. Do I understand that an Amendment has been moved?
    Mr. MARTIN:I moved an Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN:No Amendment——
    Mr. MARTIN:I meant to move it.
    The CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member for St. Pancras no doubt intended to move if he had had time, but he did not succeed in doing so. The time of actual moving is at the end of an hon. Member's speech.
    Mr. WATT:I rise then to move as an Amendment, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "Such provision not to exceed the sum of £10,000 in any one year."
    As my hon. and learned Friend has said, there is no limitation of the finance in this Resolution before the Committee, and my hon. and learned Friend desired to limit it to £10,000 in any financial year. This figure was the figure the Government put in to its own Bills in previous years. The Committee may not be aware that this is the third attempt at this Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. On the two former occasions it met with such a reception that the Government thought it unwise to pursue it further. In the two previous Bills the salaries of these Lords of Appeal were fixed at £5,000 each, and on these occasions the Labour Members voted against that proposal, but now, no doubt on account of the greater cost of living, the salaries are raised to £6,000. But that does not cover all the cost. Each of these two Lords of Appeal is to be provided with a secretary or amanuensis. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 4th of June, what were the salaries paid to these amanuenses, and I was told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that each judge of the Court of Appeal had a clerk with a salary of £400, but that the clerks were not entitled to a pension, for which the Committee no doubt will feel thankful. So that there will be £12,000 per year paid to these two new Lords of Appeal and £800 to their amanuenses. I should like the Committee to know the amount of the present salaries paid to the Lords of Appeal and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I find that £175,312 18s. 8d. are the figures at present paid to the Noble Lords who administer the law in the House of Lords and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. How many cases are these Noble Lords called upon to decide?
    The CHAIRMAN:This is clearly an attempt to discuss stages of the Bill out of their proper order, which cannot be allowed to continue. The hon. Member, in his remarks, is dealing with the Second Reading or the Committee stages of the Bill, but not with the Financial Resolution.
    Mr. WATT: Am I not entitled to point out, in trying to limit this Financial Resolution, what Noble Lords who administer the law are already paid?
    The CHAIRMAN:On many occasions both Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committee have ruled you cannot have a Committee stage, corresponding to the Committee of a Bill, on a Money Resolution. I doubt if the speech the hon. Member is now delivering could be delivered as pertinent to the latter case. It is certainly not pertinent to the Money Resolution.
    Mr. WATT:It is certainly difficult to steer one's course between the rocks on the Committee stage of a Money Resolution. As I said, I am moving to limit the figure paid to these gentlemen. In corroboration of what I have said, may I mention in the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill of 1912, dealing with the finances of that measure, there was in Clause 6 provision made that in the case of any Lord of Appeal appointed after the passing of the Act, his appointment shall have effect as if the amount of the salary mentioned therein were £5,000 instead of £6,000 and Section 7 provided that any Lord of Appeal so appointed should have effect as if the amount were £3,500. So that in the two Bills of 1911 and 1912, not only were these salaries to be limited to £5,000, but the pensions were to be smaller in proportion. The Committee are being asked to pass tonight a Financial Resolution which will permit the Government to pay the two Lords of Appeal to be appointed—one a Tory and the other a Liberal—£6,000, and after so many years' service give them pensions greater than in 1911 and 1912.
    Sir A. MARKHAM:I do not think there is a single hon. Member of this House who, if he had to explain the facts of this Bill to his constituency would dare to vote in favour of it. Whenever the two Front Benches in this House agree to put through a measure, the independent Member is always right if he votes against them. This is an attempt to get through this measure with the smallest amount of discussion. The point I wish to raise is that without any limitation of the amount to be paid the House is going to vote on this question, and it will be possible for the Government under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876 to vote sums of money giving pensions of £3,500 a year to those particular judges you are now going to appoint if they serve for even twelve or eighteen months. I cannot think that the House really recognises the fact that the present Government has actually granted to judges in the

