Sitting of 8 May 1913

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Chester (Altrincham Division), in the room of John Robert Kebty-Fletcher, esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto 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, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Tuesday, 27th May.
Belfast Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Dundee Boundaries Bill (by Order),
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Silloth Gas Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No.12) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to
2198
Saint Albans." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
Lymm Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 121.]
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877.
Copy presented of Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Seventy-fourth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SPIRIT DUTY.
Copy presented of Statement of the estimated effect of the increase in 1909 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Copy presented of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1912, compared with the four preceding years. Volume I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (STAFF AND WAGES).
Return ordered "showing the number of Staff employed and the amount of Salaries and Wages, respectively, paid by the several Railway Companies of the United Kingdom in each of the weeks ended the 10th day of February, the 18th day of May, the 31st day of August, and the 7th day of December, 1912, in each of the following departments, namely, way and works; Working stock maintenance; (a) locomotive, (b) carriage and wagon; operating and traffic: (a) locomotive, (b) traffic—(1) superinten-

2199
dence, (2) station masters and clerks, (3), signalmen and gatemen, (4) ticket collectors, policemen, porters, etc., (5) guards, (6) collection and delivery of parcels and goods; general (secretary, general manager, accountant, and clerks)."—[Mr. J. M. Robertson.]

EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND BUDGET).
Address for "Return of the Indian Financial Statement and Budget for 1913–14 and discussions thereon in the Legislative Council of the Governor-General (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 144, of Session 1912–13)."—[Sir Henry Havelock-Allan.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congo.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the opposition of the Congo Reform Association has been an obstacle to the formal and long delayed recognition by Great Britain of Belgium's already accomplished annexation of the Congo?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The question of recognising the annexation of the Congo by Belgium has been considered by His Majesty's Government entirely on its merits.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary if he can name any of the 103 Irish representatives in this House, or any representative body in Ireland, who approve of his refusal to wind up the Constabulary Force Pensions Fund; and, if not, will he state on what principle he, as a Home Rule Minister, refuses to defer to Irish public opinion on the subject?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Constabulary Force Fund was created by Statute for the benefit of widows and orphans of subscribers and cannot be diverted to any other purpose save by legislation, and ought not to be so diverted unless it can be shown that owing to change of circumstances the original trusts cannot properly be executed. My right hon. Friend has received many letters
  2200
  from persons directly interested in the fund, protesting against any interference with it; and the resolutions in favour of winding up the fund which he has received from public bodies are almost invariably based on a misapprehension of the facts. He would ask the hon. Member to suspend his judgment until the completion of the actuarial inquiry now in progress enables a full statement with regard to the fund to be published.

  Office of Works Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state the reasons why the Office of Works have not imposed a penalty in the case of Messrs. Colborne, contractors for the erection of a Labour Exchange at Bristol, who have violated the Fair-Wages Clause by sub-letting a part of the contract without permission; and whether it is the practice of the Department to impose no penalty in such cases or to impose a penalty as being calculated to secure better conformity to the conditions of a contract?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The firm in question explained that they were unaware that permission had to be obtained for the sub-letting of the excavation and carting away in connection with the erection of the Bristol Labour Exchange. The Board informed them in March last that their action constituted a breach of the Fair-Wages Clause, that they took a serious view of the matter, and that in the event of a recurrence of any such incident they would be compelled to remove their name from the list of contractors.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Do they not enforce any penalties in consequence of a breach of the contract?
  Mr. BENN: We think what we have done is more effective.
  Mr. THORNE: If they do it again will they be struck off the list of contractors?
  Mr. BENN: The hon. Member had better wait till the circumstances arise.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CHOICE OF DOCTORS.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Wiltshire Insurance Committee at Trowbridge have received an application from

    2201
    over 150 members of various friendly societies resident in the villages of Box and Colerne, in Wiltshire, requesting that they might be allowed to make their own arrangements in the choice of doctors for medical attendance during illness; and on what grounds, if any, the application has been refused?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I am informed by the Wiltshire Insurance Committee that between the 13th January and the end of March they received applications from about 100 insured persons (mostly from the neighbourhoods of Colerne and Box) for permission to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment. These applications were on identical printed forms, and gave no reasons and no indication of what arrangements the applicants proposed to make. The committee were of opinion that there was an organised attempt to break down the panel system, and accordingly decided not to grant the applications. Wherever the committee have received genuine applications, and the reason given and the arrangements proposed have in their opinion been satisfactory, they have given permission.

    INSURED PERSONS (TEMPORARY ABSENCE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the contracts between insurance committees and practitioners approved by the Insurance Commissioners provide that a sum of not less than 1s. 9d. per quarter shall be paid to every practitioner in respect of each insured person on his list at the end of each quarter, or of not less than 7s. per year, for each person on his list during the year, as the case may be; under what Clause in any agreement between insurance committees and practitioners approved by the Insurance Commissioners is a deduction from the capitation fee guaranteed to such practitioners under such agreements for the purposes of treatment of persons temporarily absent from the area of such committees authorised; whether the statements as to remuneration of practitioners set out in the explanatory statement issued to practitioners are binding on the insurance committees and the Commissioners or may be varied; and, if the latter be the case, under what Section of the National Insurance Act or Regulations it is proposed to vary such of those statements as apply to the remuneration of practitioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A doctor is entitled under his contract with the insurance committee to be credited with a sum of 7s. in respect of each insured person for whose treatment he is responsible during the whole year. It follows that a deduction must be made from this sum in respect of every insured person for whom he ceases to be responsible during any portion of that year, in order to pay the doctor who is in fact responsible for his treatment during that period.

    MEDICAL PANEL (LONDON).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the document showing the number of patients over a certain figure on the list of certain doctors on the panel for London issued by the London Insurance Committee was supposed confidential; and, if so, why?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that the document referred to was expressly marked "confidential," and that they caused it to be prepared solely for the information of the members of the committee. The use which has been made of it by other persons who misinterpreted the information it contains illustrates clearly why it should have been treated as confidential.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appeared in the Press two or three days before the Debate in this House, and that copies of it were sent to Members of this House without any mark showing that it was private or confidential?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Then I think someone has behaved very badly in the matter. Personally I never saw any statement of any name in connection with the document until the hon. Gentleman gave the names to the House.

    DOCTORS' ASSISTANTS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the assistants of doctors on the London Insurance Committee panel are responsible to anyone but their medical employers; and whether all such assistants are themselves on the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under the Regulations it is open to any duly qualified assistant to place his name on the panel, and if he joins the panel he is directly responsible

    2203
    to the insurance committee. If he does not join the panel he can only treat insured persons on behalf of his principal when the latter is precluded by urgency of other professional duties, absence from home, or other reasonable cause from giving personal attendance to the insured persons under his care; and in these exceptional cases his principal is responsible for him to the insurance committee.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it was quite fair of him when he spoke in the House last week to suppress the information that those partners have got private practice, and, further, was not the number on the list issued by the London Insurance Committee, therefore, a gross misstatement of the number of people they have to attend?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any attempt last week or at any other time to suppress information which ought to have been given to the House. The hon. Gentleman stated that those doctors have over 5,000 insured persons on the list. I said it was untrue.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many persons those doctors and their partners have in fact to attend to?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That has nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with the Insurance Act. I should regard such an inquiry as an impertinence, and I think they too would regard it so.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to make this system of taking on assistants who take independent practice a permanent part of the system of working the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means. If an assistant is on the panel, the Act and the Regulations give him the right to take patients, and I cannot alter that.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to those who are not on the panel, whether it is intended to keep them as a permanent part in the working of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Those not on the panel can only treat insured persons on behalf of their principals when the latter are themselves precluded from carrying out their professional duties by urgent reasons.
    Mr. FREDERICKHALL (Dulwich): May I ask whether the House is to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it is important for him or the Insurance Commissioners to know whether these doctors have in addition to 6,000 insured patients a large number of other patients on the list, and whether he does not think——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to me to be argumentative.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has been requested by the committee of the Friendly Societies' National Conference to consider the advisability of amalgamating the various Insurance Commissions into one?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the affirmative. Separate Commissions are established by the express provisions of the Insurance Act, which I have no power to override.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether, as a result of the National Insurance Act, the North London district of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows have found it necessary, in order to continue medical benefit for members not falling under the Act, to form a special medical fund, the contributions to which are 8s. 8d. a year, or double the amount charged to members for medical benefit prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not informed of the arrangements which particular societies, or local branches of societies, make for the medical attendance of those of their members who are not insured under the Insurance Act. As I have often stated, I cannot understand why the fact that doctors are receiving an additional Grant in respect of insured members should make them demand not only the increase of about 50 per cent. (which societies are generally prepared to give), but an increase of 100 per cent. in the rates they have hitherto been receiving for those of their old patients who are not insured, and whose medical attendance is therefore a charge falling either upon the private funds of their societies at the expense of their other benefits or directly upon themselves.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if an agreement has been arrived at by the doctors in the Salford district for the provision of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act, by which all the qualified medical men in the district are on the panel, the insurance funds being distributed through a committee of doctors on the basis of medical services actually rendered; if this arrangement is working satisfactorily, both as regards the insured persons and the doctors themselves; and if he will consider as to extending the Salford system to other districts where at present there are not sufficient capable doctors properly to look after the health of the large number of patients allotted to them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Salford Insurance Committee have adopted a method of payment by attendance, which is one of the alternative methods of remuneration prescribed by the Regulations. I am informed that the arrangement is working satisfactorily. It is open to any insurance committee to adopt this method of payment, but except in one or two areas the doctors, who were in all cases consulted by the insurance committees, have prepared a system of payment either in whole or in part by capitation.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether, in view of the large meetings of friendly societies which are to take place all over the country during the Whitsuntide recess, the Prime Minister will give some indication of the amendments which the Government propose to introduce into the National Insurance Act, in order that these conferences may have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the general effectiveness of the amending Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not prepared to give any such indication.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Government intend to apply the machinery of the closure and guillotine to the new National Insurance Act Amending Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question is obviously premature, and I can make no statement on the subject.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman makes up his
    2206
    mind, may I ask whether it would be possible for him to take the opinion of the friendly societies in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told we are doing that.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (ADMINISTRATION ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the joint committee of approved societies or any kindred organisation has asked him to consider the advisability of increasing the administration allowance of approved societies from 3s. 8d. to 4s. a year per insured person, such income to be granted from Parliamentary funds?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Some representations have been received on the subject referred to, but I have received as yet no proof that societies cannot be efficiently administered with the sums available under the present Regulations.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made any representations to the Treasury authorities as to the urgency for a further substantial loan to carry on the work of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and whether he has pointed out to them that the beneficent work of housing the rural labourers in Ireland is at present absolutely suspended for want of further moneys on the same terms as they have been advanced under the Acts of 1906 and 1911?
    Mr. GULLAND: My right hon. Friend has on several occasions represented to the Treasury that if the work referred to in the question is not very shortly to be stopped a further loan of money on Land Purchase terms must be provided. The best opportunity will be offered when the financial provisions of the proposed Land Bill are under consideration.

    Sir Stuart Samuel's Seat.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will obtain from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for this House a Report on the expenditure incurred in connection with the illegal retention of the seat in this House for Whitechapel, in circumstances in which Members had until then been accustomed to resign; what fact that official relies upon to justify the expenditure by differen-

    2207
    tiating the case from previous cases; and whether an application involving public expenditure is held by the auditor to be validly acceded to when made by one of the Treasury's own officials under its direction?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will make such report, as he deems fit, when the matter comes before him in due course, as prescribed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act. As I have already pointed out to the hon. Member, the expenditure was incurred to carry out the desire of a Select Committee of this House.

    Income Tax Collection (Bowles v. the Bank of England).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say what members of the Board of Treasury were present on the 10th July, 1912, and concurred in giving authority to the Bank of England to resist the Bowles claim; whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been furnished with their names; whether that official's attention has been directed to the fact that the authority was to resist what was then known to be, and what the Court held to be, the law; and if he will obtain from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for this House a report on this expenditure and an explanation of how he differentiates the case of the Board of Treasury from that of local authorities, who are in every instance surcharged for expenditure incurred on their authority in resistance to the law?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Tuesday last. The action was taken on the collective responsibility of the Board of Treasury. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will make such report in due course as he thinks fit.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General has got the names of the members of the Board of Treasury who were present on that occasion.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not answer that. The action of the Board of Treasury is always collective responsibility.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House now how the Comptroller and Auditor-General can surcharge Members of the Board of Treasury if he has not got their names?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no legal knowledge of the facts, but if any surcharge was to be made on the Board, I suppose it would be made on the Board as a whole.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether it is a fact that the Treasury exercise a check upon local authorities for irregular payments, and whether there is no check by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Treasury as a spending Department?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Comptroller and Auditor-General reports to this House, through the Public Accounts Committee, irregularities, if any, which the Treasury may have carried on, and then it is for this House to decide what action they will take in the matter.
    Mr. GINNELL: Irregularities have been discovered——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what occasions the Comptroller and Auditor-General has reported the irregularities he has found?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. GINNELL: I shall do so.

    Education Expenditure (Nottingham).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Nottingham education committee has approved estimates of no less than £199,046 for the ensuing year, of which sum £111,319 will be required from the rates; that this is £6,047 over the amount received last year, while the estimated expenditure is £5,147 more than the actual expenditure of 1912–13; that only ten years ago the cost of education was £156,000; that the chairman of the finance committee doubts whether the children leaving the schools to-day are better educated than they were when the expenditure was so much smaller in amount; that if the Board of Education contributed in the same proportion as in 1905 Government Grants would be £109,344 and the draft upon the rates would be £84,517, or

    2209
    upwards of £26,000 less than it now is; that the education committee is helpless and not master in its own house, while charge after charge is piled up for it, able or unable, willing or unwilling, to meet; that, owing to the higher cost of living and innumerable exactions, depreciation of property and shrinkage of income, resulting from recent legislation, there are 6,000 empty houses in Nottingham, which are unsaleable, or saleable only at heavy loss; and whether, in the face of these facts, the Government proposes to force further educational burdens on this already over-burdened community?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): The estimates of education committees are not submitted to the Board of Education, and the accounts for 1912–13 have not yet reached the Board. Out of all the statements made in this question the only one that I have any means of verifying refers to the sum of £156,000 stated in the question to be the cost of education ten years ago. This agrees with the total shown in the financial statement for the year 1904–5. The proposals of the Government will in due course be made known.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the owners of ground values contribute nothing towards the local rates, and whether the Government will take steps to see that they make a contribution for education purposes?
    Mr. KING: May I also ask whether all those evils enumerated in the question do not directly arise out of the Education Act of 1902?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    University Degrees (Tests).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the expressed intention to reform our education from the top downwards, it is the intention, in the forthcoming Education Bill, to abolish tests for degrees in the older universities as well as tests for teachers in elementary schools?
    Mr. PEASE: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Bill.

    Elementary Schools (Overcrowding).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is
    2210
    aware that the last published volume of statistics of his Board shows that a large number of schools have been habitually overcrowded contrary to Article 19 of the Code for elementary schools; whether the authorities controlling and maintaining such overcrowded schools are warned of overcrowding; and whether it is the policy of the Board to enforce its own Code or allow it to become a dead letter?
    Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member cannot expect me to assent to a proposition stated in such general terms as that contained in the first part of the question. In all cases of breaches of the Code which come to the Board's notice warning is given to the local authority and a deduction from the Grant is made if the Board are satisfied that, after warning has been given, no sufficient effort has been made by the local education authority to conform with their Regulations.

    Accidents in Public Works.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, which were reported to have occurred on public works in course of construction or repair during 1910, 1911, and 1912?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am informed by the Board of Trade that the number of reported accidents in connection with the construction or repair of works to which the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, applies was as follows in each of the years mentioned: In 1910, 18 fatal and 415 non-fatal; in 1911, 8 fatal, 437 non-fatal; in 1912, 9 fatal, 420 non-fatal.

    Cocaine Poisoning Case.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inquest held at Henley on 4th February on Mr. Green, who died from cocaine poisoning following upon a dental operation, the drug having been administered by an unqualified person who was severely censured by the jury; to the inquest held on 4th March on Mrs. Petersen, in whose case also cocaine was administered by an unqualified person under similar circumstances; whether he is aware that there are in the United Kingdom 20,000 persons practising as dentists who have not yet qualified; that any layman can administer

    2211
    chloroform or cocaine, ether, and other anæsthetics; and whether it is proposed that, under the National Insurance Act, arrangements with any unqualified person who may succeed in imposing on any insured person shall be officially recognised?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot add anything to the answers given by me to the question of the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on the 26th March, and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member's question of Monday last, except to point out that my Department is not concerned with the administration of the National Insurance Act.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if there is no law relating to dentists in this respect, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is not concerned with that matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that question.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the number of dental surgeons in this country is quite insufficient to attend to the needs of the public, and will he see that no monopoly is established?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

    Police-Constables (Pay).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the rates of pay of police-constables in the Metropolitan Police, the City of London police, and in Bradford, Sheffield, and Bristol respectively?
    Mr. McKENNA: The pay of a police-constable in the Metropolitan Police commences at 27s. a week and rises by annual increments of 1s. to 35s. a week; in addition to this there is a rent aid of 1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. a week, and coal money; and an extra 1s. 6d. a week as reserve pay for a large proportion of the older constables, and 7s. a week for officers serving in public Departments. In the City of London the scale runs from 28s. 6d. to 41s. 6d. In Bradford the scale has just been increased and is now from 28s. to 39s., but the last figure is given only after twenty years' service. In Sheffield the scale is from 27s. to 36s., and in Bristol from 27s. to 35s. In comparing the scales it is important to note that a Metropolitan police-constable reaches his maximum after eight years'
    2212
    service, while in the provincial forces mentioned it takes fifteen or twenty years to reach the maximum.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the minimum period fifteen years in the provinces for the maximum amount to be arrived at?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not say whether it is the minimum, but the ordinary period is fifteen to twenty years before the maximum is reached.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any reason why 2s. 6d. is allowed in aid of rent on the north side and only 1s. 6d. to 2s. on the south side of the river?
    Mr. McKENNA: It depends on the amount paid for rent.
    Mr. W. THORNE: That means that rent on the south side is cheaper than rent on the north side?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe that to be the case, but I could not say.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the question in order to correct the amount in aid of the rent?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice. His question has been answered fully.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will consider as to arranging for such increases in pay of the members of the Metropolitan Police force as will bring the rates up to the level of the best rates obtaining in the provinces; and (2) if, as the result of conferences of local authorities in different parts of the country, the rates of pay of policemen in the provinces have been increased to rates exceeding those obtaining in the case of the Metropolitan Police force, although the cost of living in the London area is considerably higher; and if he has under consideration any proposal to improve the rate of pay of the Metropolitan Police correspondingly, particularly in view of the arduous and special character of the duties falling upon the London force?
    Mr. McKENNA: The pay of the Metropolitan Police was increased less than two years ago, and following on this increase in the Metropolis there has been a similar improvement in the rates of pay of a large number of provincial police forces. The

    2213
    Metropolitan Police have also just obtained the weekly rest day, which is equivalent to a further increase of pay, and has entailed a heavy charge on the Metropolitan ratepayer. I am the last person to overlook the claims and needs of the Metropolitan Police, and I should be sorry to reduce their pay and privileges to the level of even the best of the provincial forces.
    Colonel YATE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that eight years is a good term of service in which to reach the maximum, and one which is apt to make the men content?
    Mr. McKENNA: That does not arise out of this question. The hon. Member should have related that supplementary question to the last answer.
    Colonel BURN: In view of the action of the militant suffragettes, which has the result that so many constables do not get their rest on Sundays, will it be made up to them later on?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. LEACH: Do all the police officers now get one day's rest in seven?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise. If the hon. Member attaches importance to a question of the sort, the least he can do is to put it down on the Paper.

    Prosecution of Suffragists.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the four women remanded without bail on Monday are in a fit state to take their trial to-day or whether they have been on hunger strike since the remand; and if they are not in a fit state to be tried, will the Crown Prosecutor be instructed to postpone the trial till they have recovered?
    Mr. McKENNA: The four women mentioned are attending the proceedings at Bow Street this morning. The medical officer reports that they were in a fit condition to attend.

    Crane Accident (Holborn).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fatal crane accident in High Holborn and the recommendation of the coroner's jury that an inspector should be appointed
    2214
    to examine chains that are used on cranes for lifting purposes; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a report of the proceedings at the adjourned inquest in this case and of the verdict of the coroner's jury. The whole question of the safety of chains in processes coming within the Factory Act is under the consideration of the Department.

    Vaccination Acts (Isle of Man).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Manx House of Keys has passed a conscience clause applying to the Vaccination Acts, and that the Upper Chamber has rejected it; and whether he can make arrangements with the Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man, as chief of the police, to prevent prosecutions for non-vaccination pending the settlement of the question by the two Houses?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings. The matter is settled by the rejection of the Bill; and I fear I could not properly take the action suggested.
    Mr. POINTER: Under the constitution of the Isle of Man is it still open to the two Houses to meet together and settle the matter definitely, and meantime can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that no prosecutions shall take place?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid not. If the Bill has been rejected it is not law.

    Exhibition, 1851.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sum the Royal Commission in whom are vested the funds derived from the Great Exhibition of 1851 received in respect of the fabric and materials of the exhibition buildings, etc., from the persons to whom they were sold; and if, in view of the educational and other advantages which would result from the acquisition of the Crystal Palace and grounds for the public, he will consider the possibility of arranging for at least that amount to be diverted as a contribution to the purchase of the property?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Royal Commission that nothing was received in respect of the fabric and

    2215
    materials of the exhibition buildings. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

    Small Holdings (Roxburgh).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland the number of applications for small holdings and extensions of small holdings made from the parish of Castleton, in the county of Roxburgh; whether any of them have been granted; and if the stage of negotiations with the landlord has been reached in any case?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Eight applications have been received from this parish; no holdings have yet been formed; inquiries have been addressed to the proprietor regarding suitable land, and one of the Sub-commissioners of the Board of Agriculture has inspected certain farms, but no scheme has yet been matured.

    Land Court (Scotland).
    Captain GILMOURasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the Land Court will be published; and whether he will endeavour to ensure that it will be in the hands of Scottish Members before the discussion of Scottish Estimates?
    Mr. URE: I hope that it will be published very shortly, and that it will be available before the discussion on the Scottish Estimates.

    Building Trade Strike (Letchworth).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason why the Labour Exchange managers were not made aware of the strike in the building trade at Letchworth until four days after the strike had been notified to the Labour Exchange officer in the Letchworth district?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am informed that the strike referred to by my hon. Friend was notified to the Bedford Exchange on 1st May. As no workmen could be sent to take places at Letchworth except through the Bedford Exchange no further notification was necessary.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no notification was sent to the Poplar Labour Exchange until four
    2216
    days after the strike, and that on the first day after a notification was sent through the Labour Exchange asking for carters and others who were wanted at Letchworth?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have explained that it was only through the Bedford Exchange that men could be sent to Letchworth.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that application was made through the Poplar Exchange?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not understand the situation. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me details.

    Labour Exchange Staffs.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the number of hours per day or per week that constitute a full day's or week's work for the staff employed in the Labour Exchanges?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The normal daily hours of the staff employed in the Labour Exchanges are eight.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to place the clerks employed at Labour Exchanges on the establishment, or to make any arrangement whereby they may become entitled to pensions?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As I stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Warrington on 17th April, I am in communication with the Treasury, and hope to be able to make a statement on the subject shortly.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether the large number of temporary clerks recently appointed to the national telephone service will eventually be replaced by permanent clerks; and, if so, when, and with what grade?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): If the reference is to the recent temporary additions to the clerical staff of the London telephone service, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow on 28th April. The revision proposals there mentioned provide for additions to nearly all grades, and as soon as the approval of the Treasury is received, steps will be taken

    2217
    to fill the new appointments. The temporary force employed in the various provincial telephone districts is being replaced as quickly as possible by permanent staff where the work on which it is engaged is found to be of a permanent character.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General when approximately he proposes to announce the revised scale of telephone rates?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement on the subject before the end of June.

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General whether the members of the advisory committee on wireless telegraphy have expressed any opinion for his guidance supplementing the cautious expression of opinion contained in their report; if so, will he inform the House of these supplementary opinions; and whether the advisory committee on wireless telegraphy collected any and, if so, what evidence as to the estimated cost of equipping stations for wireless telegraphy on the Marconi system, the Poulsen system, and the Goldschmidt system, and as to the relative cost of transmitting messages by each of these three systems?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend is not aware whether it is the intention of the Select Committee on the Marconi Contract to call for evidence from the members of the advisory committee. The latter committee have not expressed any opinions for his guidance beyond those published in their report; but he has had some conversation with the chairman on one or two questions arising out of the report. There are no papers which he can lay before the House. The question of cost was not included in the terms of reference of the advisory committee, which were framed in conformity with the terms of the Select Committee's Special Report. So far as is known, they did not collect any evidence as to the cost of the various systems.

    Nurses (Metropolitan Asylums Board).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that hospitals under the Metropolitan Asylums Board have had to turn patients away because of the dearth of nurses and that difficulty has been found by many Poor Law guardians in securing
    2218
    nurses; and, if so, can he say what steps he proposes to take to increase the supply or to attract the best class of women to the profession?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The Metropolitan Asylums Board were, I understood, apprehensive that they might have to restrict the admission of certain classes of infectious cases owing to the difficulty in obtaining nurses, but I am glad to learn that it is now hoped that no such limitation will be necessary. The shortage of nurses which is, I believe, being generally experienced is due to causes that are beyond my control.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in those countries where they have established State administration of nurses it has had the effect of raising the status and dignity of the profession and attracting the best type of women?
    Mr. BURNS: I cannot believe that either registration or classification is a testimony as to character or fitness.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: If a dearth of nurses exists, is it not likely to be increased by the sanatoria set up under the Insurance Act, and will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as are open to him to deal with it?
    Mr. BURNS: The temporary dearth of nurses is due to the National Insurance Act, the demand for nurses in sanatoria, and the large increase in the number of nursing homes and similar institutions. I am very glad to say that the deficiency is being supplied.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is not the object of registration to guarantee a certain amount of training?
    Mr. BURNS: The question on the Paper deals with the shortage of nurses and not registration.

    India Office Finance.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the composition of the Royal Commission on India Office Finance is final, or whether the further appointment of a distinguished and exceptionally qualified officer serving in India at the time of the publication of the names of the members will still be possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the provision made for representing the views of the Government of India on this Commission is fully adequate, and cannot usefully be increased having regard to the necessity for filling other responsible appointments.

  AIRCRAFT.

    AEROPLANE FLIGHT TO INDIA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether arrangements are being made for an aeroplane flight from England to India in October; and whether His Majesty's Government or the Government of India, or both Governments, are in any way assisting this project?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has seen an announcement in the Press regarding the proposed flight. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    GERMAN AIRSHIPS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether inquiries have been made as to the number remaining of the sixteen Zeppelin airships built in Germany; and, if so, with what results?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset on the 30th April last, it appears that of sixteen Zeppelin airships built in Germany only six remain.

    Empire Day.
    Mr. CROFTasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the fact that the flag is flown on Empire Day throughout the self-governing Dominions; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will give instructions that this festival shall be kept in a similar fashion in the United Kingdom by flying the flag upon various Government buildings?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on this subject on 1st May.
    Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the flag is also flown on the King's birthday throughout the whole Empire, and that this festival is regarded as of tremendous importance throughout His Majesty's Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question has been most carefully considered by successive Governments, and they have all come to the same conclusion. I see no reason to alter the practice.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is Empire Day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is the 24th of May I think.

    Oversea Food Supply.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked (1) whether, in the event of war, it is proposed to protect the safety of our oversea food supply, seeing that if that is carried out the fighting strength of our Fleet as a whole will thereby be scattered and weakened; whether the Government has any intention of releasing the Fleet from these distant protective duties by providing a six months' supply of food-stuffs in these Islands at all periods of the year, and thus enabling the Fleet, if necessary, to concentrate the whole of its forces in Home waters for offensive action at the outset of hostilities; and (2) whether the Government have obtained any estimate of the cost of providing national or other State-controlled granaries capable of storing a six months' supply of corn for the population of these Islands, in the event of war, at all seasons of the year; if it has been suggested to the Government by their advisers that by adopting the most modern systems of storage, such granaries could be built and equipped with modern machinery for a sum of two million pounds or thereabouts, and that the cost of maintenance and distribution, including the periodical movements of the supply, would not exceed £50,000 or £60,000 per annum; and, if so, or even if the estimated cost were found to be greater, whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to appoint an impartial Committee to investigate the whole question of wheat storage in this connection and afterwards make a Report to this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of food supply in time of war is being examined by the Committee of Imperial Defence. Investigations are still being made with regard to various aspects of the matter. The subject of grain storage is intimately connected with the larger question, and no decision can be come to with regard to it till these investigations are concluded. I am not prepared to deal by question and answer with the other matters referred to.

    Housing Accommodation.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the circumstances under which the Housing Bill was withdrawn, he will state the proposals of the Government for dealing with this question; and whether a Bill dealing with the matter and providing for increased financial assistance from the Imperial Government, to meet one of the principal objections of the President of the Local Government Board, will be introduced this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, this question has been and is receiving close consideration, but it is not possible for the Government to introduce proposals in the present Session.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if a Bill is introduced to increase the financial aid, whether he will give facilities for it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means.
    Mr. F. HALL: It is with reference to the reply made by the President of the Local Government Board that he considered £500,000 was totally inadequate.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the Government keep in mind, in framing proposals, that there is a large body of opinion on this side which objects to doles and subsidies, and thinks that the solution of the housing problem lies in the land?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these things will be kept in mind; but I think it would be very undesirable to make any statement on the subject at present.

    London Hospital.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked whether the Prime Minister intends to introduce legislation to prevent the London Hospital from sending out nurses one year before the expiry of the normal course of training required by every other great Metropolitan hospital at the rate of 11s. 6d. per week while they earn £2 2s. per week for their hospital?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Before the Prime Minister answers this question, may I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Sydney Holland, chairman of the London Hospital, flatly contradicted the first part of the statement when it was first made;
    2222
    whether he knows that the London Hospital trains its nurses free of charge or premium for two years, and makes a large loss on the whole transaction; and whether, when the nurses are properly equipped, they are able to earn a livelihood for themselves at the expense of the hospital?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not heard, and, with all respect to my hon. Friend I rather deprecate questions of this kind, relating to a great London hospital, to which the Metropolitan community is under a deep debt of gratitude. I am not aware of any grounds for legislation.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Sydney Holland has admitted that nurses are sent out from the London Hospital one year before the expiry of the time ratified by other hospitals?
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: He denies it absolutely.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman, or is he not, aware that Mr. Holland admitted as a fact that they are sent out at the end of two years, which is one year less than the curriculum of all the other London hospitals?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that as a matter of fact. The management of the hospital is a domestic matter. There is no ground whatsoever for the suggestion.

    Supply (Post Office Vote).
    Mr. GOLDMANasked whether, in view of the Prime Minister's promise to consider the question of allocating two days to the Post Office Vote and of the fact that only one day was allotted and the Debate was interrupted by a Private Bill, allowing only four hours for the discussion of the Post Office Vote, and in view of the fact that many Members who desired to speak on the telephone service were in consequence prevented, he will allocate a day early on the reassembling of Parliament for the discussion of the telephone service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I am not prepared to give a special day for the discussion of this service, but as I have already stated, if there is general desire of the House, expressed through the usual channels, that a further day should be given to the Post Office Vote, I will see what arrangements can be made.

    Bermondsey Board of Guardians.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the partner of a medical man, who is a member of the Bermondsey board of guardians, holds the position of district medical officer to the same board; and whether he proposes to take steps to prevent guardians allowing persons to sit on a board whose partners are under contract with it?
    Mr. BURNS: The situation is, I believe, as described in the question. It is no doubt open to criticism, but is not illegal, and I have no authority to take the course suggested.
    Mr. F. HALL: Considering the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he be good enough to communicate with the Bermondsey board of guardians?
    Mr. BURNS: I am quite sure that they will see the question and answer.

    Admiralty Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by the British Portland Cement Manufacturers and the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers has yet been completed; and, if so, will he state the result?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Some preliminary inquiries have been made, but the investigations are not yet complete. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    Board of Agriculture (Assistant-Inspector of Animals).
    Mr. BLAIRasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether Mr. Alfred Gavin M'Clelland, whose profession is that of deep-well driller, of 2, Claremont Terrace, South Shields, has been appointed to the post of assistant-inspector of animals; and, if so, seeing that his age is thirty-five years, whether an Order in Council was obtained prior to his appointment; and (2) if any Report has been received from Mr. Alfred Gavin M'Clelland's superior officer as to his fitness for the position of assistant-inspector of animals; if so, whether that Report was favourable to his appointment; and, if so, if the Report may be laid upon the Table of the House?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): For six years Mr. M'Clelland was engaged in practical farming, particularly in the rearing and management of cattle, horses, and sheep. He was a pupil at Guelph Agricultural College. During the time he was deep-well drilling he found time and opportunity for enlarging his experience of livestock. No special authority or Order in Council was needed for his appointment as an assistant-inspector under the Diseases of Animals Acts. He was appointed as from 2nd April last, and is on probation for two years in accordance with the usual custom. No Report upon him has yet been received by the Board from his superior officer.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LEICESTERSHIRE ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the dates for training of the Leicestershire Royal Horse Artillery, namely, practice camp on Salisbury Plain, 18th to 27th May, and Army manœuvres, 21st to 27th September, were approved by the Northern Command early in April; whether on 5th May a communication was received by the officer commanding the Leicestershire Royal Horse Artillery informing him that the battery should not arrive on Salisbury Plain until 20th May; and whether, in view of the fact that all arrangements have been made for the training as first approved, contracts made and men notified, and in further view of the fact that the new dates afford only one day for preparation for practice, he will cause the former arrangements to be adhered to?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I hope to be able to restore the original arrangements in this case.

    MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Mr. ASTORasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether it is proposed to supply to the Army three days of fresh beef and four days of frozen beef a week, instead of four days of fresh beef, two days of frozen beef, and one day of frozen mutton, as has been the practice heretofore; and (2) whether it is proposed in the near future to set up depots for meat supplies, instead of obtaining these supplies through contractors as heretofore; and, if so, whether contractors will be invited to tender for supplies to these

    2225
    depots, or whether it is proposed to get the supplies of frozen meats direct from the importers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will reply at the same time to Question 64*. The system of purchase and supply of meat for the Army is under consideration, but it is not at present possible to state what arrangements may be finally decided upon.

    REDFORD BARRACKS (CHAPEL).
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked whether the Secretary for War is now able to state if a chapel is to be built at the Redford Barracks, in response to the deputation which waited upon him at the War Office, and was introduced by the Lord High Commissioner?
    Mr. TENNANT: The matter is still under consideration.

    MALLENY RIFLE RANGE.
    Mr. LYELLasked whether the Secretary for War's attention has been called to the unsatisfactory character of the Malleny rifle range, near Edinburgh, which is traversed by two rights of way and, owing to its elevated and exposed position, occasionally buried in mist; and whether he will consider the desirability of providing a safer and more satisfactory range?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have under consideration arrangements in this neighbourhood which I hope will remedy any defect that may exist.

    Travelling Dispensaries (India).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state what were the proposals for medical treatment of Indian women by means of travelling dispensaries made by Mrs. Emanuel, wife of Mr. Emanuel, Indian Civil Service, collector of Larkhana, in Sind; and whether any, and what, action was taken thereupon by the Government of Bombay?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The proposal was that in each district there should be a travelling dispensary, fully equipped with a lady doctor and a nurse, to bring medical aid within the reach of villagers, particularly women and children. The Bombay Government were unable to accept the scheme on financial and other grounds. But they have offered to aid the establishment of stationary dispensaries under women
    2226
    doctors for the treatment of women and children.

    Scott Expedition (Lieutenant Bower).
    Colonel YATEasked whether, considering the fact that a joint annuity of £300 has been granted to the mother and sisters of Captain Scott in addition to the pension and annuity to Lady Scott and her son, that a joint annuity of £300 a year has been granted to the widow and sister-in-law of Dr. Wilson, and that a pension and annuity amounting to £67 12s. per annum, in addition to 3s. a week for each child, has been granted to the widow of Petty-officer Evans, the Under-Secretary for India will take the necessary steps to secure more generous treatment for the widow and sisters of Lieutenant Bower, of the Royal Indian Marine, who have only been granted by the Government of India pensions amounting in all to £100 per annum, a sum hardly more than what Lieutenant Bower himself would have been entitled to had he been simply invalided out of the Service?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in thinking that Lieutenant Bower left a widow. The pensions have been granted to his mother and sisters. They are in excess of what would have been admissible under either Naval or Indian Regulations in the case of an officer of his standing killed in action; and they more than satisfy the Prime Minister's promise regarding the provision to be made from public revenues for dependent relatives.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether this £100 has been granted to the mother and sisters conjointly or in equal shares, and will the whole sum be continued to the last survivor or what?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is given conjointly.
    Colonel YATE: Will the whole £100 be continued to the last survivor?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not quite sure now, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know in the course of the day.

    East India (Death Sentences).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to grant the Return standing on the Order Paper for this day, which is a continuation, in slightly altered form, of similar Returns granted in former years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member may have forgotten that in May last year he asked if a similar Return could be prepared for 1911. In August he was advised that the Return had been obtained from India and would be laid if moved for. If he will move for the Return, I shall be happy to lay it. Its preparation entailed considerable work, and the Secretary of State is not disposed to call upon the Government of India for a further Return for 1912.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    TITHE BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to the conversion of contingent Tithes or Tithe rent-charge into a continuing rent-charge." Presented by Mr. HILLS; supported by Sir William Beale, Mr. Buckmaster, and Mr. Cave; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
    TRUSTEE BILL.
    "To amend the Trustee Act, 1893." Presented by Mr. HILLS; supported by Sir William Beale, Mr. Buckmaster, and Mr. Cave; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GLASGOW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS) BILL.
    "To divide the district of the school board of Glasgow for electoral purposes." Presented by Mr. BARNES; supported by Mr. Scott Dickson, Mr. Watt, Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Mackinder, and Mr. MacCallum Scott; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd June, and to be printed.
    SIR STUART MONTAGU SAMUEL INDEMNITY BILL.
    "To indemnify and to relieve Sir Stuart Montagu Samuel, baronet, from any penal consequences which he may have incurred or suffered by sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons during a time when the firm in which he was a partner were executing, holding, or enjoying a contract, agreement, or commission made or entered into with the Secretary of State for India in Council, and for purposes incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL; supported by Mr. Secretary McKenna, and Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]
  WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, the 27th May."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.