    1635
    House of Lords who have not served two years, annual pensions of £3,500 a year, and the Labour party voted for granting these judges that amount. The Labour party cannot justify their votes to their constituents, and we should insist that the amount of pension a public servant receives for the discharge of his duty should be in some way commensurate with the time he has served. For that reason, I think that there should be this limitation without which the House parts with all its control, because under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, it entirely lies in the discretion of the Government to say whether these pensions shall be given or not. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
    Sir F. BANBURY:The hon. Baronet has told us that the two Front Benches are in agreement upon this matter. I am not authorised to speak for this Front Bench, but I have not seen any hon. Member show the slightest desire to support this particular measure, and, as far as I know, there has been no agreement such as the hon. Baronet suggests.
    Mr. WATT:The right hon. and learned Member For the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) is most enthusiastically for it.
    Sir F. BANBURY:The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present, and therefore I cannot say what his views are. I rose because the hon. Gentleman opposite challenged those of us on this side of the House who are desirous of preserving the economy which used to distinguish this House to say whether or not we would support his Amendment. I am not certain that I shall be able to support the Amendment in the exact form in which it has been moved, because I am not sure the limit is not too small. But I have always maintained, and shall maintain, that it is not right for this House to give a blank cheque to any Government, and especially not to this
    1636
    Government. I have no confidence in the n financial capabilities of this Government, and I have been asked three times to-night to give them a blank cheque. I object to that, and, therefore, if the hon. Member had proposed a proper limiting Amendment, providing an adequate sum, I should certainly have had to vote for it.
    Mr. WATT:How much?
    Sir F. BANBURY:The hon. Member said the present judges had a salary of £6,000. There are to be two appointed, and twice £6,000 is £12,000. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the amount to £13,000 a year, in which case I shall certainly vote for him. I am not at all sure that as a protest I shall not vote for the Amendment as it stands, although I do not think the hon. Member has put down the right amount. In case I do that I should like to make my position clear. I have no objection to the appointment of more judges, as I know that the legislation of the present Government is Such that a great many more judges will be required in order to unravel the mess we get into in this House. Therefore, it must be perfectly understood if I vote with the hon. Member it is not because I object to the appointment of additional judges, but merely upon the ground that I decline to give a blank cheque to any person, whoever he may be.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
    Considered in Committee; reported to the House without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Adjourned at Seven minutes after Eleven of the clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  AMENDING BILL.
  AMENDING BILL.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Devon County Council (Motor Traffic).
  Devon County Council (Motor Traffic).
  Road Board.
  Road Board.
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  British Beekeepers' Association.
  British Beekeepers' Association.
  Belfast Licensed. Houses.
  Belfast Licensed. Houses.
  Teachers' Pensions.
  Teachers' Pensions.
  Evicted. Tenant Reinstated (County Kerry).
  Evicted. Tenant Reinstated (County Kerry).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Secondary Schools (Ireland.).
  Secondary Schools (Ireland.).
  Rathmullen (Landing Place).
  Rathmullen (Landing Place).
  Registrar-General's Department (Ireland).
  Registrar-General's Department (Ireland).
  Kilkenny Magistracy.
  Kilkenny Magistracy.
  Osborne Naval Cadets.
  Osborne Naval Cadets.
AIRCRAFT.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
  AEROPLANES PURCHASED.
  AEROPLANES PURCHASED.
  Bacteriology of Milk.
  Bacteriology of Milk.
  San Thomé and Principé (Repatriation).
  San Thomé and Principé (Repatriation).
  Trade Boards Act (Laundries).
  Trade Boards Act (Laundries).
  Railway Rates.
  Railway Rates.
  Central Telegraph Office.
  Central Telegraph Office.
  Benefices Act.
  Benefices Act.
  County Police (Rifles).
  County Police (Rifles).

VISCOUNT LIFFORD.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Viscount Lifford to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Southampton Harbour.

Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Railless Traction).

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:

Tramways Provisional Orders.

Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in
The London County Council (General Powers) Bill
ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
SILLOTH GAS BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Private 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 Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly.

ASCOT AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
THE CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of all the parties if I announce that I have put up a notice to the effect that Monday next, to-day week, at 3 p.m. will be the last hour at which Petitions against this Bill will be received by your Lordships' House.

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LYMM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
SWANAGE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
SILLOTH GAS BILL.
Committed.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill and one other Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Liverpool Corporation Bill and the West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be beard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL. (No. 87.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL. (No. 88.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL. (No. 89.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
HEATHFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

MAC COLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.
TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
DUNDEE BOUNDARIES BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Charnwood be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Lovat; read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
The National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions Amendment) Regulations (Scotland), 1913, dated 14th June, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, under the Act as to payment of contributions in the case of certain contributors receiving a low rate of remuneration and as to payment of arrears by Deposit Contributors: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 90.)

McBRIDE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committe, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGUMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Violet McBride to be entitled to maintenance.
5. The said William McBride shall pay to your subject during her life the annual sum of two hundred pounds for her maintenance and shall forthwith execute a proper deed or instrument securing the same to her.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): By agreement between the parties this clause is to be omitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
William McBride not to marry Beatrice Waters.
6. It shall not be lawful for the said William McBride to intermarry with the said Beatrice Waters.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In accordance with the usual practice of your Lordships' House I move that this clause be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

MONEY-LENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND REANDING.]
Order of tile Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill is an amending Bill of a very simple character, and the only new material in it is comprised in Clauses 2 and 3. It contains three novel provisions. The first is that a money-lending company shall be obliged to describe itself as a money-lending company; the second provision is that money-lenders should give their own names in addition to the assumed names which they have adopted; and the third provision is that, circulars from moneylenders should be prohibited unless they have been requested to send them a certain period in advance. The first provision is one to which I do not attach much importance, and upon which I do not think I need waste any time. It is a perfectly obvious provision.
With regard to the second provision—the one which provides that money-lenders shall give their real name in addition to their fictitious name—I have made somewhat singular discovery. I have been informed by a gentleman who is much better acquainted with the tribe of usurers than I am that the reason why these fictitious names are adopted is that the money-lender as a rule lives under his own name in an intensely respectable if not fashionable neighbourhood, and if his real avocation was disclosed he considers, or probably his landlord considers, that the reputation of the neighbourhood would suffer, and the money-lender also considers that he would suffer in social prestige. As a matter of fact he adopts these names, as far as I am able to make out, for a purely sentimental reason; and I submit that sentiment has no business to enter into money-lending at all. At all events no money-lender that I ever heard of displayed any sentiment, and it is not the smallest use appealing to them on sentimental grounds. I submit, therefore, that it is perfectly unnecessary to indulge any person who follows this somewhat dubious profession by studying his fastidious taste with regard to the appellation which he is pleased to bestow upon himself.
But, sentiment apart, the practice of adopting aliases by money-lenders has been grossly abused. In 1900 an Act was passed dealing with money-lenders. Under
690
that Act they were allowed to register themselves under the fictitious names to which I have alluded; but it was clearly the intention of the Act that this should apply merely to persons who had been trading under these fictitious names, because it was thought a hardship to deprive them of their use after they had used them so long. And I would point out what great services have been rendered with regard to this matter by Truth, both in the time of Mr. Labouchere and since his death. It has been frequently pointed out in that newspaper that owing to the laxity of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue numbers of these usurers have been permitted to register themselves in an improper, or at all events totally unnecessary manner. I find, for instance, that one Blumberg by name converted himself into Burton. A certain Samuel Cohen blossomed forth into the name of Curzon. A certain Josiah Abrahams became Rosslyn Stuart; and. Mr. Abraham Cohen converted himself into L. Fortescue, Ltd. I myself the other day prosecuted one of these people for sending to a daughter of mine who happened, fortunately, not to have reached the age of 21, a circular offering to let her have, if she required it, £50,000 in bank notes unknown to me; and this personage wrote under the imposing title of Harms-worth, Limited. Harmsworth, Limited, turned out to be a creature of the name of Levene, who, associated with his brother, presumably represented the company in question.
In addition to this, it has for some time, also owing to the laxity of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, been the practice of these money-lenders who desire to trade under aliases to form themselves into bogus companies, consisting, I believe, in many cases of the usurer himself and his clerk and a few dummies. This practice has been frequently called attention to and commented on in the Law Courts. I observe that Abraham Cohen alias Fortescue, Limited, was prosecuted not long ago; and the magistrate held that this was not a company formed for a lawful purpose within the meaning of the Companies Acts. Were the registers at Somerset House examined I am convinced that in a large number of cases it would be found that bogus companies had been formed practically for the purpose of defeating the various Aloney-lenders Acts. This practice was denounced by the late Lord Macnaghten as defeating the very