    BRITISH EMPIRE (ORGANISATION).
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: I make no apology for referring to Imperial questions, for I think when we remember the title of this
    2254
    Parliament it is desirable that Imperial questions should sometimes have consideration. I cannot help thinking that the question of Imperial organisation is likely to be of such importance in the next ten years that it is our duty when we have time to consider all those various great questions which unfortunately, I think everybody will admit, receive too little attention owing to the fierce party questions which are now before us. I know that it is frequently urged by some that sentiment is quite sufficient where the British Empire is concerned, and that there is no need for the Government to depart from the policy of laissez faire. I do not minimise in any way the value of sentiment in the British Empire, because without that sentiment, I think it can hardly be denied that we should not be as unified and as united even as we are to-day in the absence of good organisation. But I would remind the Government that those who base their contention on allowing sentiment alone to hold the British Empire do not do very much in order even to increase the sentimental value of the British Empire. We only have in that connection, although it may appear a small thing, the fact that the Government refuse to fly the flag on Government buildings on Empire Day. Though it is only a small question, it is at the same time one of far reaching importance throughout the whole of the British Dominions and the Crown Colonies, and when the Secretary of State for War has received such wonderful assistance from the Dominions beyond the Seas in the formation of universal service, freeing him from a great many cares and troubles with regard to the defence of those Dominions, and when he remembers that in every one of those Dominions that sentimental idea of the flag is one which is regarded as of the utmost importance, I really think we might have been spared the suggestion of the Secretary of State for War that he did not know what Empire Day was. I think, too, that the Government might give instructions, and it would not be very costly, that the flag should be hoisted on all Government buildings on Empire Day.
    I think it will hardly be denied that sentiment is not sufficient in future if we are really to give attention to the British Empire. Sentiment is a very valuable thing in many cases. A mother may have a great deal of sentiment for her children, but unless she is able to wash them and feed them and clothe them and put them

    2255
    out in the world it is not of very great value. When once the children are out in the world no one will deny that a pennyworth of practical help is worth a bucketful of tears of either joy or sorrow. We must look at Imperial affairs from more than a sentimental point of view if we are to keep those great countries to hold together working out common purposes of civilisation in the days to come. The British Empire, I think we can say, is the greatest business concern that the world has ever known. At the present time it is worked and run by a dozen boards of directors, and when I realise that in this House there are very many business men I think they will not deny that such an arrangement with regard to those affairs which are necessary for the Empire as a whole is not conducive to economy or to efficiency of working, and, what is more, that it but leads to friction and misunderstanding. I therefore submit, in the interests of cohesion and well-directed energy, it is time that the Government of the British Empire should come together and should establish a permanent Council in order that the best brains of the Empire may come together to co-ordinate their schemes of defence, and acquaint themselves with the motives of our foreign policy, and to discuss questions of trade which affect all parts. How is the vast machinery of the British Empire run? Once in every four years an Imperial Conference is called together, and for a few weeks the statesmen of the Empire sit round a table and offer suggestions, after which the shop is practically closed down for another four years, and the result is that the Empire is not kept in touch in the intermediate time except to a very small extent.
    I think everyone will agree that the Imperial Conference—or Colonial Conference, as it was called originally—was admirable in its inception, but I think no one will deny also that things have moved at such a pace that that machinery is no longer adequate to fulfil the functions required. I venture respectfully to suggest that the time has come when the Imperial Conference should be turned into a permanent advisory Council for the British Empire as a whole. In this connection I think, if I may say so, that the Government made a tremendous step in the right direction with regard to the Committee of Imperial Defence. I think that was a great move,
    2256
    and in future, at all events, the representatives of the Dominions are to be invited to sit upon the Imperial Committee of Defence, and, with regard to that vast subject, there is going to be some consultation between the various parts. But defence alone is not sufficient. The force of circumstances are far too strong, for we find in the last two or three years there have been two or three things happening of the utmost moment to the whole British position, both in regard to defence and in various affairs. Canada, in the last few years, has practically taken to herself the power of making separate trade treaties. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will not deny that there is in that the possibility of grave difficulties in regard to our treaties with foreign countries, and that the whole network of those treaties might possibly be snapped by some individual work on the part of Canada. That I think proves the necessity for continual consultation upon foreign affairs; then there need be no difficulty. Again, in Australia, you have the question of the Australian Navigation Laws. Nobody who has studied that question will deny that it contains elements of grave international difficulty, unless there is frequent consultation between the Home and the Commonwealth Governments. More important still is the movement in the direction of separate Fleet units. From time to time the Fleet may be called upon at a moment's notice to fulfil some diplomatic mission. I am not criticising the determination of the Dominions, but the Australian Fleet unit might suddenly have to be used by the Government of Australia. At once you get questions involving foreign affairs and the need for closer consultation.
    Lastly, in this connection, I would mention the present impasse in the Canadian Parliament. I am not going to take sides on that question. I regret that anyone in this House should have seen fit to do so, when we know perfectly well that both parties in Canada have one object, and one object alone, that of contributing their share to Imperial defence. At the same time, it cannot be denied that if there had been some machinery by which the Dominion representatives were in closer consultation with the Home authorities, we should have had a succession of Governments in Canada, Liberal and Conservative, who understood the general policy of the Empire, and we probably should not have had what is distressing to every man in this country, the present intense party

    2257
    feeling in the Canadian Parliament over an Imperial question. As an instance of how difficulties occur, I might refer to the difficulty which arose over the Declaration of London. Here we had a question more or less rushed through without any real consultation, although a vigorous protest was made by Australia. Is it not grotesque that such a question; involving every single citizen of the Dominions Overseas, should be rushed through Parliament here without deliberate and frequent consultation between the various parts of the Empire? No one is very much to blame, because the machinery does not exist; but I think it proves the necessity of having such machinery in the future. I am one of those who look forward to the day when we shall have a great Imperial Parliament, which will deal solely with questions common to the Empire as a whole, and relieve those questions from the stress of party politics. At the same time I fully recognise that it is a question which ought not to be in any way hurried. But I do not believe it is so distant as many people think. Opinion in the Dominions has changed. Especially in Canada I found a wonderful change in the direction of some closer community in the matter of consultation between the various parts of the Empire. But for immediate purposes it seems to me that the time has come when an Advisory body should be permanently established, in order that there may be continual consultation between Ministers of the Home Government and Ministers of the Dominions Overseas.
    I turn now to the question of emigration. Since the present Government came into power in 1906 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer shed the sunshine of his hopes into the cottages of the country, 1,400,000 of our citizens have emigrated. One in every thirty-one of the population has left our shores. I have reached that stage of opinion where I do not greatly regret a man's moving from one country to another, provided he is going to get better wages and continuous work, and remains under the British flag. But I think the time has come when the Government should take some steps to keep emigrants as far as possible within the British Empire, rather than allowing them to go to foreign countries. During each of the last two years 50,000 emigrants have gone to the United States of America. Every one of those people had cost this country something like £200, in education, clothing, housing, food and insurance. The elder
    2258
    men had cost considerably more. If an emigrant goes to the United States or any other foreign country, he goes to build up the trade of that country, to lend it the skill which he has learnt in this country, to use the brains which have been developed here, to pay for the "Dreadnoughts" of that country, and possibly to serve in that country's Army against this country; whereas every emigrant who goes to another country within the British Empire goes to build up the trade of the British Empire, to buy from us in pounds, as compared with shillings, to build "Dreadnoughts" for Imperial defence, and, in the case of Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, to serve in the Home Defence Army. His advent to the Dominion is of great value, not only to the Dominion itself, but also to this country; whereas, if he goes to a foreign country, he becomes our competitor.
    1.0 P.M.
    I am afraid that the suggestion I am about to make may startle one or two of my hon. Friends, but I believe it is the only way in which my object can be secured. Every emigrant having cost this country £200, is it unreasonable that we should ask emigrants, when going to foreign countries, taking that capital with them, to contribute £5 to the Home Government? I know that some people say that a man is free to move where he likes. But if that man has had all this money poured out upon him by this country, I do not think it is unreasonable that he should make a small contribution when he is leaving the British Empire. The money so realised might be devoted to judicious expenditure in connection with emigration under the British flag. The amount raised would be about £250,000 a year, and my belief is that you could not do a greater service, either to this country or to the Dominions, than by employing that money in giving assisted or even free passages to British women who desire to emigrate to Canada and the other Dominions. We are all impressed with the fact that, owing to the great excess of women in this country, there is a certain irritability in many parts of the land. It is all owing to emigration that you have this vast number of women who have been left behind when the men have gone abroad. The consequence is that women are being employed in directions where they ought never to be employed. You have exactly the opposite picture in Canada. In the West of Canada there are five men to every woman. This

    2259
    constitutes a grave question for the Canadian people. Here you have women ready to emigrate. Surely the country can look beyond its nose and assist the emigration of deserving women who desire to go to the West of Canada, where they might make good mothers of future British citizens, and where they are sadly needed in every respect. In fact the present position is absolutely unnatural, and the Government might do something to relieve the situation.
    I wish to say a word, in conclusion, with regard to the organisation of the trade of the British Empire. No one will deny that the British Empire really came into existence from the desire to trade. The people of this country went out to various parts and built up with the Old Country an enormous trade, which is undoubtedly saving us from a great deal of distress which would otherwise exist. I think, in this connection, that the figures that the President of the Board of Trade gave me only a week or two ago are of extreme interest. You will find there that, whereas the population of the United States only buy 6s. 4d. per head from this country each year, Germany 12s. 2d., France only 12s. 11d., Canada buys £3 3s. 4d. per head, South Africa £3 10s. 4d., Australia, £7 10s. 2d., and New Zealand £9 5s. 5d. I think that is a wonderful tribute to the fact that these Dominions are doing their very best to encourage the trade of this country. At the same time we see that Australia alone, with 4½ millions of people, is buying more manufactures from this country than Germany with her 65 millions; Canada, with her 7½ millions, is now buying more manufactures than France, just across the Channel, with her 45 millions; and New Zealand, 13,000 miles away, is buying more than Belgium with her dense population. These facts are of great interest, and I think it should be a matter of anxiety to everybody to make certain that we are going to keep these markets, which are worth trying for in an industrial sense. If these markets were really organised on the true basis, and we made great efforts to keep them, by Consular agents and so on, if we did everything in our power—whether you employed preference or subsidy or whatever means—we ought to see that we get our share of that expanding trade in the near future. Surely the system of this country is not such that we cannot consider any great alteration of trade? We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day
    2260
    and his rosy Budget. The Chancellor congratulated himself, but I think nobody called the attention of the House to the fact of the really distressing and awful condition of the working classes which existed even in this greatest boom year of 1912! There were half a million of people—I think that is not an exaggeration figure—permanently out of work.
    We had over a quarter of a million who last year emigrated from this country. In other words, we had 750 daily, or 5,000 per week, leaving this country as if there were a blight upon the land. They fled to other countries where there is some other system. One in every forty-five of the population was in receipt of relief—700,000 persons for England alone. Two million four hundred thousand persons in this boom year applied through the Labour Exchanges for work. Is it surprising that wages are stationary and that food is going up in price? What I suggest is this, that there must be two or three main principles which we ought to keep ever before us. First, we ought to try and find constant wages; secondly, cheap food; thirdly, we should endeavour to keep intact the united man-power of the British Empire. In regard to constant wages, we should attend to that if we are going to keep our comparative position in the British Empire in the next thirty years, and if there is to be sufficient work for everyone in this country who is willing to work. I will only give one more instance—though I have a good many—and that is in regard to India. In 1886 this country imported into India 82 per cent. of its imports; in 1912 India only bought 64 per cent. from the Old Country. In 1886 foreign countries sent to India 8 per cent. of the total imports; in 1912 they sent 30 per cent. I think the House will agree that that is an extraordinary fact; that we are losing to an enormous degree our hold on the total trade of the Indian market, even though with other countries we may be increasing a little at the present time. It is for this reason that I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to consider whether all is being done by the Government in order to hold which I think I have shown is of very great value to this country — the comparative position that we are in? The first point that I said we should aim at is constant wages. The second point is cheap food. We know that this latter is one of the most important

    2261
    questions that we have to consider. It is a question which has been made a great party cry between the two sides of the House for many a long year. But after all it is the crux of the whole question. You want the real wages of the working classes of this country to go up; otherwise we know that the country will stand still. I would submit that it is time that the Government considered how they can cheapen the food of this country. Within the British Empire you have got sufficient food-producing land to feed not only this country, but all Europe, and in fact the world.
    Can nothing be done to stimulate the production of food in the British Empire? You have given £1,000,000 to spend upon the Soudan in order to please the electors of Lancashire. Why should not you give something equally satisfactory in the way of reduction of railway rates or shipping of something or other, in order to encourage the production of more food, which is far more important than even raw cotton for the people of this country. Lastly, I referred to the united man-power of the nation. When we see the extraordinary world movements of recent years we must all be impressed by the fact that we in this island with 45,000,000 of people are a man-power that cannot in the end resist the economic and military pressure of vast Empires like the German Empire and the United States, of the Far East, and Russia. Surely we must take greater steps in order to see that we do not stand alone. We see on every hand at the present time the desire of the Dominions to co-operate with us, but you are never going to get that co-operation really effective until you have brought them into your common councils, and until they feel that they are having a hand in running the show. Therefore, I say, that for these main reasons: for consultation, for controlled emigration, for trade organisation, the time has come that we must take some steps at least forward in the direction of having a Permanent Council of the Empire, so that we can really look upon this question from the view point, not only of the people of this country, but from the point of view of the Canadian, of the Australian, of the New Zealander, and of the South African, who is just indeed as much concerned as the people of this country in the future destiny of the Empire.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I envy the all-pervasive knowledge of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and his
    2262
    cosmopolitan curiosity. He has ranged over topics which might well be sufficient for debate extending over a Parliamentary week, and which might seem excessive for a morning sitting on the day of adjournment. I tremble with happy anticipation of what his speech will be a few years hence when he is standing at this box, having added omnipotence to omniscience. I have listened with much interest to his observations and comprehensive survey, and I hope I shall not be accused of any discourtesy if I endeavour to be more concise than discursive. The hon. Member has offered information rather than sought it. I shall therefore doubly profit by the process, for I am excused from replying, whilst at the same time having acquired knowledge. He has referred to the encouragement of trade and commerce throughout the Empire. That is a matter which has been specially and specifically referred to the Dominions Royal Commission. That Commission has taken a good deal of evidence in London and New Zealand; and it is at the present moment engaged in collecting evidence in Australia. I think it is necessary that a Minister of the Crown should await the facts which may be collected and the conclusions which may be arrived at by the Royal Commission. But I do not in the least complain of the discussion of the whole subject here to-day or of the manner in which it has been opened up by the hon. Gentleman. Some steps have been taken of late years to provide statistics, and there has been a great advance in securing a greater uniformity of statistics. Then quite recently we have taken a step which, I think, is not sufficiently appreciated by the British public. The British Consular service is now placed at the disposal of the Dominions, and Canada, Australia, and South Africa have already availed themselves of that arrangement. In another direction the Pacific Cable Board is now running direct cables between New Zealand and Australia. We have taken steps for the cheapening of the cable rates; we may not have attained all we wish, but we have secured much lower rates, and I can assure the House we have not come to the end of our activities in that direction.
    The Dominions Royal Commission has received representations from many Chambers of Commerce—London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Newcastle, I think—for what they call more complete organisation of the trade and

    2263
    commerce of the Empire. The conclusions of the Dominions Royal Commission will be submitted to us in time for the next Imperial Conference, which is due before the life of the present Parliament necessarily expires. The subjects which the Chambers of Commerce have been considering and have submitted to the Commission are such things as the assimilation of the mercantile laws of shipping, of bankruptcy, of joint stock companies, and the uniformity of the patent laws throughout the Empire. It has been suggested to the Dominions Royal Commission that there might be something set up here in the nature of a central statistical office for the whole Empire which might attend to the publication of figures with as little delay as we have now in the publication of our own trade returns. I am not expressing any opinion on that, but they say such an office will enable us to keep our fingers very constantly on the Imperial pulse. An Imperial Development Fund has been suggested, I am not sure whether by the Chambers of Commerce, and it is being considered by the Commission now. It seems at first sight to raise the question whether there should be voluntary or compulsory contributions to such a fund, and hon. Members will know how difficult such a question as that would be throughout our Dominions. I therefore propose to await the judgment of the Royal Commission on that matter.
    Mr. CROFT: Unless the Council was established.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will deal with that. The suggestion has also been made as to greater uniformity of weights and measures and coinage throughout the Empire. I do not wish by mentioning that to bring up the advocates of decimal coinage to-day, nor do I propose to enforce our ancient and respectable tables on those who have improved on them. We have been doing a great deal in the last few years in the way of scientific research as to the possibilities of soil and climate and labour throughout the Dominions, for the further production of commodities required throughout the Empire. A great deal has been done in this direction, by the Imperial Institute and also by the Commercial Intelligence Department. Some years ago an Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence was set up at the Board of Trade on which the Dominions have now representatives. It has already done admirable work. The Dominion Com-
    2264
    missioners, ever since they began to sit not long ago in London, have already been acting as a sort of ambassadors of the Imperial Conference. Some traders here made representations to the Royal Commission as to the difficulty they experienced in pushing their trade in Canada. Mr. Foster, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a member of that Commission, immediately dealt with this complaint and had prompt inquiry made, and promised to introduce a swift remedy. It is of great satisfaction to the traders in England, and I doubt not that that sort of action will be taken by the Commissioners throughout the Empire. I think that, for the moment, we may safely leave in the hands of the Commissioners the consideration as to what are the remedies that may be found for evils which it may be found possible to cure.
    I should like to mention, in connection with this recent institution of British Trade Commissioners throughout the Dominions, that we have now, in addition to the Commissioners in the self-governing Dominions, twenty-three Imperial Trade correspondents also in the Dominions. It is their duty to advise merchants and manufacturers in the Home country what trade openings there are for them in the Dominions, and especially to watch the movements of foreign competition. They reply, as it is their duty to do, to inquiries they may receive from British firms, and he Trade Commissioners are also instructed to travel about the Dominions in order to observe the various circumstances which may be useful to British trade. Recently a new arrangement has been made, which is very valuable. These Trade Commissioners are ordered to return home at regular intervals in order to have personal consultation with, and personally to convey information to, British firms who have business with the Dominions, or wish to have. The Trade Commissioners of Canada, Australia, and South Africa, have already done this. The Trade correspondents, who, as I said, are twenty-three in number, are actively engaged in or acquainted with trade in the localities in which they live. They keep the Commissioners and the traders at home constantly informed of business movements. Both the Commissioners and the correspondents send home to the Commercial Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade lists of dealers in the principal classes of goods in their localities. They send home information if necessary by cable—they have special instructions to

    2265
    that end—of any contracts open to tender or any projected work such as railways, tramways, electric lighting, power installation, mines, waterworks, harbour works, irrigation, in order that our merchants here may be kept informed of what openings are available for them. Then it is especially their duty to report upon the nature of foreign competition. We have gone further, because we have instructed them to collect samples of foreign goods which compete with British goods in their Dominion. They made a short time ago a special collection of hardware, tools, hollow-ware, and sent them home. They sent home a collection of these from South Africa some months ago, and they have already been exhibited in the industrial centres of the United Kingdom. We have now a new collection from New Zealand, and further collections are coming from Canada and Australia. I think that is very useful work which will yield good results, and I am quite certain that the institution of the Trade Commissioners and correspondents is an admirable and a remunerative new departure.
    Then the hon. Gentleman touched upon emigration. This also is a subject of consideration by the Dominions Royal Commission, and I personally cannot anticipate their report. I would like to say that we do direct the stream of emigration to our Dominions and Colonies rather than to foreign countries. We have the Emigrants' Information Office, which is a very valuable department, for giving reliable information to intending emigrants. We do not want either to encourage or discourage emigration. What that office does is to try to divert the stream of emigration to British Possessions, rather than to foreign countries, by pointing out to them the similarity of institutions, of blood, and of language in our Dominions and the large area of land available, making there a better opening for the British emigrant than he will find in foreign countries. The applications to the Emigrants' Information Office for its publications are more numerous in relation to the Dominions and Colonies than to any foreign country, and the applicants are told of the greater advantages that they will find within the Empire, although we do give accurate information to them, whatever part of the world they may determine to go to. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what has been the course of emigration during the lifetime of this Government, say during the last seven years. It may be surprising to him, but I can assure him that we have done more
    2266
    than our predecessors did to divert this stream. As in other matters, I think we have done more effective work here than they did; we have been more effective in our practical Imperialism. In 1905 the emigration from this country to all the countries in the world was 139,000 persons, of whom only 77,000 or 55 per cent. went to the British Empire. Last year the emigrants from this country were 268,000, of whom 220,000 went to the British Empire, or 82 per cent. of the whole. The emigrants to foreign countries in 1905 were 62,000. Last year they were only 48,000, although the number of emigrants had greatly increased in that time. I certainly cannot encourage the hon. Member that we shall adopt his suggestion of putting a fine of £5 per head upon those who, for special reasons, may seek their home on other shores than those over which we rule. A very interesting question is that of the emigration of women. He said—I do not wish to adopt his language—that the excessive number of women presented a problem here. Well, we have done something to contribute to the greater emigration of women. In 1905 the number of women emigrants from these countries represented 33 per cent. of the adult emigration; in 1912 they represented 46 per cent. From 1902 to 1911 the women emigrants increased by 156 per cent. Now that means that there are going to be more decent homes in the Dominions, and it means also that they are attracted to go there because they find better conditions of life than they used to find some years ago in these Dominions. That is a more fertile type of emigration. It is a type which the Dominions and Colonies needed,, because they wanted more population. On the general question of emigration, let me put these questions: Can we do more? Ought we to do more? The fact is that to-day there are practically no unemployed in the great staple trades of this country except those who are unemployable. I am informed that in the cotton, wool, engineering, and shipbuilding trades they cannot get extra hands when they want them. Some very interesting evidence was given before the Dominions Royal Commission by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. John Burns) a short time ago. He pointed out that Ireland for many years past, and Scotland quite recently, had been emigrating more of their people than the natural increase of the population. That is a serious situation.
    Mr. CROFT: I think I took special care not to advocate more emigration, but the diversion of emigration, where possible, from foreign countries to the Empire. I only recommended assistance for women where I thought they were more needed.
    Mr. HARCOURT: As to diversion, I have given the hon. Member the figures, but I would like also to draw the attention of the House to the seriousness of the point about emigration with which I was dealing. Ireland between the years 1901 and 1911 emigrated 336,000 people, or 130 per cent. of the natural increase of the population. Many of us have our own views as to what was the cause of that emigration from Ireland. In 1911 the natural increase of the population in Ireland was 1,000 less than the number of emigrants. Scotland unhappily is now undergoing the same process, for the first time in 100 years. In 1910 the natural increase of population in Scotland was 51,000, and the emigrants numbered 55,000, a loss of 4,000. In 1911 the departures from Scotland exceeded the natural increase by 7,000, and in 1912 by 8,000. In fact, England alone maintains an increase of population beyond her emigration. In 1911 the natural increase of population in the United Kingdom was 432,000, but 152,000 of that was due to life-saving by the decreased death rate. That number may be regarded as very satisfactory. But for this saving the natural increase would have been only 280,000, whilst the emigration was 262,000, so that without this life-saving, due to the decrease of the death rate, there would only have been a margin of 18,000 increase of the population left over the emigration which has taken place. On these grounds I am inclined to think that up to the present we have done all we ought to do, and I propose to await the conclusions of the Royal Commission in order to see what are the requirements of the Dominions, and what are the possible and justifiable sacrifices which the Mother-country may be called upon to make. The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of the Imperial Council. I wonder that he was not warned by the fate of the Imperial Federation League some years ago. There were some people who thought that that League was right, but I think almost everyone thought they were right too soon. They went into possible plans with meticulous detail, with the result that they aroused resentment both by their reserves and their concessions. I should have been
    2268
    glad if the hon. Member had given us a little more information as to what his Imperial Council means. Is it to be on an elective basis? If it is, is it to be based upon population, or area, or wealth? Is it to be only on a white basis? If so, Great Britain in that Council would have a commanding majority. Is it to have supreme legislative powers over the Empire, and that by a simple majority? Is it to have supreme taxing powers, as against a dissenting minority, for instance; and if so, how are these taxing powers to be enforced, and by whom are the taxes to be collected? The tea chests in Boston Harbour would be a joke compared with the situation that would be produced by such a Council as that.
    Mr. CROFT: I particularly said it was advisory.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I was dealing with the Council he proposes. Would it be supreme over the British Parliament and Cabinet? He spoke of what he called a purely Imperial Parliament. If your purely Imperial Parliament is to be properly constituted, is it to represent all British subjects in all Continents? If so, what about the British Indians who amount to something like 315,000,000 souls? Are they to control the rest of the Empire by their superior numbers, and, if not, why? I do not think that you would consolidate the Empire by enacting a colour bar or by imposing the compulsory admission of coloured races to Canada, Australia, or South Africa. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite at some future date will let us know what they mean exactly and how they propose to carry it out. Some hon. Members opposite may think that these doubts are merely the hesitations and reflections of a Little Englander. Let me remind them that the humble bricklayer does more in Empire building than the eternal layer of foundation stones. The had is very often more effective than the silver trowel. If I am suspect on this subject, and I do not know why I should be, I am sure hon. Members will listen to the views of some big Imperialists on their plan. No one, for instance, would call Sir George Reid, the High Commissioner of Australia, an anti-Imperialist or a Little Englander. He carried the Australian Federation when he was Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and he studied these problems from the standpoint of his own countrymen. What did he say in a speech which he made at the Imperial Institute

    2269
    only on 11th March this year? It is a long extract, but it is very important as coming from the representative of Australia, and, if the House will forgive me, I will read it:—
    "I think it is really time that someone should point out some of the difficulties in the way of proposals for a closer political union. These may disappear in the course of time, but they appear to be insuperable at present. Take, for instance, the fascinating project of bringing into existence a truly Imperial Parliament. In theory how absolutely necessary it seems! In practice how wonderfully well we manage without it! In point of fact, how immensely difficult the proposal becomes when we attempt to translate it into even the barest outline of a scheme! If the great divisions of the Empire were all self-governed and inhabited by men of British origin, the attempt to construct a new Imperial Constitution would be a task of immense difficulty. But I cannot forget, as so many writers and speakers do. the fact that six-sevenths of the Imperial population are neither in the United Kingdom nor in the self-governing Dominions.
    How could we assemble an Imperial Parliament, properly so-called, if 360,000,000 of the coloured people of the Empire were wholly shut out? A Parliament in which the 60,000,000 white citizens were represented and not the 360,000,000 of the coloured races might be called a British Federal Parliament, but it would not be a truly Imperial Parliament. Indeed, the present sort of Imperial Parliament and Executive have some striking advantages. How convenient in real life it is that the advanced legislation of the self-governing Dominions does not fix responsibility upon the shoulders of the Imperial Government as directly as it would do in the other event. When a Colonial Parliament takes an extreme step, vitally necessary perhaps to its welfare but most irritating to some other nations, and even to large bodies of His Majesty's subjects, the Imperial Government is in a more enviable position now than it would be then. Could Dominion representatives sit in an Imperial Parliament with any sense of comfort or equity to deal with the affairs of several hundreds of millions of human beings against whom they feel compelled at present to shut their doors? Even if they could, would the new situation tend to promote the harmony of the Empire."
    I should like to read more, because it is very apposite to the discussion, but I do not think I ought to detain the House. There spoke the man who knows the Empire which he has helped to make. I think the hon. Member might take warning by the experience of Sir Joseph Ward. At the Imperial Conference of 1911 he produced a plan which was large in conception but not very definite in structure, but he obtained no support from any other of the Dominions represented there, and at present I am not sure that he would obtain any support for those proposals from his own Dominion. At that conference I myself, being most anxious to meet the desire, of which I was well aware, for closer co-operation with the Mother-country, proposed a consultative and advisory council of the Dominions to meet within the Colonial Office, so as to be in constant contact and communication with the British Government, but that proposal was unanimously rejected by all the
    2270
    Dominions. I, however, during the Imperial Conference, carried out my original scheme which the hon. Member will remember I had announced to this House in debate long before the Imperial Conference ever assembled—that is, the participation of the Dominions in the Committee of Imperial Defence. I am obliged for the hon. Member's recognition to-day of the great advance there has been. We have called them to our counsels the most intimate and secret. It may be objected in some quarters that the plan is loose, illogical, and indefinite. Well, so is the British Constitution, and, after all, this plan has been up to the present both satisfactory and satisfying. The Dominions may have continuous, occasional, or sporadic representation on that Committee. There are no priggish limitations of federal dilettanti. We offer them now and always the hand and tongue of friendship and of brotherhood, of mutual interests, and a common cause. It may lead to more rigorous ties in the future, but I doubt if it can possibly lead to closer communion. At least, for the present, I am confident that it has already secured the solidarity of Imperial confidence, and has greatly contributed to the unity of the British race.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of the Commission reporting favourably, the Government will take some real and practical steps to aid and facilitate emigration to the Dominions?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I could not possibly commit myself as to the action the Government would take on recommendations which have not yet been made.

    IRISH FINANCE.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman, in his able and interesting speech, touched on one matter very significant and very interesting to Irishmen. He referred to emigration from Ireland, but said he would not go into the cause of it, though he might have his own opinions on the subject. I am going to refer to-day to one of those causes, namely, the excessive taxation of the country. I only do so this afternoon, when we should, probably most of us, wish to be away, because the Government, either by inadvertence or by design, have hitherto refused to reply to the definite charges which we have made against them, charges probably as serious as have ever been levied against any

    2271
    Finance Minister. I do not now bring these charges forward merely for the purpose or at all for the purpose of recrimination. I do so because there has been promised to us what the Prime Minister calls an interval for suggestion in the Home Rule Bill. He stated yesterday that an interval would be given in which suggestions could be made for the improvement of the Bill. Of course, I do not intend to touch upon a measure which has only just been introduced, but I do say that what we regard as a vital portion of that measure is its finance. I wish to call the attention of this House to the pledges again and again given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Home Secretary, by the Postmaster-General, and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—by, in fact, four Cabinet Ministers—in reference to the Budget of 1910. I wish to ask whether any Member of this House thinks it right that a State Paper should have been issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had no other result, and could have no other result, than to deceive the people of Ireland and their representatives? I gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice yesterday that I was going to bring this subject forward, but he has not given the advantage of his presence. I do not complain of that for the moment, but I have discharged my duty, at any rate, in giving notice.
    I hold in my hand a State Paper issued by the British Government at the instance of a prominent Irish Member—the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—and signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That paper secured the Budget of 1910, and there under was also secured the Insurance Act and many other measures. That State Paper I denounce as a fraud and a public scandal. It was a document issued by the Government, and it has been the foundation stone of a multitude of subsequent statements made by Ministers and by prominent Irish leaders. There have been under investigation upstairs, for the last six months, some very important matters by the Committee on Putumayo and the Committee on Marconi. I really think it would be better that there should be some Committee of investigation as to the conduct of the British Treasury as to the conduct of its officials and as to the system they adopt in dealing with Irish transactions, whereby a Minister is maintained in office year after year, and the votes of Irish Members are reversed—because they
    2272
    voted against the Budget in 1909 and they voted for it in 1910—on these public pledges and statements of Ministries, which statements were afterwards put into black and white, and were signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a serious charge to make. Let me make it good. This State Paper was issued at the instance of the Member for East Mayo. The Budget passed its Third Reading on the 27th April, 1910. On the same day the contents of this State Paper were given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In order that the matter might not depend upon mere verbiage used in the House, the Member for East Mayo made this request of the Government. He said:—
    "This Budget, in my opinion, passing as it now will pass, will lay upon Ireland the charge this year of about £480,000.
    Mr. Lloyd George: £435,000.
    Mr. Dillon: I quite agree that Treasury figures should be scrutinised, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the earliest possible moment, to lay upon the Table of the House a White Paper containing the Treasury Estimates of these figures showing exactly what Ireland is paying. Then let these Gentlemen who talk about £2,000,000 produce their calculations to show that the Budget does, in fact, lay a burden of £2,000,000 a year upon Ireland. That is n fair challenge, and let them face the Irish people upon the issue, and, if they are proved to be wrong. I hope they will withdraw and apologise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1910, cols. 2112–13, Vol. XVI.]
    It is sometimes extremely difficult for us to get from the Government Papers dealing with Ireland, and this year, although we are now in the month of May, we have not been able to get the figures for last year. Both in April, 1912, and in April, 1910, the Treasury were able to produce figures without any difficulty, yet now, when we wish to discuss the Budget of the present year, the right hon. Gentleman tells us we can have no figures until the month of July! He produced them for the Budget Bill, and he produced them last year for the Home Rule Bill, in order to defraud us by his fraudulent finance, for his finance is nothing else than fraudulent. This year, when they are wanted for the purposes of criticism, the right hon. Gentleman says he is unable to produce his figures until July. Before I analyse these figures, let me say what that State Paper was. It is divided into two parts. It gives for the Budget year—that is to say, the first year of its being in operation—an analysis of what the taxation would probably be for that year, and then it gives an estimate for all time. I am going to quote from the Home Secretary,

    2273
    who was then the chief financial expert in the Government, as well as other Ministers, what the Member for East Mayo told the Irish public was a pledge—a public pledge from the Minister—that that figure would never be exceeded as regards Ireland. When we come to the Home Rule Bill, they will refuse to give us even one-tenth of the extra taxation which this Budget of 1910 wrings from the people. Here is the Return "A," divided into two heads: "Estimated Irish contribution to the true revenue of the year 1909–10, in respect of new and additional taxation imposed by the Finance Act, 1910, £438,000." That is the figure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon two occasions announced as the true figures for that year, and in order that we might not be astonished at his moderation there is this note:—
    "The increased duties have thus proved actually less productive than the former rates."
    That notice is put by the right hon. Gentleman who, when bringing in his Budget, rejoiced that at one and the same time he had benefited morality and had increased the yield for the Exchequer. That was the Estimate for that year. I come to the other portion of the Return—that is, the Estimate of the Government for the future. I will then read the pledge the Government gave, that that would be substantially a constant demand upon Ireland, and I will show what the political results from that state of things are:—
    "(B). Estimated annual Irish contribution to the Revenue to be derived from the new and additional taxation imposed by the Finance Act when the duties have become fully productive."
    That is to say, for all time. When these duties have become fully productive, this is going to be the result. This is the State Paper issued by the Government upon which men reversed their votes. They voted against the Budget in 1909, and on the strength of these stories they voted for the Budget in 1910—the same men and the same Budget, but the men voting in different Lobbies. Here it is:—
    "Irish proportion, £518,000—"
    —that is the existing duties—
    "Proceeds of the new duties imposed by the Act, £84,000; total, £602,000."
    That is to say, that the proceeds of the new duties imposed by the Budget should only be £84,000. There may be some doubt and question as to that, therefore I will only rely on the total, namely, £602,000. The House is not dealing with children. This is not a gamble; this is a solemn State Paper issued to the nation
    2274
    to justify the national representatives of Ireland in swallowing their own words and in reversing their own votes. Before I give the actual facts, let me quote what the Ministers said. I take the Postmaster-General, who spoke on 25th April, 1910. The importance of any speech by the Postmaster-General is that he was the man who was specially put in charge of the finance of the Home Rule Bill. We all admire his ability; nobody admires it more than I do. What I want to show is that the Government brought forward in turn each of their financial experts to justify their statements—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Postmaster-General, the Home Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Duchy, who are their four big financial men. The Postmaster-General, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. William O'Brien), said:—
    "He declared that the additional burden cast upon Ireland by this Budget amounts to £2,000,000 per year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the House another estimate. His estimate is £435,000 a year. There is this difference between the two; that while the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supported by published figures showing in detail precisely how——
    Mr. T. M. Healy: Is it supported by unpublished figures?
    Mr. Herbert Samuel: The figures have been laid before the House, and each item that makes up the £435,000 has been declared, and that is the difference between the estimate of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the estimate of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. While the particulars of this £435,000 are given in all detail, the figure of £2,000,000 of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork is a peroration and nothing more, and is unsupported by one single fact or figure."
    2.0 P.M.
    Then he goes in for the old ninepence for fourpence dodge, and says to us that we are getting £2,800,000 for old age pensions, and he says:—
    "In exchange for this £2,800,000 receipts, she is asked to make an expenditure of £435,000."
    That is ninepence for about twopence, I suppose. He goes on:—
    "In any other part of the United Kingdom, or part of the world except Cork, it would indeed be thought to be a good bargain to pay £400,000 odd and receive £2,800,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1910, col. 76, Vol. XVII.]
    It would be a good bargain. Let us see what the other Ministers said. Here is the Home Secretary, The importance of the statement which I am now going to read is that it was publicly availed of in Ireland by the hon. Member for East Mayo in order to show the Irish people that a distinct pledge had been given that only this small sum would ever be exacted in the future. The speech of the Home Secretary will be found in the OFFICIAL

    2275
    REPOET, Vol. XVI., 20th April, 1910, Cols. 2124 to 2135. Strange to say, it is not included in the volume, which is always published, called "Irish Debates." I suppose it is left out because it is so important:—
    "Mr. McKenna: I am endeavouring to deal with the argument that this Budget is costing the Irish taxpayers £2,000,000, and I am endeavouring to show that, so far from that being true, for last year the cost of the Budget for Ireland was well under £450,000, and we do not anticipate that ever in the future it will exceed half a million—a quarter of the alleged charge which it is supposed we are imposing upon the Irish taxpayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1910, col. 2132, Vol. XVI.]
    As we know from the White Paper issued at the instance of the hon. Member for East Mayo, it is not too much to say that that is a speech made by a Minister handling finance with skill—I will not say it was made by arrangement, but, at all events, it is remarkable that it had scarcely been uttered when the Bill of which he spoke was endorsed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Here is what the Irish people were told on the speech I have just read. The hon. Member referred to Mr. McKenna's speech on the 30th May, 1910. The speech was only then practically three weeks old. He said:—
    "This country has been deluged with lies about the Budget, and he held Mr. McKenna's speech as a distinct pledge given to the Irish party that at no future period would Ireland be called on to contribute more than half a million under the Budget,"
    A pledge given to the Irish party is a very sacred thing. It is a pledge-bound party. I myself wrote out the pledge and made it as stringent as I possibly could. I never understood why I was not allowed the benefit of that pledge myself as the author. At all events we may well ask whether the pledge-bound party is going to insist on justice from a pledge-bound Ministry, which pledge-bound Ministry they hold in the hollow of their hands. You are never tired of hearing that.
    Let us now see the remaining Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy. The great position that the Chancellor of the Duchy has on finance we recognise. At first, when he was appointed, we were not all aware of his ability. I confess that his appointment, when he was on the Indian Ocean, to the position of Secretary to the Treasury, came upon me by surprise, but I wish to say, with all humility, that I think he has entirely justified his position, and that it would be difficult to find in the Ministry, modest as he often is, a man of greater ability. He was therefore made Secretary to the Treasury, and a year after-
    2276
    wards, when they had had the experience of twelve months' working of the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman spoke on a Debate which I raised. He was extremely courteous and extremely conciliatory. The extraordinary thing about it is that he was so skilful and conciliatory that I believed him. He said:—
    "In confirmation of what I have said, if the hon. Member for Cork had referred to another Return—"
    That is this fraudulent State Paper. I want to link up and show the House how, right through the history of this business, this document figures like a sort of Dreyfus dossier. He goes back to the year after it was issued, and he endorses it in this way:—
    "In confirmation of what I have said, if the hon Member for Cork had referred to another Return, which was issued by myself on 28th April, 1910, he would have seen that the amount to be collected in excess from Ireland in a full year—that is, when the Land Value Duties have reached their maximum—in respect of the new duties imposed by that Act, will amount to £84,000, and in respect to the existing duties will amount to about £518,000, or somewhere thereabout. That is, of course, subject to adjustments to be made. But the total excess revenue to be collected from Ireland in a full year, when all the duties have come to full fruition, will be £600,000, or a very close approximation to the figure named by the hon. Member for East Mayo."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1911, col. 1297, Vol. XXIX.]
    The hon. Member seemed at that time to live in the Treasury and to be their exponent. He boasted in that Debate that he always spoke the truth.
    "No matter how great the indignation of the hon. Member (Mr. William O'Brien) I shall never be ashamed or afraid to tell the truth about Ireland's affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1911, col. 1202, Vol. XXIX.]
    There I have shown, by a series of quotations from Ministers, by a State Paper, by the endorsement of Ministers' speeches by leading Irish Members, a pledge by the Government as far as language can extend. Of course, it is not stamped or sealed at Somerset House. It is not a legal document. It is nothing in the nature of a contract note, but it is, so far as Parliamentary institutions go, a document which Members of Parliament are entitled to rely upon and for which the Government have had value received. Now let us come to the facts. Let us now take the Returns issued last year and I maintain that, if we had been honoured by the Returns for the present year instead of their being delayed, the pitiful story that I am now going to tell would be much deepened and darkened. That Return which we should have is kept back from us and therefore I can only go upon a comparison of the Return of 1910 with the Return of 1912. I take the four chief taxes affected by the Budget. With

    2277
    this Return staring them in the face, hon. Members who boast that they are not afraid to tell the truth about Ireland, have not only remained silent, but have endeavoured by every expedient to boycott exposure and have even gone the unparalleled length of placing Parliamentary pickets at that door to keep out any of their followers who might wish to come in to hear the truth. I take the first increase—tobacco, a poor man's luxury, if ever there was one. The right hon. Gentleman's pledged, signed Paper gave the increase of the tobacco Returns at £213,000. Last year's Paper gives us the real money collected—£490,000—more than double what we get under the Home Rule Bill to run Ireland with. We get £200,000 to run Ireland with under the Home Rule Bill and the increase on tobacco smoke alone is £490,000. That is to say, that the right hon. Gentleman and his experts, whom we are always told to rely upon, have budgeted for more than twice what they should. Supposing I had a deficit of £7,000,000 and put it down at only £3,500,000; suppose I budgeted on English beer for £10,000,000 and I exacted £20,000,000 from the British working man, what would the English say?
    I now come to Estate Duty. Of course, the Treasury may state that it would affect dukes and millionaires. It does not affect them entirely. It affects them, too, but it affects humble people as well. If there is any subject on which a careful estimate could be made, I think it is Estate Duty. I humbly submit that there is no excuse for such an estimate when dealing with Estate Duty. The right hon. Gentleman's estimate for that duty was £133,000. The exact revenue from it was £220,000—nearly double the Estimate. As to Income Tax, I suppose that, at all events, on that, too, a pretty exact figure could be estimated. The Estimate, according to the Return, was £124,000, but you got from the Irish people £246,000. Remember Ireland is a poor country. We do not think in billions; we think in bawbees, and when you budget for £190,000,000, why these little wretched figures of poor Ireland really sink into insignificance! It reminds me of a man who went bankrupt for £1,000,000, and his washerwoman asked him for 1s. for washing his shirts. He said that in large commercial transactions we cannot afford to deal with these trifling amounts.
    Take even the Super-tax. I thought there was only one millionaire in Ireland.
    2278
    I thought Lord Iveagh, for whom I have great respect, and who has done so much for the country, was the only one. I remember, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he asked me if I would hesitate to increase the Income Tax on a man like that. I said I would, because every time you put a tax on a rich man you have a gardener, a coachman, or a groom less; or he orders fewer changes and repairs to be made. You cannot tax a millionaire without hitting the working man, just as you could not throw out the Great Western Bill without having men down at Fishguard starving in a year or two. I thought that if there was anything you could make a fair estimate upon it was the Super-tax. The Estimate was £60,000, but you actually collected from our paltry group of millionaires in Ireland £104,000. On every head of estimate and expenditure the Government have acted—well, it really is impossible to find suitable Parliamentary words to characterise what they have done! If England, Scotland, or Wales had been treated like that, would hon. Members have sat silent on these benches, although the cold chain of silence rests upon Ireland's watchdogs? Take the very small item of motor spirit. You could not even make a decent estimate for Ireland about motor spirit. The Estimate was £12,000, and you actually got £21,000. Let us see what the main figures are. We were paying in the year before the Budget £9,250,500, and last year—remember the figures for this year are still unavailable—we paid £10,688,000, an increase of £1,437,500. There are nontax services, like telegraphs and telephones, which I have deducted. I put them at £104,500. The net increase is £1,333,000, and of that sum, on the confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, £1,100,000 is the result of the Budget which he said was only to cost us from £400,000 to £500,000.
    What is the inference from this? It is that those who were arranging the future of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill would at least have said last year, "Well, we will make no Jew's bargain with you. Give us for Ireland as a dowry in the future, and we will ask nothing else, the result of the extra taxation arising out of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which comes from Ireland." Would not any man of common sense have made that bargain with the Government?