691
object of the Act of 1900 by preventing the disclosure of the real names of people carrying on this particular business.
Under this Bill I do not propose to make these people change their names altogether. I merely propose that in addition to the fictitious names which they have assumed they should add their own. Moses and Aaron, for instance, trading, say, as Crewe and Lansdowne, would be obliged to disclose their identity. And I really cannot see that any injustice is perpetrated by a proposal of this kind. I have always been given to understand ever since I can remember anything that one of the most persistent of these people who circularise us is the representative of a noble Lord who is a member of this House. Therefore if this Bill passes it is possible that interesting disclosures may be made; and it may possibly be a consolation to some unfortunate young man who is paying, say, 150 per cent., which is about the usual rate charged by these people, to discover that instead of paying this exorbitant interest to a Semitic plebeian his debt is to some patrician of ancient and distinguished lineage.
With regard to the suppression of these circulars unless they are applied for—and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent anybody asking to have the circulars sent to him if lie so desires—I would point out that there has been a most portentous development of this particular kind of business. The development has been so great that it almost looks as if the usurers were making the best of their time in fear that some steps might be taken to interfere with the practice at some not remote date. The gentleman whom I came in contact with the other day admitted sending out 50,000 circulars a year. That gives sonic indication of the enormous mass of this kind of literature. As a matter of fact, these circulars shower upon everyone—upon the young and the old, the rich and the poor—in a positively unending stream, varying in appearance from communications which look as if they were confidential communications from ladies in high position to open envelopes with ½d. stamps, which are liable to be opened by the office boy, by servants, or by any persons employed on the premises. I believe that the mischief which is done by the broadcast circulation of these documents has been the cause of an enormous amount of harm. It is perfectly true that it is an offence to
692
send these circulars to minors. But the moral offence of sending a circular of this kind to a boy or girl just over the age of 21 is as great as, if not greater than, that of sending it to somebody under that age. The essence really of the advertising usurer's proceedings is to get the young and the ignorant into his clutches by misleading statements, and then remorselessly exact all that he possibly can from the unfortunate parents or relatives subsequently. I should very much doubt whether this practice of permitting these circulars to be sent unchecked all over the country is allowed to prevail in any other civilised State. I am under the impression that there are stringent regulations in every other country which prevent a practice of this kind. I have even received communications from moneylenders themselves, those of a more respectable type, who strongly denounce the practice.
It will, perhaps, have been observed that I do not propose to interfere with the advertisements of money-lenders in the Press. If it is asked why money-lenders' advertisements should not be treated in the same way as this House has decided that advertisements of bookmakers shall be treated, I think the reply is obvious. Betting, if it is not a luxury, is an amusement; you cannot describe it as a necessity. On the other hand, nobody would dream of borrowing money unless he was literally obliged to. There is no amusement about it whatever. And it is quite conceivable that cases might arise in winch a person who wanted to borrow money at short notice might find a certain amount of convenience in the fact that these advertisements appeared in the Press. Bat to be quite candid I am not solely actuated by feelings of this kind. Warned by recent experience I recognise the extreme danger of setting the Press against me. I am aware that if I included the Press in this Bill a certain section of the Press, which probably makes a good thing out of these advertisements, would at once fall upon me, and not only would they prove that I was a person unfit for human intercourse, but they would succeed in persuading a number of gentlemen in another place to oppose this Bill on the ground that it infringed high moral principles. As the Bill is drawn, so far from meeting with opposition from the Press, I trust that the Press will be on my side, because it is perfectly obvious that if the Bill passes the money-lender will be

693
obliged to have recourse to the Press instead of relying upon the post as he does at the present moment.
There are only two observations with which I desire to conclude. One is that I think the public generally is under a great debt of gratitude to Truth in connection with the campaign which it has always waged against these men, who, in my opinion, are one of the greatest curses of modern life. The second observation I desire to offer is this. I own to feeling strongly on the matter myself, because years ago a relative of my own had the misfortune to fall into the clutches of the late Mr. Samuel Lewis, a money-lender who amassed an enormous fortune at the expense of the gilded youth of this country. This Mr. Samuel Lewis, for some inscrutable reason, was looked upon as a favourable specimen of his profession. My experience of him produced precisely the opposite effect. He insisted on my unfortunate relative paying him more than three times as much as he had ever borrowed, and the effect was that he eventually ruined him. All I can say is that if Samuel Lewis was a favourable specimen of his class then the other members of the profession are even worse than I imagined them to be, and I do not think we need be dissuaded from passing legislation by any fear of being too severe on usurers.
In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill I feel little doubt that my request will be assented to. I have noticed, as probably many other noble Lords and possibly the public may have noticed also, that uncontentious and unpretentious measures of this kind receive a sympathetic reception in and pass through this House without any difficulty; but when they go down to the more democratic Assembly difficulties arise and all sorts of obstacles are put forward in face of what most people would consider to be perfectly reasonable and unobjectionable measures. I trust that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who I have reason to believe is in some sympathy with me, will give this Bill his benediction; and I hope that if such approval is expressed it will have some weight when the Bill goes to another place, and that with luck the Bill may possibly be passed as a noncontentious and unopposed measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on having introduced this very useful Bill. It is not, perhaps, a measure which will excite a great deal of enthusiasm throughout the country, but it is of a practical nature, and I feel certain that it can do nobody any harm. I do not imagine that there will be any opposition to it in this House. Indeed, I hope that the same support will be given to this Bill by your Lordships as was extended last month to a similar Bill of a social character introduced by Lord Newton, but which, as the noble Lord hinted, has apparently not made very much progress in another place. There is probably no member of this House who does not receive one of these circulars weekly. I do. I have never borrowed any money in my life; yet I am pestered almost clay by day with these circulars. What I do is this. I send Mr. A.'s letter to Mr. B., and vice versa, because I think it is sad that the circulars should be wasted—and I do not pay the postage. But I continue to receive them all the same.
This Bill will not prevent anyone from borrowing money who needs it. Advertisements in the newspapers will show any man who wants money where he can go to borrow it. But what the Bill will do is this. It will prevent a man who is in temporary difficulty and who is of weak will from acting on the spur of the moment when he receives one of these circulars offering a loan at five per cent. Such a man might say, "I can pay five per cent., and nobody will know anything at all about it." And when he gets into the hands of the money-lender what does he find? He finds that he has to pay, not, as he thought, five per cent. per annum, but five per cent. per month, and perhaps per week—Heaven alone knows whether it is not per day. He repents of his action probably within twenty-four hours after he has sent off the letter, but he is in the money-lender's hands and he never gets out again. Lord Newton has told your Lordships what happened in the case of one of his own relatives. I cannot conceive anything more wicked than for a moneylender to destroy a man's prospect in life simply for vile gain. And the moneylender in question was said to have been one of the best of the tribe!
I hope we are going to pass this Bill. What pleases me more than anything is