    2279
    It would have been an irresistible position to take up, because they could have said, "We were against the Budget." I will not trouble the House with the speeches hon. Members for Ireland made in denouncing the Budget. They said that the taxes were unfairly imposed upon Ireland, and they made a number of other statements of that kind. Therefore, they were in a position to say to the Government, "By our votes we have kept you in office all these years, and we helped you to pass what was unwelcome and unwilling to ourselves. Give us, at all events, the fruits"—I will not say of our misconduct—"and the product of our tears." They never thought of that. While, of course, I quite admit the set-off as to old age pensions, and as to the other reserved services, I say that on that Budget the Irish party occupied a position of impregnable strength. If that was too much to ask of them, I would make this suggestion. We are told by the Prime Minister that there are to be suggestions to the House of Lords. The Government are going to appoint a Procedure Committee. It would be very interesting if there were recommendations by the Committee as to how procedure might be executed on suggestion day. On suggestion day we make a Motion and suggest to the House of Lords that they should keep Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to his promise, and not levy on Ireland under the Budget more than £500,000. I am sure we shall have the support of the Irish party for that suggestion. I am satisfied that the House of Lords would assent to the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would be practically unanimous in saying that, instead of the miserable dole of £200,000, we should get the whole usufruct of this great and good Budget. I am almost sure that the House of Lords would be so pleased with this that it would pass the Home Rule Bill.
    Therefore I have raised this question, no doubt on an inconvenient day, but, as I had the honour of pointing out earlier, the discrepancy which has been established in the practice of the Committee of Ways and Means and in the Report of the Resolution drove me thereto. I therefore thank the House for the way in which it has allowed me to make this statement, and I finish by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer is it too much for an Irish Member to request the
    2280
    British Government to keep faith with Ireland? It will be no answer to me to say that we are getting old age pensions, insurance, and I do not know what else. We were getting all those when you promised us that our taxation would not exceed £500,000. Therefore let us go back to the position of 1910, and ask that as we are in the future to have in this House only forty-two Members, you will at least keep faith with the forty-two. It is upon this question, and on this question alone, that the representation of Ireland in the future gives me great concern. I gladly assented to the cutting down of the Members to forty-two under the Home Rule Bill, but in the future I confess to some' anxiety. That anxiety was first created when Ireland was treated as a foreign country in the matter of cattle, and Acts were applied which were passed on the statements of Ministers that they were to apply only to the Argentine, the United States, and other foreign countries, and would never apply to Ireland. On the faith of these statements our predecessors assented to these Acts, and now you have used them to convert Ireland into a foreign country. Simultaneously with the injury to our trade, which in the present year will amount at least to £1,000,000, we have the fact that your promises upon the Budget have all turned out to be false. Is it too much to ask of this House, when you have passed this Budget by a solemn statement endorsed by the representatives of Ireland, whose votes alone kept you in office, that you should make some slight redemption of your pledge to Ireland?
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, arising out of the general interest felt in the progress of the inquiry of the Land Committee. Interest in this inquiry is not limited to the benches opposite. I do not raise this question with a view of proposing any legislative action, or any action under the Trade Boards Act, which does provide that any trade may be brought within the Schedules, but I wish to point out the increasing urgency of the question of agricultural wages and the position of the agricultural labourer. I refer to the increasing emigration, which is denuding the rural parts of England of their men, in many cases their best men. Very exact figures have been compiled by the National Agricultural Labourers' Union. We have only just heard from the hon. Member opposite of the stream of strong men pouring out of our country to

    2281
    the Colonies and elsewhere. Another reason for raising this question is that opinion is ripening, as the success of the Trade Boards Act has been confirmed by the passing of the Coal Mines Act, and people are beginning to feel that questions of wages are of interest to the Government. We are getting a little beyond the general assumption that wages are a mere matter of laissez-faire, and I submit that this class of wages is a fit subject for discussion in this House. Reviewing the general result of the Trade Boards Act, and the relation of agricultural wages to all other wages, the simple fact emerging is that agricultural wages are at the root of low wages in every part of the country.
    It is very easy to arouse sympathy with the agricultural labourer by reference to his history. Everyone has read the very interesting revelations in Mr. Hammond's recent book on village labour. Merely to look into it is enough to arouse a certain emotional indignation. But I rather base myself on the firm ground of present-day economics. The Board of Trade has now put beyond dispute what are agricultural wages. It is not incorrect to say that they reveal the fact that agriculture is the sweated trade—in fact, agricultural wages are stated to average 17s. 6d., and that is including every form of remuneration. To compare with that we have the acknowledged subsistence standard elaborated by Mr. Rowntree and others a year or two ago, which was then 18s. 4d., but now, with the rise in prices, is considerably higher. In Norfolk the average of wages is 15s. 4d., and in Oxford it is considerably lower. But, in saying that, one must remember that a man may be employed for the larger part of the year and may be ill at harvest time, and his average for the year would then be an entirely different matter. On wet days, or where there is no fixity of tenure or wages, a man's weekly earning may be very much less than the so-called cash earnings of the winter. A very interesting statement has been compiled by Mr. Mann, which came out in his book on life in the English village. He points out that the labourer in his first stage is raised above the poverty line when he begins, or his brothers begin, to earn wages. He can then secure sufficient food, clothing, and shelter until he is a married man and has three children. After he has more than two children he again sinks below the line of subsistence, and does not rise again until some of his children leave school
    2282
    and begin to earn. But before all his children are provided for, old age comes on, and he sinks below the poverty line once more, probably never to rise above it again. That is simply a graphic way of expressing the life history of the agricultural labourer in the greater number of the counties of England.
    Another interesting fact which is brought out is that in the case of a great many agricultural labourers, if you take their ordinary wages, apart from harvest remuneration, and you make a reasonable allowance for his club, etc., and his clothing, there is not more than enough, in the case of a man with a family of five, to allow for ¾d. per meal for each member of the family. That is sufficient to make one realise something of what the housekeepers' difficulties at all events are in farm labourers' houses of England. On the question of education, it is unnecessary to point out that owing to low wages the children of farm labourers are very often unfit to make the best of the lessons in school, and of course it is notorious that the housing problem is absolutely bound up with the wages question. No praise can be too great for the efforts which the rural districts are making to meet the housing difficulty, and progress has steadily been made, but not rapidly enough, and what economists can hope that the rural housing question will be solved until we solve the thing at the root of all others which is adequate remuneration, and which makes it possible for housing to be an economic investment. Then you have the incursion of the country labourer into the towns. Mr. Charles Booth pointed out that something like 30 per cent. of the employés in the large factories of the East-End are men country born. They continually keep wages down, and they notoriously undercut wages in the towns, and all this while prices have been rising to a certainly greater extent than wages have risen. The under-feeding of children is not merely as bad, but it is worse than it was, because the actual wage in many homes is certainly worse in point of purchasing power. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us any assurance that inquiry is being made into these subjects, and also into the possible bearing of the Trade Board's system in its application to the economic difficulties of rural organisation.
    Of course there are innumerable difficulties to be inquired into in the application of any such system, which bristles

    2283
    with complexities, and calls for very close inquiry, possibly a more detailed inquiry than a non-official body can carry out. It is certainly the case in rural England that the employer class is not at all taken with the idea of a rise in wages. I would submit one reflection upon that. You find in country life the strongest opposition expressed to the idea of a rise of wages, but sometimes you find that opposition is very inconsistent. You will hear a man inveigh generally against agitators who set class against class, and saying that it will ruin agriculture to demand a rise of wages. Or you will hear some farmer or landlord talk about appointing a gardener or a gamekeeper, and then the question of wages is viewed from another point of view, for they remark that of course they could not dream of paying a gardener or a gamekeeper less than 15s. a week, because they could not decently live on less. The opposition is very often not a reasoned opposition, and it might yield to inquiry. The same objection that we have now was experienced fifty years ago in regard to the fencing of machinery. John Bright himself said that the fencing of machinery would be the last straw to break the back of the manufacturer. We know what has happened. Again you have the fact that wages have very largely risen, and that agriculture and farming have not been in the least injured thereby. There is the farmer's point of view which I hope will be gone into very carefully. I think the farmers will be inconvenienced greatly by any disturbance, and I cannot help having sympathy with them. They cannot be expected to make allowance for economic friction or ultimate advantage, and the course of the first rearrangement would be very inconvenient to them.
    I would like to point out, however, that the farmers in many cases have been raising wages, and are anxious to raise them further, but they are in great difficulty unless some general rise comes to their aid. Here is a very interesting illustration. In January of last year, Mr. Montague, of Linford Hall, one of the chief estates in Norfolk, paid his married labourers 17s. and his single labourers 15s. 6d., and the tradesmen in the adjoining towns and villages already feel the benefit of the increased custom. But mark the difficulty. Mr. Montague afterwards received a letter from a farmer who said he thought Mr. Montague might have met the labourers
    2284
    in some other way, so as not to make labourers on adjoining estates and farms dissatisfied. Unless there is a general levelling up, other employers are at a disadvantage. This is one of the chief difficulties in applying an agricultural rate. Perhaps the Chancellor will assure us that inquiry is being made into this subject. The variation in farm wages is so immense in England that it disposes of the theory that farm wages are based on value. The efficiency of work and labour is not in relation to the wages paid, and anybody who looks at the facts will not deny that. In general I would urge that this subject ought to be looked upon from a national point of view, and nobody can doubt that the wages now prevailing in many counties of England are a gigantic economic mistake. Everyone admits that in our rural machinery artificially low wages and artificially low rents are no public advantage, and almost prevent the solution of the housing question, which, while certainly being an economic, is also a moral and educational question. There are various remedies suggested, but they require very careful inquiry, and I do not know whether a private body is in a position to make it. I submit that the demand for better treatment for the agricultural labourer is a moderate and constitutional demand, and, if it is the aim of the Government to produce happiness and tranquillity, then the claim of the labourers should be very carefully considered. This is not merely a question which affects the largest body of men working in one industry in the country, but it is one the solution of which is at the very base of the national welfare and national health.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I will reply to my hon. Friend who has just sat down before I deal with the question of Irish finance. I could not possibly answer for the inquiry of an unofficial or private character which is being conducted. Although I am associated with that inquiry I am not associated with it as a Minister of the Crown, and the Government as a Government has nothing to do with it, though it is undertaken with their knowledge and sanction, and I have no doubt that they will benefit from the result of the inquiries which are being made. As my hon. Friend knows very well, the inquiry is of a very careful, systematic, and, I think I may say scientific character, by some of the ablest investigators in this

    2285
    country, men whose position as investigators is thoroughly established in this country; some of them have an international reputation as investigators. I am glad to think that the investigation is of a most impartial character into which the facts of the case are without any preconceived notions of what the remedies ought to be. My hon. Friend, I think, has rendered a service by calling attention to the very deplorable condition of the agricultural labourer in some parts of Great Britain—notably in some part of Great Britain. In fact, I am certain that there is no important industry in which those who are engaged in it are so miserably paid as that of the agricultural labourer. I think their wages and their housing conditions are a perfect scandal to this great country, and anybody who has taken the trouble to inquire for himself and to read up some of the reports which were prepared some time ago by Mr. Wilson Fox and others as to the condition of the agricultural labourer must come to that conclusion. My hon. Friend has also called attention to the fact that there has been a great deal of emigration, and, what is still more important, migration, from the rural districts during the last few years. Those who are acquainted with the facts will not be astonished at the numbers who have left those districts, and they must be surprised that many more have not left. When wages are so much better in the mining areas and other areas, it is marvellous that able-bodied men should be prepared to go on labouring at all seasons for that miserable reward which labour on the soil brings to them.
    I also agree with my hon. Friend that there is no economic reason at all why wages should be so low in some of those areas. In fact, it always puzzles me why wages should be so very low in some districts, whereas in almost contiguous areas wages are very much higher. Take some of the districts, you might imagine it is because farming in certain districts is not as profitable a business as it is in districts where the wages are higher. There is no reason why it should not be, because the wages are lowest in some of the counties which are nearest to the biggest markets of the world. That is a most extraordinary phenomenon. If you go to Scotland, to even remote parts, and the North of England, though there are some good markets there, and to some parts of Wales which are completely removed from large markets, there you find that the wages in
    2286
    some cases amount to 20s. per week. Come to the Home Counties near London and the other great towns, where you have the biggest market for agricultural produce that the world can ever give any farmer, and the wages are less by a third at least than they are in the remotest parts of the mountains of Wales.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Not in the Home Counties.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly in some of the Home Counties they are less by sometimes a third than they are in the part of the world I come from, which is a purely mountainous district, where the soil is not particularly good and difficult of cultivation, and where you have not got a big market nearer than Liverpool, which is over a hundred miles away. Yet in the Home Counties, within easy access of this great market here, the wages are not to be compared with the wages which we pay in some parts of my own country. That shows that there must be some reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the profitable character of agriculture, and they must be reasons either of a social or political character, or reasons which may be of a trade-union character, but they are reasons which ought to be looked into very carefully. I think this House has at any rate, some power to control, direct, and guide in that direction. I do not think any Government can abstain from taking cognisance of this question. We are losing our population in the rural areas, and in some respects the best part of our population. The land is under-cultivated in a good many districts for that very reason, owing to the scarcity of labour, because the conditions of labour are not sufficiently attractive to induce the men bred and born in those areas to remain there, apart from their not being sufficiently attractive to induce people from other districts to migrate to the rural areas. As a matter of fact, the natural attractions of country life ought to be so great that the migration ought to be from the towns to the country and not from the country to the towns. I am sure it is possible, by means which I am not in a position at the present moment to outline, and I am perfectly satisfied it is possible to divert the stream of migration and get your surplus population in the towns to that land, instead of getting, not the surplus population, but an inadequate population to migrate into the town.
    My hon. Friend has said very truly that this is a national question, and I shall be

    2287
    very glad to see it treated from a national and not a partisan point of view, and I am sincere in that, because I do not know any question which more vitally affects the life of this country than the rural problem. I should be very glad to see real co-operation between the parties. I do not think it is a question of attacking any class or criticising any class. All classes have done their duty according to their own lights. I think it is a case for all parties to put their heads together and co-operate for the purpose of regenerating rural life in this country. You really cannot get a great country built up permanently on conditions which make rural life unpopular, putting it at its lowest, and that is really the case now. I am certain the landlord does not profit by that; I am sure he does not. I am equally certain that the farmer does not profit by that. I am sure the present system is a pecuniary loss to the landlord. It is certainly a pecuniary loss to the farmer who does not make the best of the land, and who does not make the best profit for himself, and who does not put himself in the position to pay even often an adequate rent for the land he has, and the agricultural labourer undoubtedly suffers. I do not want to disparage any agricultural labourer in any part of the country, but going about the country I noticed that there is a vast difference between the men in the well-paid districts and those in the underpaid districts. The man in the well paid districts has got the swing of life in every movement. He is full of vitality and go, well-built, strong, and vigorous. If you go to the underpaid districts the men look disheartened and discouraged, with no strength and no go, and no life in them. You cannot get any profit out of people under those conditions. I am quite sure it is to the profit of the farmer and of the landlord, and of the agricultural labourer too, and that it is for the profit of this country as a whole that you should get a thoroughly contented peasantry, well satisfied, because they are well fed and well clad, and well housed, and the conditions of life are pleasant for them.
    I do hope no one will think that I am making any party appeal in the matter, but I do hope that all parties will just direct their minds to this, and, if necessary, make sacrifices, because each party has got its own sacrifices to make in this respect. One party can appeal to one class and another party to another class. It is
    2288
    well worth our while to appeal to all classes of the country in order to do something to recover the old position which rural life used to have, and which to a very large extent it has lost to-day. I was glad to see a Bill introduced yesterday by Unionist Members dealing with the matter, and I hope they will not be discouraged by Members on their own side. I was also glad to see in the Press recently some letters from prominent Unionists dealing with the subject. I am sure that if it is dealt with broadly in this way, without any party appeals, whichever party eventually has to deal with it, it will make an enormous difference in the course and destiny of the country. At the present moment that is all I can say in reply to my hon. Friend. The question is really receiving the attention of the Government. The facts are being collected. Those facts are very valuable. At any rate I hope that the reports will not be prejudged before they are seen. If it is found that they are purely partisan mutilated accounts of what happens in rural districts, let them be condemned then. For the moment I simply ask that they should receive fair consideration. I think it will be found that they are a very valuable contribution to the study of the problem, and that they will be of value, not merely to Members on this side of the House, but to those Members who are equally interested, equally zealous, and equally sincere on the other side.
    I turn now to what has fallen from the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) about Irish finance. His speech was marked by that accuracy with respect to facts and figures, and I may add the high sense of chivalry which always characterises the hon. Member. What is his complaint? It is, as far as I can see, that we under-estimated the revenue that we should receive from Ireland under the Budget of 1909. It is perfectly true that we received more in respect of the new taxes than we expected to receive. That is true, not merely of Ireland, but of Great Britain as well. These taxes have yielded more than we thought they would yield. I am not here to apologise for that. It is a tribute to the wealth of the country. It is very difficult to estimate for a single year what a tax will yield. It is still more difficult to estimate the yield for two, three, or four years. The hon. Gentleman criticises us because we are not able to anticipate with accuracy what the taxes will yield three years ahead. If a tax is well and truly

    2289
    laid, if it is a sound tax, it is more likely to err on the side of exceeding the Estimate than on the other side. What has happened in Ireland? We have under-estimated the wealth of the country. Is that a thing for Irish Members to regret? I frankly admit that it has turned out that Ireland is more prosperous and wealthy than we thought she was. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his friends on that fact. But why does he attack the Treasury for that? If the Treasury are responsible for it, he ought to thank and not attack them. He says that the Death Duties have produced more than we expected. What does that mean? It means that people have more money than we thought they had. They have saved more money. They are wealthier. I am very glad of that. If the hon. Gentleman had said that we taxed Ireland differently from this country he would have had reason to complain; but the Death Duties, Tea Duty, Tobacco Duty, Spirit Duties are exactly the same in Ireland as in this country. It is said that we have taken more out of Ireland in respect of tobacco, spirits, and motor cars. I admit that I had no idea there were so many Irishmen with motor cars. I am glad that Ireland has so much more surplus wealth than I ever dreamt in 1909. Why do we not rejoice together instead of quarrelling about that? Instead of abusing me for that, the hon. Member ought to dance an Irish jig on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman said, "You estimated that you would get only £602,000. Here is the Paper;" and he dramatically flourished the Paper over his head. If he had taken as much time to read the Paper as he did to flourish it he would have known that he had not quoted the Paper at all. Will it be believed that the hon. Gentleman, while pretending to give the House the estimate of the yield of Irish revenue, actually overlooked the fact that it was stated in the Paper that the Estimate in respect of spirits was not there at all.
    3.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I never mentioned spirits.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly my complaint.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I dealt with that the other day, and you did not reply to it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, no. What happened to-day? The hon. Gentleman, flourishing a Paper, said, "Here is a Paper
    2290
    which says that you are going to get only £600,000 additional duties out of Ireland." It does not say so. The hon. Gentleman has not given the House an accurate account of the Paper which he was flourishing. The Paper says £602,000 from the duties there mentioned. What we were going to get out of spirits we could not tell. What we were going to get out of Liquor Licences we could not tell. What we were going to get out of Land Value Duties we could not tell. The Paper says so. The hon. Gentleman deliberately kept that from the House. Something was said about a fraudulent Paper. What about the fraudulent use of a Paper? It is not a fair way of treating the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have known it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I listened very carefully and quietly to the hon. Member, and I hope he will do the same to me. I listened to him when he was misquoting the Paper deliberately—unless he tells me that he had not read it. If he had not read it, it was a shameful exercise of his power as a Member of Parliament. He knew that he was going to speak to-day. He prepared his speech. He prepared his invective. He prepared his insults. Why did he not spend just three minutes of the time which he devoted to the preparation of his invective and his insults to reading the document on which he professed to base his indictment? He kept from the House of Commons the fact that the Estimate in regard to spirits is not in the Paper at all. If he had read the document, the whole of his case would have vanished. But all this was done, not for the House of Commons, but for the "Cork Free Press," and for consumption in a row between himself and his friends in Ireland. That is a matter entirely for themselves. But I say that it is a disgraceful thing that in order to assist his friends in Ireland, he should make constant attacks upon officials in the Treasury and in the Inland Revenue Department, accusing them of fraud, blackmail, and all sorts of unmentioned crimes. He attacks upright honourable men who do their duty on a basis which if the hon. Member had only read the Paper, he would have known was grossly inaccurate and untrue. It is one of the most unjustifiable exercises of his power as a Member of Parliament that I have ever seen. So much for the document about which the hon. Member speaks.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is the difference in spirits now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is an increase in spirits.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: How does that affect the question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It affects the question because the hon. Member says that we budgeted only for an increase of £600,000. That is not true, because we stated in our document that we were not including spirits at all, and the increase is very largely an increase in spirits.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is the figure?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will come to that point.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: What is the figure?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can give the figure, but that is not the point at the present moment. The point at the present moment is that the hon. and learned Gentleman deliberately withheld from the House of Commons and from his countrymen in Ireland a fact which must have been known to him.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That statement is untrue; I say that statement is untrue.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this document stated at the end that these taxes would produce £600,000.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is the document, and there are also the statements of four Ministers—Mr. McKenna, Mr. Hobhouse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this document—and I have listened to him carefully—stated——
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have read the document.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He said that this document stated that in the first place we expected from Ireland an increase of £600,000. Not only is that not true, but the hon. and learned Gentleman would have discovered, had he taken two minutes to look over this document and consult it, that it was untrue.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is not untrue.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What does this document say? This document does not
    2292
    give the estimate of spirits, nor the estimate of liquor licences——
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: What difference does that make?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me finish. It does not give an estimate of the Super-tax. It gives no estimate of land values. What it means is this: That in four out of the taxes we stated that we could not estimate at that time, so that to say that the only estimate we formed was that of an increase of £600,000 a year is untrue, and grossly untrue. If the hon. and learned Member did not know that a few minutes ago, I think he knows it now.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not accept your statement in any degree; I do not accept any of your statements.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has got to restrain himself within the decencies of Parliamentary debate. I know it requires a great effort on his part to do so. But I listened to him while he was abusing the Treasury, and whilst he was abusing me for over half an hour without interrupting him. I come to the other statement—that we are getting a little over half a million increase from Ireland—that is one-twenty-fifth of the increase we are getting from the United Kingdom—and the population of Ireland, I think, is one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom. The increased taxation we are getting from Ireland is one-twenty-fifth, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "I quite admit there is a set-off, but what is the good of talking about that." He treats it with great contempt. He might have given the figures. After all, they are rather interesting. They are very interesting to this country. He might have been fairer, I think, to the House of Commons. What is Ireland getting out of this Budget of 1909, which the hon. and learned Member treats with such scorn, treats as a small set-off, as a matter of book-keeping? She is getting £2,600,000 for old age pensions alone. She is getting £250,000 for national health insurance, unemployment, and Labour Exchanges—all provided out of that Budget. Ireland has had more for road improvements per head of the population than any other part of the Kingdom—£146,000. Here is another item provided by the Budget of 1909: For agricultural developments Ireland has had far more than any other part of the United Kingdom. She has had £173,000.

    2293
    Apart from these grants, Ireland has got directly out of the finance of the Budget of 1909, £2,850,000 a year. She finds £1,114,000. She is over £1,700,000 a year to the good. And the hon. and learned Gentleman scornfully dismisses that as nothing but a little set-off—book-keeping! Why did he not give the facts? He said he had a suggestion to make to the House of Lords. My suggestion, he said, is this: "That the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be confined to his half-million out of the revenues that he is getting out of the Budget." I will make a bargain with him. Will he halve the expenditure involved in the Budget of 1909? In that case Ireland will get £1,425,000 instead of £2,850,000 a year. She will lose £1,425,000, and I would lose £500,000. The Treasury would be £900,000 a year to the good. Will he add that to his suggestion? If he will then the Treasury will benefit by it. I am perfectly certain that Ireland would not. The next time he makes these statements—because he was not making them for consumption here, but for consumption in Ireland—let him state the whole facts. Let him state not merely the truth, but the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Let him say in Ireland that you are abstracting, if you like—I forget the word—wringing out of the Irish taxpayer £1,100,000—out of this overtaxed country. Let him also say that for that £1,100,000 that is being wrung out of Ireland we are giving them by the same instrument £2,850,000 apart from road and development grants. When he tells the truth, and the whole truth, I will not be afraid of being judged by his countrymen on that issue.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I do not want to wind up the proceedings of this Debate on an angry note, but I must say that I am a little disappointed at—I do not like to say it—the ill-conditioned speech that we have just been listening to, a speech in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us such a pretty specimen of the courtesy and of that democratic equality which, according to the old traditions, at all events, ought to prevail amongst all the Members of this House, whether they sit upon this bench or upon that. Even Irish Nationalists who have the misfortune not to form part of the Ministerial household ought to have some right to some little toleration when they are discussing the most vital financial affairs of their country on one of the exceptionally few occasions when it is now
    2294
    possible to do so. We have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for one advance here to-day, and that is that he has stayed to listen to us. Upon the last occasion, while perhaps we were wrong in attaching too much importance to the fact, he absented himself from this House during the speech of my hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of Cork City—a speech that I venture to say anybody who heard it would admit was a speech worth listening to for anybody with a sense of responsibility in regard to the future relations between these two countries. Again, it may have been the merest accident that the Home Secretary, when he came to speak that night, omitted to say a single word on the subject which the right hon. Gentleman has not ventured to make any allusion to—the pledge that was brought home to him that the taxation of Ireland under this Budget would never exceed £500,000 a year. Again, of course it may have been another regrettable coincidence that the Home Secretary himself forgot to say a word in reply to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), who, on the same occasion, spoke, and, I venture to say that such powerful and memorable speeches as those we have heard from our hon. and learned Friend will not readily be forgotten by those against whom they are directed.
    We may be very crafty and suspicious, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Irish allies may, for all I know, be angels of innocence and of simplicity; but being poor, fallible human beings as we are, when we observe that the benches behind us suddenly were denuded of every single occupant the moment my hon. Friend began to speak it looked a little remarkable, as if on that occasion the sympathetic strike extended to the Treasury Benches, when we observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself departed from the House and did not return until the Irish discussion had been safely switched off. It was a little queer that on that night neither he nor the Home Secretary, whose pledges were impugned, ventured to say a single word in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for North-East Cork, who forced the subject to the front, and I for one make not the smallest apology that we did come to the conclusion that the sympathetic boycott and silence on that occasion, if not actually concerted, was, at all events, the result of a system of secret telepathy

    2295
    between the Treasury, who quite naturally do not want to hear any more about unpleasant Irish subjects, although they will hear a great deal more of them, and their Irish allies, who, for reasons of their own, have still less reason to wish to hear the over-taxation of Ireland alluded to any more. We are bound by no such agreement in this House. In the days when we entered this House the Irish Nationalists who would aid and abet the English Treasury in smothering discussion upon the over-taxation of Ireland would have a very short life in this House and not a very merry one. If that was the case, then I hold there is far stronger reason now why the complaints and grievances of Ireland should be reiterated, because at that time even so long ago as 1896 the Childers' Royal Commission, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took very good care to make no allusion, reported Ireland to be over-taxed to the extent of £2,750,000 a year of over-taxation, and since that time and since the right hon. Gentleman Came to be at the head of the Treasury, at least £4,000,000 have been added to the burdens of Ireland.
    I assert that, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said a little while ago, at least £4,000,000 a year has been added to the burdens of Ireland either through the Budget or the Insurance Act or through the damage to the cattle trade of Ireland, or through another source of loss which the right hon. Gentleman took very good care not to allude to, namely, the enormous loss to Ireland by the repudiation of the land purchase settlement of 1903. When we find that all that wrong and injustice to Ireland is left absolutely unremedied by the present Budget and not remedied, as it is suggested by the Government of Ireland Bill, except to the extent of this vanishing subsidy which in a few years will fall to £200,000 or £300,000, instead of our pleading here as criminals, I hold that my hon. and learned friend was not only justified but was bound by a sacred duty to his country to call attention to the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has not dared to controvert, the fact, namely, that at this present moment, according to the pledges given by himself and by three of his colleagues in the Ministry, Ireland stands entitled to be credited with at least £1,000,000 a year in reference to these pledges. My hon. and learned Friend put pledge after pledge from the right hon. Gentleman himself, and from the Home
    2296
    Secretary, and from the Postmaster-General, and from the Chancellor of the Duchy, all in the most definite terms, and terms which the right hon. Gentleman has not ventured to explain away. According to these pledges, beyond all manner of doubt you have broken your promises to Ireland to the extent of £1,000,000, and we are entitled to point out that it was on the strength of these pledges alone that you succeeded in getting your Budget passed, and it was on the representation to the Irish people by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the pledges of the Cabinet to the Irish party that the Irish people attended to the representations of the Irish party.
    We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the old plea that forsooth we have no grievance because we are only taxed upon the same principle and to the same extent as the people of this mighty Empire, and we heard once more of the great advantages old age pensions have given to Ireland. I should like to give my answer to that. My answer is this: I have pointed out in this House again and again without contradiction that the Old Age Pensions Act was framed and introduced without the smallest consultation with the Irish party of the day. And why? Because we did not then hold the balance of power. We did not then hold the Ministry in the hollow of our hand. I venture to say that old age pensions was not passed in the remotest degree from any altruistic tenderness for the poor of Ireland. It was passed for your own British reasons. I do not care to say whether it was not largely passed for your own British electioneering reasons, but, at all events, it was passed as an operation like your vast armaments of the Army and the Navy, and as portion of the paraphernalia of this mighty and wealthy Empire. I say, without hesitation, that you ought to pay for the expensive habits in which you have forced Ireland to be your partner.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: How did you vote on old age pensions?
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I say this to hon. Gentlemen opposite: If you yourselves paid every shilling of the old age pensions that are due to Ireland you would only be making restitution of the extortion which your own Childers Commission acknowledged. But on the contrary we say—and only that I do not want to detain the House, I could give a good many facts in proof of it—that you have recouped yourselves most amply for every shilling

    2297
    of the expenditure to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, first by appropriating to yourselves at least a million of money out of the collected revenue of Ireland, and, secondly, by taking credit to yourselves for at least £1,000,000 more for charges which are as purely Imperial as the manufacture of Union Jacks for your ships or your fortresses. There is one thing that may be forgiven, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it by his speech to-day difficult to do it, but there is one thing that at all events will never be forgotten by the Irishman of the present generation, and it is this. There were only three bargains between Ireland and the Treasury that were ever made in which Ireland got the best of the bargain. One was the land settlement of 1903, another was the great labourers settlement of 1906, and the other, as I hold is demonstrated, was the pledge which our opposition to the Budget wrung from the Ministry that Ireland's liability under the Budget would never exceed £500,000 a year. These were the only three bargains between these two countries in which Ireland was not cruelly wronged and robbed, and each of all these three bargains have now been repudiated by the Treasury under the guardianship of the right hon. Gentleman. Every one of them has been repudiated. I make that charge. It is a charge that has been made before, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no answer to it and can make no answer to it, except his favourite device of talking as if were really some crime of lèse majesté for an Irish Nationalist to speak irreverently or uncomfortably on the subject to the man who is the autocrat of the finances of Ireland at the present moment, and who would be just as absolutely master of our finances and master of our taxation under the so-called Irish Parliament. I do not care to discuss the motives which I am sure from their own point of view are perfectly patriotic which have induced the majority of the representatives of Ireland to foreswear their old relations with the Treasury and their old theory about Irish over-taxation, but no matter whom we may offend we will keep that flag of over-taxation flying until some measure of remedy is afforded to us. However we may be boycotted or blackguarded, either in Ireland or from the Treasury Bench, we will prefer to accept the old fate of Irishmen in this House of being assailed and blackguarded by the
    2298
    Treasury rather than the new plan of being rewarded as Ministerial Nationalists for conniving at and complying with evil work such as the Treasury has been carrying on against Ireland, and such as the right hon. Gentleman has been carrying out against her.

    ALBANIA AND MONTENEGRO.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: The last two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are not very easy Members to follow in this House, and much as their quarrel attracts me, I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke last will forgive me if I do not go into it now. If I gathered correctly what he said, there was a good deal in the first part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which I was in agreement. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the question of Albania. I wish to make my statement as general as possible for this reason, that during the last five months the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has never ceased to labour with unexampled patience to bring about peace, and it would be most unpatriotic and most ungrateful for any man now to add to his task. The House of Commons ought to feel very proud to have a Secretary of Foreign Affairs who, in circumstances of difficulty and complexity surpassing the history of any other generation, has not only had peace as his goal, but has never neglected when he had an oportunity to throw his influence into the scales of justice on behalf of small nationalities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with all I say, but let us agree upon certain things, if we can. We can agree that the war is over; that the Montenegrins and the Albanians are both gallant people; and that if Montenegro did not get what a number of Gentlemen on that side would have liked to see her have, Albania has lost a great deal more than she could afford to lose. I am not surprised that the Montenegrins wanted Scutari. When I was in Scutari I should have liked to have had it myself, and the Montenegrin is a much more rapacious being than I am, more rapacious than any Chancellor of the Exchequer, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I know the Montenegrin people fairly well. I have friends amongst them. On one occasion I was arrested for murder in Montenegro, or to speak more accurately, I was arrested because of my supposed complicity with a whole series of murders, which I need not say, a

    2299
    prominent citizen had committed, and not myself. I bear the Montenegrins no grudge, because they treated me with at least the same courtesy as any murderer in this country would be treated. The Foreign Secretary the other day, speaking on the question of Albania, said that the same sympathy should be extended to the Albanians as had been extended to other people who were contending for their lives, for their language, for their liberty, and for their country. All of us who have been in that country very respectfully endorse his words. We who know the Albanians would like to see the same principle extended to Albania as has been extended to other countries of the Balkans. I should like to say a very few words upon the origin of all these evils and to draw the attention of the House to one fact, which to those who, like myself, have many friends among the Albanians and the Turks is a matter of the deepest regret. It is the quarrel between these two peoples which has led the way to the Balkan war, which has made the Balkan victories possible and almost easy, and which has destroyed Turkey and has halved Albania. The Albanians, who for the last four years have borne the heat and burden of the day, the Albanians who have taken the lion's part, not only are not going to have the lion's share but they are even themselves going to be despoiled. That people which since historic time have fought for its independence, that race that fought the Romans, that withstood Byzantium, that repelled the Slavs, and that in its eager desire for freedom pulled down, like Samson, the columns of the Turkish Empire in ruins on its own body, that race has not only lost hundreds of thousands of its people, not altogether as combatants, but has also lost the greater part of its country.
    There is one reason which is very often given to show why this is not the injustice we believe it is. It is that the Albanians are a wild people and are centuries behind our time. If they are a wild people it is of their own choice that they are so, and a very fine choice I think it has been. Those mountaineers are not fools. They have been able to appreciate one solid fact, and that is that civilisation meant for them alien mastery and foreign lordship. The Albanian knew very well that with roads in came the foreigner, and with the telephone and telegraph and all the evidences of civilisation went
    2300
    his freedom. Therefore, until he had the opportunity for which he always waited of putting his own house in order, he preferred to keep to the savage fastnesses of his hills, constantly unchallenged and perpetually unchanged. If he is centuries behind us, he does keep some of the very splendid qualities that belong to the times that are long past. There are parts of Albania where, if you are protecting a woman or a child, you can ride unarmed when you could not pass with 500 armed men. You can rely upon him when an Albanian has given you his word; you can repose confidence in his honour as you would in the good faith of an English officer. It is because all those facts are so little known that the Albanian cause has been in the danger in which it has been. The reason for that is very simple, there have been more exciting events happening in the Balkans. You have seen the extraordinary phenomena of people waking from the sleep of ages, of kingdoms newborn, and of little nations who were asleep yesterday to-day stepping into the place that their forefathers had won for them.
    All these amazing revelations of a long dormant nationality, and what seemed to be a corpse coming to life again, have struck the imagination of Europe, and Albania has passed forgotten, for the simple reason that there has never been any question whatsoever about Albanian nationality. You might as well discuss the existence of this House as Albanian nationality. While we have had the Bulgar unravelling his descent from that of the Greek, while we have had the Servian of the north groping back into history and disentangling his origin from the Serb, the Albanian has stood as the Albanian, as old as his hills and his origin certain since the beginning of historic time. These facts cannot be denied. It was Ismail Kemal who paid that the Albanians were the oldest race in Europe, though they were the youngest State. To that State, thanks to a great extent to England, Scutari has been given, but very little has been left. Where Albania had rocks and gorges and mountain torrents, they have been left her; but where rocks have been hewn into houses and cities, where gorges have been widened out into valleys, and the valleys become fertile plains, and where mountain torrents have been converted into rivers—those things have been stripped from her. Towns that are most Albanian and that