695
to see a noble Lord coming forward as Lord Newton has clone with these little social measures, which to my mind are of more service to humanity than many of the Bills of a sensational character brought forward in another place, of which it may be said that it is doubtful whether very often they do not do more harm than good. Useful little Bills like the one now before us find a happy reception here, and I thank God for it. I trust that the House of Lords will always show itself willing, wherever it can, to improve the social condition of the people, to prevent unnecessary loss of money and of property, and to encourage in every way those virtues which tend to make good citizens. I have great pleasure in giving my humble support to the noble Lord's Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, thirteen years ago the Money-lenders Act passed through Parliament. Much was expected of it, and it has effected a good deal. But experience has disclosed gaps in its construction, and it is with some of those gaps that Lord Newton's Bill deals. As to the attitude of the Government towards the Bill, it is this. We look on the Bill with favour; we recognise the evils with which it proposes to deal, and are desirous of seeing them redressed; and when the Bill reaches another place it will receive our benevolent attention. We cannot promise to give Government time, which, as the noble Lord knows, is very fully engaged; but if the Bill meets with a favourable reception in the House of Commons, as I think it undoubtedly will, the noble Lord may count upon this, that, with the qualification I have just made, any assistance the Government can give will be gladly given to this Bill.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, before the Question is put I should like to be allowed to say a word or two in support of this Bill. The general impression is that this is a Bill to protect the rich. That, in my judgment, is not the case. It may protect the rich to a certain extent, but its chief usefulness will be in protecting the weak, who are the principal sufferers from the proceedings of money-lenders. I have come in contact in the North of England with a great number of cases where moneylenders have got hold of poor men whose only property is their furniture. These men are tempted at times of financial pressure to give bills of sale upon their
696
furniture, and enormous interest is charged. Many cases of this kind have come to my notice where money-lenders have got control of these poor creatures and have kept them under their thumb during the whole of their lives, threatening to take possession of their furniture and very often doing so. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give a favourable consideration to this Bill and I am convinced, if the Members of the other House were fully acquainted with the evils which arise among the comparatively poor, that instead of attempting to prevent this Bill becoming law they would be only too glad to assist in its rapid passage.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the general feeling of the House will be that a debt of gratitude is clue to my noble friend for the crusade which he has undertaken against the kind of abuses with which this Bill is intended to deal. I shall certainly gladly give him my vote if he requires it. He has pointed out the new provisions which the Bill contains. There can be no doubt that the clause under which the tribe of moneylenders will henceforth be compelled to register themselves, not only under their private name but under their alias or aliases, because I fancy that a great number of them trade under more than one assumed name, is entirely desirable, and I trust that it may become law. The further provision that a firm of money-lenders trading as a body corporate should be obliged to disclose the fact that they are money-lenders seems to me also to be a very appropriate alteration in the law.
The only part of the Bill with regard to which I feel any doubt is the third clause, in which it is made a punishable offence for a money-lender to send circulars to any one unless that person has in writing made a request to that effect. I do not for a moment suggest that it is desirable that these circulars should be issued broadcast; but when it is suggested, as it was a moment ago, that it is the business of Parliament to protect all persons of weak will from temptations of this kind, I am inclined to ask myself whether we do not sometimes go rather too far in so protecting them. As my noble friend explained to us, under the law as it now stands these money-lending gentry are entitled to advertise themselves. They can advertise

697
to any extent in any newspaper the business which they carry on and the terms upon which they are ready to lend money. I never like inserting provisions of this kind into a Bill unless one can feel sure that the protection will be an effectual one. But what kind of protection are von offering if the individual of weak will whom we are to think about can find in any newspaper that he picks up an announcement that such and such a firm is prepared to lend him money on such and such terms? The point is not a Second Reading point, and it is one which we may perhaps consider further when we come to Committee.
One word with regard to the form of the Bill. My noble friend has not attempted to consolidate the law with regard to money-lenders, although he has, and I think very properly, repealed the second section of the Act of 1900 and substituted a new clause containing the old section plus certain alterations which he has specified; hut, on the other hand, he has allowed the Act of 1911,which is also referred to, to stand intact, so that the simplification of the law which one would have hoped for has not really been carried very far. I dare say my noble friend will consider the points to which I have referred, but in the meantime I, for one, welcome his Bill and feel grateful to him for having introduced it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. As your Lordships will remember, in the year 1907 I brought in a Bill dealing with the whole subject of joint stock companies, and by that measure all public companies were obliged to file an annual balance sheet
698
with the Registrar of Joint Steel; Companies. During the debates on that Bill it was pointed out that that clause might act hardly on certain private companies, and consequently private companies were ex-eluded subject to their fulfilling certain conditions. It was provided that for the purposes of the Act the expression "private company" meant a company which by its articles—

(a) restricts the right to transfer its shares; and

(b) limits the number of its members (exclusive of persons who are in the employment of the company) to fifty; and

(c) prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares or debentures of the company.

For several years this went on all right; but a short time ago a case was tried—[Park v. The Royalties 'Syndicate [1912] 1 K.B. 330]—in which the Court decided that a company continued to be a private company if the conditions I have referred to were contained in their articles of association, and that they did not lose the privileges and exemptions conferred on private companies if they failed to obey their own articles.
I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with the details of the actual case; but I may state that we took proceedings against the company in question in two Courts and that in both the decision was given against, us. Therefore the law as it stands is this, that any company can enjoy the privileges of a private company provided they put into their articles of association time three definitions to which I have referred, and by breaking them they incur no penalty. This, of course, is an impossible position; and it is for this reason that I am introducing the Bill now before the House, which provides that in future any private company not complying with the provisions set forth in the Bill will become a public company and lose all time advantages of a private company. That in effect is all that the Bill contains, and I ask your Lordships to accord it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is a small Bill, and I think it will be better if I say something of the history with regard to it before explaining its actual provisions. When originally introduced the Bill was a good deal more ambitious in character than it is at the present time. It was not only compulsory, but applied to all local government elections as well as to Parliamentary elections. In this condition it passed its Second Reading and also through Standing Committee in another place, but when it was discussed upon the Report Stage in the whole House an Amendment was introduced limiting it to a considerable extent. Your Lordships will see that it now applies only to Parliamentary elections, and it does not apply at all unless a duly nominated candidate requests that it may apply to that particular election.
There are many differences and diversities between the character of one constituency and another. While there are a great many constituencies in which the voters live all round the polling booths, there are suburban constituencies which the voters leave early in the morning, soon after the polling booths are opened, and return not more than an hour before the polling booths close, and there is apt to be a great rush at the last moment. In the latter constituencies there may be good reason for making the hours longer which would not be the case in regard to the former constituencies. It is interesting to notice in the case of constituencies of the second character to which I have referred how very large a proportion of the electors record their votes late at night—something like 50 per cent. of them vote within the last two hours. The next most popular hour for voting is the earliest hour of the day. Therefore it really does seem as if there was a real demand for discriminating between the two classes of constituencies, and allowing further facilities in the one class to the electors to record their votes earlier in the morning and later in the evening. Then your Lordships will see that the extension of the hours for polling is only to apply at the request of a duly nominated candidate, and it is obvious that any candidate who made this request unnecessarily would
700
incur an unpopularity which might lose him a certain number of votes. We therefore think it unlikely that a candidate would ask for this extension unless there was a very real ground for it.
This power of extension already exists in regard to most local government elections. The Local Government Act, 1894, for instance, gave the Local Government Board power in the case of rural and urban district council and parish council elections to extend the polling hours, either allowing the booths to be opened earlier in the morning or to remain open until a later hour at night. There was a case only this year in Finchley, where the polling booths 'for the urban district council election were kept open until nine o'clock at night under a Provisional Order made, I think, a good many years ago by the Local Government Board. It is also possible in the case of elections to boards of guardians for the polling booths to remain open until ten o'clock at night. Therefore your Lordships will see that this Bill only extends to Parliamentary elections a privilege which is already enjoyed by voters at local government elections.
This Bill was originally introduced as a private Member's Bill, but now that it has been subjected to scrutiny at the hands of the official draftsman it is thought that further Amendments are desirable in order to make its provisions perfectly clear. There is, for instance, some little doubt as to what "duly nominated candidate" means; and we know how easy it is for lawyers to pick holes in phrases which are not perfectly clear. The word "agent" and the words "after his nomination" are also in need of amendment. Consequently, if your Lordships are good enough to give a Second Reading to the Bill, I propose to move rather extensive Amendments; and I think it might be more desirable that the Bill should be taken through Committee pro forma, and that I should make these Amendments on Report., and then that the Bill should be re-committed—a procedure not unknown in this House, and one which is very convenient in cases of this kind. I hope your Lordships will allow me to take this course. The Bill will then be printed in the form which His Majesty's Government think desirable, and it will be easier to make further Amendments if any of your Lordships desire to do so.