    2301
    she needs—like Ipek, like Dibra, which stands in the same relationship to Albania as Yorkshire does to England; or Prizrend, with its fertile plain and beautiful cypresses—have been taken from her. Not only have those lands which she needs been taken from Albania, and not only has the experiment of anew Albania been made mere difficult by taking them away, but they have been lost, not only to the country, but, I believe, to the inhabitants of those places. In spite of the passionate devotion the Albanian bears to his birthplace, I do not think that you can conceive the inhabitants of those places consenting to shelter under the same political roof with the people at whose hands their helpless women and children have suffered so terribly during the last five months. By reducing, by curtailing, and by mutilating Albania, you make that one thing that everybody most desires—that is, equilibrium and stability in the Balkans—very much harder to obtain.
    Some decisions have been taken, but other decisions have yet to be taken. The present moment seems to me to be of the most supreme importance, because I believe that what is decided now is going to be the parent of great events, and the fruit of the decision will, I believe, be either definitely good or definitely bad. There are two immediate questions that have to be faced, one is the question of security and order, the other is the question of the Constitution. There is, further, the question of the frontiers, but I do not propose to deal with that this afternoon. With regard to order, all I will say is this: I believe at the present moment it is possible to make suggestions of a workable character which can be expanded or modified as may be necessary, and the suggestion I would make is to this: the immediate and the future dangers that I foresee are the incursions of bands from the countries which surround Albania. To prevent those incursions you want a gendarmerie with foreign officers, and you want foreign officers there, not only as a protection, but to bear witness and give testimony. With regard to Central Albania, the heart of what is left of the country, if it be possible, the best thing would be for the moment to leave that question alone. A certain system does exist there. Perhaps it is not entirely satisfactory, but at all events it holds good. For the moment it is workable, and the peace of Europe is not going to be endangered by minor troubles there. I have been lucky enough to see the work-
    2302
    ing of the gendarmerie under foreign officers in Macedonia, Crete, and various other places. They have worked very often with the most complete success. Sometimes that has not been the case, and I think there ought to be some machinery by which it would be easily possible to remove an officer who, for one reason or another, was incapable of getting on with the people.
    The last question, and one on which I am only going to say a few words, is the question of the Constitution. It is a very difficult question, and it is also so delicate a question that I think the fewer references made to it the better it will be. All I should like to say about it is this: You here have a people, many of whom have fallen by the sword, and it will be very hard if you permit the remainder to fall into the hands of the usurer and the financier. Whatever the situation is, Albania under its Constitution should have the power of protecting the poor peasantry of the country. Old States and young States, free States, and protective States, usually come to one of these ends. As far as possible you should allow the new State of Albania to have economic liberty and freedom, and not become the football of Europe. If that is done, a good work will have been accomplished. If you really give that country a free, workable Constitution, and that Constitution is made without arrière pensée, then, perhaps, it will be possible to say that some apology has been made to civilisation for the horrors that have occurred in the last five months—an apology which will not come from the offender, but which, none the less, will be satisfactory. I thank the House very much for having listened to my remarks.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend's most eloquent appeal on behalf of Albania. I feel that Great Britain has a great and peculiar responsibility in this matter, as no one would suspect the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary of having any ulterior motive or of seeking anything but the nearest approach to justice for the Balkan peoples in any action which may be taken. The war now coming to an end has been a war in which Albania has lost terribly, not only in combatants, but also among the non-combatant population, and there is no doubt whatever that the inaction of the Western Powers has done much to allow that war to assume a barbarity which is

    2303
    exceptional even in the Balkans. I think it is a reproach to the civilisation of Western Europe that atrocities were hushed up which, if they had been fully disclosed, would have raised such a storm as the Allies could not possibly have ignored. The Allies, after all, are very sensitive to Western opinion, and such statements as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs made in this House, added to the fragmentary publication which appeared in the Press, led to belated steps being taken to check the outrages which were being perpetrated by the irregular forces. I regret that during the earlier stages of the war more was not done, but I gladly recognise that, during the conferences of the Ambassadors recently, under the Foreign Secretary's chairmanship, unwearying efforts have been made, especially by the Foreign Secretary himself, to find a peaceable solution, and that in that search they have not lost sight of the claims of persecuted minorities.
    This settlement, if it is to be productive of lasting peace, must ensure sanctuaries, either religious or racial, for the outcasts. Some places where they can find the toleration which will not be obtained from the hostile majority. In connection with these new States, a new interpretation must be put on the phrase "Balkans for the Balkan people," and some place must be found for each people even if they have to move their homes, and make great sacrifices in order to lie under a now Government. The Turkish Moslems must gravitate to the shrunken Ottoman Empire. The ex-Archists must find their way to the New Bulgaria; the Patriarchists must find a home, either in Servia or in Greece. But this is not enough. There is an absolute necessity for a further sanctuary, which shall be racial rather than religious. It must be a place where the particular religion of the individual will not affect his liberties and rights. Albania is to be constituted this sanctuary. Some such security is absolutely necessary for the continued existence of those Albanian tribes, which are as different from the Slavs and Greeks as we are. They have no national test of religion by which you can single them out and say where their territory shall end, and, unless these sanctuaries for the minorities are of sufficient area and properly guaranteed, it would be better to have none at all, because then Europe would be compelled by common
    2304
    humanity to exact sufficient guarantees for those who will be condemned to live under a hostile Government. Unfortunately, public interest has been so much centred on the Scutari question that other important aspects of the Albanian problem are apt to be lost sight of.
    It is not enough to create Albania. If the new State is not to be a curse to itself and to Europe at large, it must be self-supporting. The Northern parts of the Albanian Frontier have been so delimited as to leave about 1,000,000 Albanians in an area to the North-East of the new State, but excluded from it. The plains have been given to the allies, though they are inhabited by a majority of Albanians, and only the mountains and sterile rocks have been left to the new State. If the same policy is to be followed in the Southern part of Albania, I unhesitatingly say it would be better to have no Albania at all. Greece demands as a reward for her sacrifices in this war territory in Southern Albania, where the Albanian race is in an overwhelming majority. She claims territory which, if granted, would take the plains and leave the Albanians with the mountains and rocks of the same quality as they will have to inhabit in the North, and would leave the whole of Albania with a total population of only about 500,000 people. The Greek claim is supported by a misleading use of Turkish figures. The Turkish method of arriving at population has been to ignore nationality on the theory that all Turks are Turkish nationals. It has ignored nationality, and has classified the population merely according to their religions. The returns merely show that the people in Albania are Moslems, or that they are Christians, and the Greek claim assumes that every orthodox Christian you find in Southern Albania is Greek by nationality. Of course that is absurd and would involve the existence of no Albanian nationality. The Patriarchist Albanian is no more a Greek than the Moslem Albanian is a Turk, or than the British Roman Catholic is an Italian. By this method the Greeks have claimed a majority in Southern Albania, although in reality the population of Greek nationality is far out-numbered by the Albanians. The whole Albanian race only numbers 2,250,000, enough to form a strong and compact State, owing to their undying feeling of nationality; but if the Greek proposals are carried out, of these 2,250,000 only 500,000 will be found within the boundaries of the new State.

    2305
    4.0 P.M.
    If these claims are allowed, the new Albania cannot possibly be self-supporting. The Greeks claim the important territory of Kortcha, which is inhabited almost entirely by those of Albanian stock. If the trade of this district, which is of great importance to Albania, is diverted to the Ægean ports instead of finding its natural and its present outlet on the Adriatic through Albania, the new State is condemned to economic disaster from its very birth. On the other hand, if Greece is content with that part of Southern Albania which stretches as far North as the Kalamas, including Janina and the fertile plains in the South, and, if South of the Great Lakes, the frontier of Albania is allowed to follow the line of Vistritza to the Greek frontier, the new State will have a population of about 900,000 Albanian inhabitants, and with careful government could attain to success and prosperity. No one grudges Greece the full reward for her victories, but this reward should be found rather in those parts of Macedonia which are inhabited by a majority of Greek race, than in that scanty remnant which is to be left as a nucleus of the Albanian race and which is largely inhabited by Albanians in no sense connected racially with the Greeks. To realise the importance of a sufficient Albania in area one must bear in mind that the present population of the mountains is only a fraction of what they will have to contain. After the cession of Nisch and Vranya to Servia, as a result of the Russo-Turkish war, 100,000 Albanians were dispossessed and driven over the frontier. The like process is certain to take place unless extraordinarily efficient guarantees are exacted. Balkan conquerors are not content with a mere political supremacy. They not only ask for State rights, but insist upon the expropriation of minorities as well. The private property and title deeds of the Albanians in the territory which is left outside this new frontier are likely to be no more respected under Servian-Montenegrin or Greek government than was the case with Nisch or Vranya; therefore, the mountains of Albania, in addition to their present inhabitants, will have to afford a refuge for a large proportion of those Albanian nationals who now inhabit a territory more than twice as large as the new State. It may be somewhat presumptuous for private Members, amid all the complications of the present European situation, to raise a question of this complexity. Our
    2306
    excuse must be that those of us who have seen with our own eyes the tangle of Balkan nationalities, must attach the most extreme importance to the carrying out of that automatic sorting arrangement for racial minorities which, if successful, will owe so much to the action of the Foreign Secretary. The whole future of the Balkans depends upon whether this solution, so simple in its outline and theory, can be worked out in all its immensely difficult details. I think we have fair grounds for hope. We know that Europe will do all in her power to find a solution. The Conference over which the right hon. Gentleman is presiding, which I believe is just beginning to meet, perhaps to discuss this very question, has shown that although Europe is an armed camp, pretexts for war are not being sought, but are being removed painfully and carefully by the most tireless and patient diplomacy. But it is possible for any organisation to withstand a great shock and yet to succumb to a running sore. A weak, uneconomic Albania, on the one hand driven to guerilla tactics against its Macedonian neighbours, and, on the other hand, by internal poverty and discontent and anarchy inviting continually the intervention of certain European Powers enormously concerned in the matter, would be a disastrous and fatal legacy of the Balkan War. I venture to ask the hon. Gentleman who is going to respond for the Foreign Office whether he can make some statement. I know that he cannot go into details, but I should like him to give us some hope that there is some prospect that this disaster of a weak Albania will be avoided in the settlement which is about to take place.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I am very glad this question has been raised. I find myself in very great agreement with a good deal that the hon. Member (Mr. A. Herbert) said. I have been associated perhaps more with the cause of Montenegro, but that does not by any means mean that I am not in hearty sympathy with an autonomous Albania. If I may add to his suggestion with regard to the future Constitution of Albania, it seems to me that a Protectorate, with a European Governor responsible to the Powers of Europe, would be the best solution of that problem. To leave Albania to be the football of European politics would be to invite possibly the aggression of two other adjacent neighbours. But a responsibility attaches to this country to see to it that a

    2307
    full guarantee is given to the Albanian nationality to work out its own salvation. I congratulate both hon Gentlemen, and particularly the hon. Member (Mr. W. Guinness), on his intimate knowledge, and the facts and figures which he gave with regard to that country. Many of us are very ignorant of the facts of Albania, and I should like again to assure hon. Members that, because some of us have more directly associated ourselves with the cause of Montenegro, that does not imply, as so many are apt to think, any injustice towards Albania. I propose to address my observations more particularly with regard to the present position of Montenegro and to Scutari. Scutari has been ceded for the moment to the Powers of Europe to decide as to its future, and this Parliament, as the Parliament of one of the Great Powers, is certainly entitled, as we are individually, to offer any observation and any opinion with regard to what we honestly and sincerely believe would be the best solution of that most complex problem.
    I, of course, hold no brief for Montenegro. I do not know what the ultimate solution will be of that problem, whether Scutari is irrevocably lost to Montenegro or whether territorial compensation will be given her in the shape of some other port. I should rejoice if some solution—either of these alternatives—is come to. I believe that most people who are anxious to be fair and to do justly by Montenegro believe in their heart of hearts that some territorial compensation is due to her for her action in this matter. If we look at the map we see for ourselves that Montenegro might be described as somewhat like a balloon. There is a narrow strip of sea-board running down the Adriatic to the territory of Austria which might, I submit, be very justly offered as territorial compensation to Montenegro. It might possibly be a very good solution of their just aspirations and desires. But if that opens up some new problem, we are forced back again, even in this eleventh hour, to offer some opinion with regard to the future of Scutari itself. The hon. Member (Mr. A. Herbert) made some remarks about Montenegro. He told us he had very narrowly escaped being arrested for murder. We should all have been very sorry to lose his very interesting speeches in this House if that unhappy event had taken place. But I think a fair study of the history of that valiant and warlike people does not
    2308
    bear out the reflection, which possibly he did not intend to convey, that when we are thinking of Montenegro we are thinking of a savage community of brigands. They have, in fact, been so described, most unjustly, in some of the newspapers of this country.
    I will quote just a little history from an article by the late Mr. Gladstone, whose name will always remain famous as the champion of that wonderful people. He points out that as far back as 1484, when Montenegro was being swept before the Ottoman scourge, they retired upon the Black Mountain, taking with them a printing press. That is a most striking fact, because I believe that was only three years after the first volume had actually been printed by a printing press. There was no printing press either in Oxford or in Cambridge, and when we have regard to the fact that these people over 400 years ago took with them to this mountain a printing press that is eloquent testimony that we are not dealing at this stage with primitive savages. Primitive savages, as a rule, do not carry printing presses about. These people retired to that mountain fastness for two reasons—they would not bow to the Turkish rule and they refused to give up their faith. Two things were more sacred to them than anything else in the world, their faith and their freedom. Mr. Gladstone well said that no Austrian or Russian eagle will ever make its nest upon these mountain fastnesses, and if we study the history of this most remarkable people we find that, against tremendous odds, they have been able to maintain their independence during these past centuries. The odds almost read like a fairy tale. When we hear of 10,000 Montenegrins pitted against 180,000 Turks and repelling them we get some conception of the wonderful bravery of this race. You can go to any part of that country without any fear of being molested. Women also may go to any part of it without any fear of being assaulted. Their chivalry is known throughout all Europe, and to reflect upon such people is not to do justly or fairly by Montenegro.
    I come then to the question immediately before us, as to what should be the solution and what can we offer as a contribution to the solution of the future of Scutari. I fully appreciate the attitude of Austria in this matter, and I desire in no sense of the word to say anything offensive to that Power with which we are in friendly relations at present. But it has struck me that

    2309
    there is one possible solution which might be satisfactory both to Albania, to Montenegro, to Austria, and to the other Powers. It is not an altogether novel suggestion, I believe, because it has been carried out on former occasions with regard to the transfer of territory. I believe, in the first place, that the ceding of Scutari to Montenegro is in accordance with the heartfelt desire of the Montenegrins. If we are to have a solution of this tangled problem in the Balkan Peninsula, surely we must have some regard to the wishes and aspirations of the people there. If we wish to have permanent peace established, it is no use repeating the blunder which was carried out when the Treaty of Berlin took the place of the Treaty of San Stefano. We do not wish to have a repetition of that blunder now.
    Let us aim at a permanent solution. I wish to endorse the very apt words expressed by the hon. Member for Somerset, in paying a tribute to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to his conduct, so far, of the deliberations at the Ambassadors' Conferences. On these benches here some of us have sometimes ventured to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but we have never thrown any aspersion upon the high motives which animate his conduct. I wish to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said as to his lofty conception of public duty, patient industry, and unfaltering devotion to the cause of peace. But if we are to offer a solution, we should have this question in view—what is likely to bring about permanent peace in those regions, and what is likely to satisfy the contending parties? We all surely have noticed the photographs and pictures of the Montenegrins going into Scutari. We have seen that they were received more or less by acclamation. We are well aware that the Albanians who defended Scutari marched out with all the honours of war, and that the people of the town did not show any regret at the Montenegrins entering the place. I think that is a fact that should weigh with us. There is no question here of scourge or war of conquest on the part of Montenegro. They are content if this small section of Scutari and the surrounding lake can be ceded to her. I say, having regard to these facts, and also to the outstanding objection which animated Austria in the attitude she took up, the position is this: Austria is a Balkan Power, and she took up the position that, with a Slav
    2310
    population—it is well known to Members of this House that she has a large Slav population in her own Empire—her prestige was bound up in endeavouring to make her will prevail. I wish to say at this stage that I hope the rather Jingoistic utterances about holding up the mailed fist which we have recently had at Vienna are utterances which will not commend themselves to the people of this country. The people of this country are animated by a much higher motive than that. They have been willing, while sympathising with Montenegro, to give way a little to Austria to prevent a greater evil, but I say if that spirit is continued it may have an opposite effect on the people of this country. The people of this country are freedom loving.
    We find that Austria has been animated by the desire to maintain her prestige and name as a Balkan Power. We find that the Albanians who have marched out of Scutari have not been particularly down-hearted, as it were, or discouraged by the loss of that town, and we find also that the inhabitants of the town have welcomed the entry of the Montenegrins. A simple solution would be to try to come to terms between Montenegro and Albania with regard to this town. Why should not Montenegro purchase it from Albania? Why not follow the example of Austria with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It would be very simple to have an arrangement drawn up by which Montenegro would agree to pay Albania a sum for the town of Scutari—a sum which might be arrived at for the loss of the town by Albania. It seems to me that is a solution, and I offer it in all humility to the Foreign Office as one which would gratify the just aspirations of Montenegro, and surely would not in any way embarrass Austria, because it would be following the example of what she did with Turkey when she took over Bosnia and Herzegovina. I submit that this is a practical solution. It is one that might easily be arrived at, and I believe it is one which would bring a permanent peace in that part of the world. If Montenegro is disappointed, if she is thrown back again upon her black mountains, you will have an Albanian question, just as we had a Macedonian question, cropping up in the future. You will have a discontented people in Montenegro, by no means a primitive race of savages, but a people who, when they have recovered from their present losses, will be ready to break out again in another bloody war in

    2311
    conjunction perhaps with Servia, if she does not get a satisfactory solution now. I make an appeal on behalf of this solution.
    Montenegro, following the example of other small races of people, looks to Great Britain which has justly earned a name throughout history as the friend of subject races, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in this matter will follow rather the policy of Canning than that of Castlereagh, and that he will hold the balance between the contending parties on the Continent of Europe. He has a great opportunity such as comes to few men. Castlereagh, who allowed himself to become entangled with alliances, was never out of trouble, whereas Canning in his foreign policy has never been equalled. It was well said by Mr. Gladstone that he was born under the shadow of the great name of Canning. What was the principle of Canning? It was the principle of freedom. He recognised the genius of British statesmanship, and I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary will do as Canning did—hold the balance between the contending parties. We have a unique position, and immense power. It is absurd that we should allow ourselves to be browbeaten by Austria or any reactionary Power. In conclusion, I again emphasise the appeal which Montenegro has made to this country. I think all of us who read of the dramatic finale when the King agreed to leave the question of Scutari to the decision of the Powers must have recognised a tremendous struggle in the step he took. That must have appealed to everyone. It was a brave act which will redound to the credit of the brave people over which he reigns. I hope, therefore, that the House will give this appeal just consideration, and that a decision will be arrived at which can be carried out in the interest of justice, honour, and prosperity to all.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I listened with interest to the eloquent presentment of their case by the hon. Member for South Somerset (Mr. A. Herbert) and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness), but I regret greatly that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds once more gave expression in this Chamber to the stories of atrocities committed by the Allies. I should not refer to them if they had not been introduced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds before this Debate, and if the hon. Member, by his
    2312
    frequent questions in this House, had not consistently tried to give as much publicity to the question as possible. I therefore think it incumbent upon us to go somewhat more deeply into the question than the hon. Member went and see whether there is any substantial basis for these accusations. A week or two ago every Member of this House received a copy of a publication issued by the Committee for the Publication of Atrocities, which has its headquarters in Constantinople. I believe that I am correct in saying that the information upon which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds bases his questions in this House is supplied by that Committee for the Publication of Atrocities. This publication contains a number of pictures which were represented as being photographs of the atrocities that were being committed by the Bulgarians and the other Allies. Not only were the statements of fact in that pamphlet untrue, but they were supported by faked photographs.
    Mr. HERBERT: Some of the atrocities referred to in the pamphlet were witnessed by the Inspector-General of the gendarmerie, the French officer at, I think, Dedeagatch or Kavalla, and there you have witnesses whose testimony cannot be denied, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell me, if he can, what actually did occur at Kavalla?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I shall certainly accept the challenge of the hon. Member. I am not replying to the hon. Member, because he is not guilty—I use the word in no offensive sense—of making these accusations. I am replying to the specific statements made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but I will come to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite in a moment or two. I am dealing with the official statement by the Committee for the Publication of Atrocities in Constantinople, which was issued to every Member in this House. Not only were these statements of fact false, but they were supported by faked photographs of a most monstrous description. One of the most revolting photographs is much too revolting in character even to mention. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton) was in the Balkans two and a half years ago, and that same photograph was then shown to him, and was being used by each side in a controversy then proceeding. This is the photo-