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I am certain that none of my noble friends on this side of the House will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. But I must enter a protest against the practice of bringing ill these small electoral measures—there is this measure extending the hours of polling, and a measure will reach your Lordships from the other House before long dealing with the subject of plural voting—when the better course would have been to bring in the long promised and long overdue Bill to deal with the franchise, redistribution, and everything else. As regards the general principle of the Bill now before us, I agree with the noble Earl that there are two classes of constituencies to be considered. There is the constituency which is close to the polling places and polls easily, and there is the constituency which polls with difficulty either because of its size or because a large number of the electors work at a distance from home. In the latter case every facility should he given to the electors to record their votes.
But there are other considerations. There is a certain class of people in this country who always put off everything to the last moment. Some people are always late for trains, others are always late for church, and there is an abominable class who are always late for dinner; and from long experience as a candidate I can assure your Lordships that if the hours of polling were extended to eleven o'clock or even to midnight there would always be a certain number of voters who would be late. Where the working-classes have difficulty in recording their votes during the present hours of polling I would gladly give them extended facilities, but when you come to small constituencies of 4,000 or 5,000 electors it is quite unnecessary to keep the poll open during the hours proposed. The presiding officer is pretty hard worked now. He and his staff have to be in their place at half-past seven in the morning, half an hour before the polling booth opens, and they are compelled to remain until half-past eight at night. Where you have a big constituency these gentlemen, of course, would have to put up with the extra work, but in the case of a small constituency I do not believe that it is necessary to extend the hours.
There is another objection. An extension of the hours of polling would mean
702
that the result of the election would be declared very late at eight, and the later the declaration is delayed the more likely you are to have scenes of disorder. I do not think the extension should be made at the request of a candidate, because it is obvious that if one candidate expressed a desire that the hours of polling should be extended the other candidate would be bound to agree or he would be accused of wanting to disfranchise electors. This Bill, if passed, should, I suggest, be limited to large constituencies of 10,000 electors and upwards. I am just as anxious as the Government that working men should be given an opportunity of recording their votes, but an extension of the present hours is not required in other than large constituencies. I hope that before the Committee stage is taken the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will consider the points I have raised.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, if this Bill is adopted in its present form I am afraid that it will land us in a predicament. The first clause provides that when a duly nominated candidate or his agent has given notice in writing on the day of and immediately after nomination to the returning officer that he wishes this Bill to apply at such election, then the poll shall commence at seven o'clock in the morning and be kept open until nine o'clock in the evening of the same clay. But suppose the candidate on the other side certifies to the returning officer that he desires that the hours should not be extended. To which of the two would be given the choice? It appears to me to be entirely wrong to give to one man the power of extending the hours of polling in the way proposed. It ought to be limited to large constituencies—which I do not think is so good a plan—or else the candidate ought to be required to be supported in his request by a certain number of the electors. If this Bill passes in its present form a candidate may extend the polling in his constituency at his own sweet will. That would not be allowed even in the case of an election in a London club. I think we ought to require a backing of a considerable number of the electors before any extension is made.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of saving that the course which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill suggests seems to us to be

703
entirely advisable. I understand that he will insert the Government Amendments in the Bill and then re-commit it for the purpose of discussion. I have no doubt he will consider the observations which have been made by my noble friend behind me and by the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite, both of whom speak with authority upon all subjects connected with elections. The only suggestion that occurs to me is much less far-reaching. Under the Bill I understand that at the request of the candidate or his agent the polling hours may be extended so that instead of the poll remaining open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. it may remain open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Might it not be possible to add a little elasticity to the arrangement by permitting any extension within those limits—I mean, for example, an extension
704
which would leave the poll open, say from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. or from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider that point before the Bill comes up again.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Joint Committee that the Bill ought not to be allowed to proceed: The said Report (with the Proceedings of the Committee) to be printed Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out. (No. 91.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.