    2313
    graph which is issued to-day as representing atrocities committed by the Allies during the course of the present war.
    Mr. HERBERT: The same photograph?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: My hon. Friend says that in the old days the Allies issued the same photograph. I am glad that we have nailed this lie to the camera. If it was issued years ago by the Allies, it is a foul thing to issue it now as a photograph of atrocities committed by the Allies in the present war. When we have a publication like this sent out with some show of authority, making statements supported by the hon. Member in his remarks, and supported by questions——
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: None of my questions were based on that photograph.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very reluctant to do the hon. Member any injustice whatever, but I am referring to the questions which he put day after day with regard to alleged atrocities.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Not on the strength of that photograph.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I accept the assurance of the hon. Member now that this pamphlet, which has proved to be of this scandalous description, that it is absolutely unreliable, should be generally repudiated.
    Mr. HERBERT: The majority of the questions which I have asked in this House recently were the result of conversations which I have had with the Christian missionaries in different parts of Macedonia.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have not the slightest doubt that that is so. I want to pursue the matter a little further. I do not gather that the hon. Member for South Somerset had an opportunity during the present war of visiting the Balkans. I believe that he was in Constantinople during the present war, but that he had no opportunity of visiting the Balkans. If there is one thing that emerges more clearly than another it is this: Neither the Governments nor the armies of the Allies have been guilty of atrocities. The atrocities that have been committed, not on one side only, have been the main work of those irregular bands, which are divorced from the army, and not under the control of the army.
    Mr. HERBERT: They are living with them.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not immediately give way, but I feel very strongly on this question, and I speak after having taken very laborious pains to verify my facts. These atrocities were in the main the work of those irregular bands whose existence and whose operations have long been a feature of the unhappy condition of affairs in the Balkans——
    Mr. GUINNESS: I said so this afternoon in my speech.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very glad to carry with me the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's in this. As the Turks were driven before the victorious army of the Allies it was the first concern of the Bulgarian and Servian Governments to set up proper conditions of life for the people in the occupied districts, and they were from the first engaged as rapidly as possible in disarming not only the whole of the population of the occupied districts, but also so far as they could reach them the members of the bands themselves. But if my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, who has had large experience in connection with this question, were now addressing the House, he would be able to tell the House from the evidence of his own eyes of the atrocities that he saw, which were committed by the retreating Turks upon the Christian populations in the towns and villages of the occupied districts. Those are things which he saw himself. He saw the shooting and mutilation of little children, the blowing out of the cheeks of young girls, the dismemberment of unborn children. All these things are much too horrible to speak of in any detail, and I only refer to them now in order to show the House the horrible conditions there have existed and do exist under Turkish rule, and the horrible things that were done in this way by the Turks themselves. When you speak of atrocities you must not speak of atrocities as having been committed by the armies of the Allies. The full facts must be stated, and it is then clearly seen that the Government and armies of the Allies are not responsible. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's why he shows to-day this extraordinary anxiety in respect of these atrocities, which have been dealt with in so very incomplete a manner. The hon. Member has sat in the House now for seven years, or longer, and he must be well aware, if he has lived in the Balkans,

    2315
    of the hourly and daily danger to which the Christian population in Turkey in Europe has been subjected.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: All I said was that this country was more or less responsible to do its best for Turkey, having been involved in the silent policy which encouraged atrocities, and you have the evidence that after the very strong statement made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman these atrocities, as soon as the Allies heard of the speech, were largely checked.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: When this question of the atrocities is discussed it should be clearly established that steps were taken by the Government of the Allies and by the armies of the Allies to prevent their people from being in any way responsible for them. I pass from this inexpressibly painful subject in the hope that we have heard the last of these charges of atrocities made in a vague and general manner. I want to say a word upon some of the larger issues that were raised in the speech of the hon. Member for the Yeovil Division and in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's, concerning the future of Albania. I differ from the view of those two hon. Gentlemen, and I differ somewhat from the view of my hon. Friend behind me in regard to this matter. I do not think we are here to-day to pronounce panegyrics on Albania at the expense of Montenegro, or upon Montenegro at the expense of Albania. To my mind each country's history is equally glorious, and admiration for either nationality need not be at the expense of depreciating the other. But I do most respectfully submit to the House and to the representative of the Government who will reply, that our broad concern at the point that the whole question has reached, is surely to now use our influence in securing that the final settlement shall be such as to promote the entire unity and prosperity of the Balkan nations. We want to release both Servia and Montenegro from the economic imprisonment from which it is so essential she should be freed, and any settlement which kept them economic prisoners should be regarded as unsatisfactory and as one which would not prove to be lasting. We want to assure Greece that she shall have the Islands in the Ægean Sea, to which she is entitled both by race and history. We want to see
    2316
    Bulgaria on the Sea of Marmora, and we want a final settlement by which the Balkan nations shall not be crippled in the matter of finance, after having been denied their rights to adequate indemnity, and that they shall not be unfairly saddled with any undue burden in connection with the Ottoman debt upon the occupied portions of Turkish territory.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I wish to direct the attention of the House to another aspect of the Eastern question, but before doing so I should like to say, in connection with the subject of Albania and Montenegro, that I am much more disposed, from my personal knowledge, to agree with the settlement which has been reached by the Foreign Ministers, in the praise of whom I wish to associate myself, not forgetting, at the same time, that the right hon. Gentleman has been supported by extraordinary consideration on the part of the Powers more immediately concerned—Russia and Austria—in connection with the terms of settlement. When we remember the traditions, the jealousy, the many thorny points which have arisen in connection with the discussion of this matter, I think we cannot fail to see that if it had not been for the consideration and moderation which were shown by those Powers, even the efforts and the unwearied patience of the Foreign Secretary would have failed to carry that settlement to a successful issue. My experience in the regions which have been under discussion has been that it would have been impossible, once the question of Albanian nationality was raised, to have conceded Scutari to Montenegro. Scutari is in no sense a Montenegrin town; it is entirely Albanian in population, and was, in the days I knew it, twenty-five years ago, entirely Albanian in sentiment. In those days, of course, the Montenegrins coveted it, and no wonder. It is the centre of a rich and fertile plain, looked down upon by their own bare and rocky slopes. It is the most natural thing in the world that they should desire to extend their frontier. For many generations they have been crowded up in the miserable region which they occupy, and they look to Scutari in the plain with a longing compared with which the longing for Naboth's vineyard must have been small. I always experienced the utmost courtesy from the Montenegrins, and I should be delighted if they could possibly find compensation in some of the country neighbouring their borders. It is said, I do not know with

    2317
    what truth, that they have been offered a fertile region, but I fear that access to it is not very easy from Montenegro. I do not know in what other direction compensation should be given, but the hon. Member suggested a slip of territory on the Adriatic. It is vain to suppose after having had possession for many years, and after enormous sums have been spent on fortifications, that the Austrians would give it up, and it is quite idle to entertain an idea of that kind.
    I pass from that question to the question of Armenia. It is necessary, now that the question of Scutari has been settled, to bring this other question before the public. It is said that the troops from Thrace are to be transported to Asia Minor, and we know that there are troops encamped near Smyrna and other places, and the dangers from a large number of disbanded soldiery being thrown loose on a defenceless population are great, besides which there is a natural temptation to provide for those refugees by the oppression of Christian populations which are in a defenceless position. Since the opportunity of the Berlin Treaty was missed in 1878, there has never been so good an opportunity of settling the Armenian question once and for all as the present moment presents. In connection with the general settlement of the war it is absolutely necessary to take up this question. Why do I say so? There are two reasons why it should be taken up. One is that there is on the part of the Powers a universal desire to maintain the integrity of the Turkish dominions in Asia. It would be absolutely impossible to maintain that integrity unless the question of the life and security of the Christian populations in the Asiatic Dominions of Turkey is settled. It is perfectly clear, as has been the case in European Turkey, that want of security of life and property of Christian populations eventually brings dismemberment. We have seen the continual dismemberment, extending over fifty or sixty years, of the provinces of European Turkey. One by one they have been detached until now nothing is left of them at all. The same process will continue in Asia unless there is a guarantee, and a properly carried out guarantee, for the security of life and property for the inhabitants. There have been signs of a serious demand on the part of the Armenians for intervention by Russia. They do not, however, wish to be under Russia; they wish to maintain their nationality and the separate individuality
    2318
    of their church. They know that under Russia they could not expect to maintain either their nationality or their church. They wish to continue as a part of the Turkish Empire, feeling that in that way they are more likely to maintain their separate existence. But if from despair they find it impossible to maintain the security of their lives and property, then they will certainly demand assistance of Russia.
    Russia has, ever since the days of the Treaty of San Stefano, shown that she is willing to listen to their cry, and we should then find Armenia in the course of time detached from the Turkish Empire. There is a second reason, and that is that in any general settlement of the affairs of the war Turkey will require an amount of financial assistance, and that financial assistance will be impossible to obtain unless there is security. How can that financial security be obtained if there are no administrative reforms which will guarantee life and property, and what chance is there of industrial or financial prosperity unless such reforms are introduced? There is a third reason why the question of Armenia furnishes a chance at the present time of being settled permanently on a secure basis, and that is the attitude of Germany. In the last twenty-five years, since the Berlin Treaty was signed, the interests of Germany in this question have completely changed. As Prince Bismarck said in those days, the question of Armenia was an inconvenient one, and one in which they were not in terested, but now it is a question of the greatest interest to Germany, which in the course of the last twenty years has planned and carried out a great scheme of railway between the Sea of Marmora and the Persian Gulf. The interests of Germany in connection with that railway demand that the regions through which it passes should possess security of life and property, because otherwise there is no chance at all of a local traffic or even general traffic being maintained. There is every reason to believe that the German Government is just as anxious as any other of the Great Powers to see the question of Armenia settled.
    For ourselves, it is a matter of great importance to see it settled. We have a very large and heavy responsibility to the world, and under the Cyprus Convention we are bound to maintain the integrity of the Turkish dominions in Asia. If those conditions are to be fulfilled, we have the

    2319
    right to have reforms carried out. Suppose there arose a demand on the part of the Armenians for protection, are we prepared to set ourselves in opposition to what will be the demand of Russia, namely, that reforms should be carried out? Are we prepared to guarantee the integrity of Turkey in Asia without the existence of those reforms? It is therefore for us, more than any other nation, essentially important that provision should be at once made for the establishment of those reforms. It is said sometimes that there is no unity on the part of Armenia with regard to what reforms there should be. At the time of the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano there was a scheme of reform, but Clause 16 of that treaty was modified in the Treaty of Berlin, but nothing was done. In 1895 the Ambassadors of Russia, England, and France drew up a scheme of reform which was accepted by the Turkish Government, but which was never carried out. Of late years there was a difference of opinion among various sections of Armenians as to what should be done. Some in despair wished for the intervention of Russia, but, happily, within the last few months, under the auspices of the head of the Armenian Church, with the support of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is second in office in that Church, and, with the assent of all parties of Armenians, revolutionary and moderate, every party has united as to a scheme of reform.
    That scheme of reform is a very moderate one. It is not a scheme of autonomy. In essence it demands only the carrying out of the provisions of the proposed scheme of 1895. I will merely indicate the main points. The first is the institution in the six Armenian provinces of a European High Commissioner, nominated by the Porte, with the consent of the Powers. I believe that that goes beyond the scheme of 1895 only in asking that the High Commissioner should be a European. The second point is the institution of a permanent Commission of control and supervision, residing in the province, presided over by the High Commissioner, composed of three Mussulman members, three Christian members, and three civil agents delegated by the Powers. As administrative reforms, it is proposed by this scheme that there should be an elected Assembly, composed half of Moslems and half of Christians; that there should be a gendarmerie and a police; that
    2320
    there should be a revision of the Courts of Justice; that there should be a settlement of the compensation and various other small points, into the details of which I need not go. Generally speaking, it may be said that this scheme provides only for the same arrangements—with the changes shown to be necessary by the change of conditions—as those asked for by the memorandum of the three Ambassadors in 1895. I would ask that our Foreign Secretary, together with the representatives of the other Powers, should give a very favourable consideration to these demands of the Armenian delegation—demands which are of themselves extremely moderate, and which the Armenian committees of the various countries recognise to be the minimum that will provide for the security of life and property. It is the belief of all those who have studied the question that once these reforms are introduced into the Armenian provinces and Cilicia, where a large number of Armenians are resident, the example of the benefits derived from them will spread to the other provinces of Asiatic Turkey and will tend to confirm the continued existence of the Turkish power in Asia.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: This question has engaged the attention of many people in every country in Europe for several months past. There are, as a matter of fact, Armenian committees, not merely in London, but in Paris, Berlin, Russia, and, I believe, Switzerland and elsewhere. In Switzerland they feel very strongly on the subject; there is no country which by sending out nurses and in other ways has done so much to alleviate the sufferings of the Armenians at different times. I mention these committees to show that on this question the public conscience of Europe is aroused and is unanimous. In spite of the existence of these committees we have kept silence during the last few months. We have done so somewhat reluctantly, because of our sense of the absolute necessity of the European Powers taking up this question of Armenia in the final settlement after the Balkan war. We have been silent because we did not wish in any way whatever to excite the Turkish population in either European or Asiatic Turkey, and in that way bring about any deplorable events similar to those which have occurred at previous stages in the history of the question. Another reason was that when all the Powers of Europe were pre-occupied with the terrible question of whether there should be war or peace in Europe,

    2321
    owing to the questions which arose from time to time, we thought it would have been unfair, inconvenient, and perhaps prejudicial to introduce this question. We have raised the matter to-day because we think that the time has at last come when the silence of the friends of Armenia in this House would be misunderstood as meaning a disappearance of that keen sympathy and interest in Armenia for which this country has been historically celebrated. We have confidence in the Government. It is not with a view to bringing pressure to bear upon them that this Debate has been initiated. It is that we might demonstrate to the friends of Armenia in Europe that their friends in England are in sympathy with them and are acting on their behalf. It is only necessary for me to dot the is and cross the t's of some of the observations of my hon. Friend, as he has put the case very clearly. I wish to emphasise the fact that the proposals made by the Armenian community are as much in the interest of Turkey and of the Turks as of the Armenians themselves. We believe that it is only by the reform of the conditions in Asia Minor, especially with regard to the Armenians, that the integrity of the Turkish Empire in Asia Minor can be maintained. We believe also that a state of order instead of anarchy and chaos in Asia Minor will be as beneficial to the Turks as to the Armenians. It is impossible for Turks to prosper, even if they are not massacred, while there is a state of disorder and chaos. Therefore, I believe that those who are agitating these reforms primarily on behalf of the Armenians are advocating reforms which are as necessary for, and will be as beneficial to, the Turkish inhabitants of Asia Minor as to the Armenians. We believe that the proposals made are such as the assent of the Powers in Europe can be given to, and I hope that there is no Power whose assent will be more cordially given than that of Great Britain.
    5.0 P.M.
    Finally, this is the opportunity, because undoubtedly the financial aid which Turkey will have to get from the Powers of Europe to set her up again will not, I believe, be given unless there is a guarantee given with that official aid that the Government will endeavour to restore the prosperity of the districts. That is all I need or wish to say at the moment, and I will conclude with one or two sentences on another subject. I hope, and I believe,
    2322
    that the Foreign Office is fully alive to the fact that public opinion in this country will not be outraged by seeing one of these islands which are overwhelmingly and entirely Greek by race, torn from the side of the Motherland to which they all belong. I do not think any of us, however strong our sympathies with Greece may be, would object were proposals which are dictated by military necessities, put forward for the destruction of fortifications and other similar measures in the islands adjacent. Subject to those conditions I believe it is the personal opinion of this House, and of the country, that the Greek islands should be restored to the Greek Motherland.
    Mr. BAIRD: I would wish to say a few words which I think in fairness ought to be said in connection with the speech of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse). My hon. Friend, in dealing with the question of Albania and the Balkans generally, studiously refrained from alluding to atrocities or endeavouring to put any blame on one side or the other so far as the Governments were concerned. I think anybody who has been out there must admit that in these circumstances by far the wisest thing is not to endeavour to go too deeply into these matters, because it would be impossible to write any finality. On the other hand, there seems to be certain people in this country who are under the impression that a Mussulman is much given to committing atrocities, and that a Christian is not. That is a most unfortunate belief. I am not going to dilate on these atrocities, but there is absolutely no doubt whatever that many things have occurred in the Balkans in the course of this war for which Christians are responsible which one would have much preferred not to have occurred. Having said that, I do not know that one can say very much more. I do not understand what the object of the hon. Member's speech was. He said that he desired to show the horrible conditions under Turkish rule. At the present time I am not certain that all the inhabitants of the conquered territories are fully persuaded that they have improved the conditions under which they live since coming under Christian rule. I do not say that with the desire of blaming them, because one must be alive to the fact that the scores of 500 years are now being wiped out, and that when you have racial, religious, and all other kinds of sentiments stirring people to their utmost depths, it is inevitable that things happen that had much better not

    2323
    happen. That is no reason for bringing up the matter in a one-sided manner in the House of Commons. I think it is exceedingly unfair to the Turks to let it be supposed that we in this country look upon them as the only people who commit atrocities, and that no atrocities have been committed on the other side.
    As regards these atrocities, there is this to be said: that the Governments of the Allied States have done a great deal to prevent atrocities. I do not think it can be laid to the charge of the regular soldiers that they have done much more than that which happens in most wars. But there is this to be said: It is very difficult to distinguish between the regular soldier and the ordinary population, because the whole population is under arms. What happened then, as I understood, was when the Allies advanced they naturally were preceded by commitajis, who were men of their own nationality, and who had been organised for many years past by the Bulgarians, or Greeks, or Servians, as the case might be. The commitajis had probably a good many old scores to pay off, and they paid them off, both before the advance and after the regular troops had passed on. The best proof that it is so is that the Bulgarians found that the only possible way to prevent the commission of these things was by sending on the commitajis to Tchatalja. If they had been doing no harm in the villages where they had been living they would have been left there in peace. Out of a desire to secure peace for the Mussulmans left behind these men were all sent up to the front to Tchatalja and Adrianople. Therefore, the less said the better about these atrocities, for the reason that whatever we say we are not going to improve the conditions there. The fact is that the minority are having a pretty moderate time in those countries, and I think if the hon. Member had been out there himself, and had chosen to inform himself at first hand of the conditions which prevail in the country, he would have kept silent on the subject, and not raised it as a subject for debate to-day.
    Mr. LYNCH: I only rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary that when he replies he may say one word in regard to the recognition of the Chinese Republic—and I hope an encouraging word. I will not develop any kind of argument, because the matter will be perfectly present to his own mind. I would only ask him to deal with this question in a
    2324
    broad, generous spirit, and not consider it in what our Scottish friends call a "pernickitty" manner: to recognise that the Chinese from henceforth will become one of the great nations of the world with whom it is to the interest of this country to live on terms of amity. Taking all these considerations into account I hope that he will promise that at an early date the Chinese Republic will be recognised.
    The UNDERSECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I must begin, as I am afraid I have had to begin on most occasions or on several occasions, when we have adjourned for holidays, by explaining that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not able to be here. On more than one previous occasion that has happened that he has been engaged in conference with Ambassadors which I am sure everyone will agree must have the first call upon my right hon. Friend's attention. Therefore, once more I have to try inadequately to take his place. I was delighted, as I am sure everyone of us was who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Somersetshire. I think we all very much rejoice that he managed to escape from a Montenegrin prison, or to prove an alibi, and that he was not subject to further dangers. His speech was very interesting and, if I may say so, eloquent. I do not at all take exception to anything he said as to the character of the Albanian people. I am sure if he addressed himself to them when he was amongst them as pleasantly and as frankly as he addresses us they must have treated him charmingly, because they could not do anything else, particularly as I believe he is just as eloquent in all their languages as he is in his own. In regard to his general statement as to the position of the different Powers in the Balkans. I have only this to say: he used the word "equilibrium." He said he hoped an "equilibrium" would be maintained in future. Yes, but the word "equilibrium" is generally supposed to be a balance of opposing forces, and I hope that the future position of the Balkan Peninsula will be better than that. I hope it will not simply be a balance of hostility and a balance of force, but a balance of co-operation between friendly Powers built on mutual respect, and on a mutual desire to live and let live rather than on mutual hostility.
    As to Albania I think this House and the whole of Europe can congratulate itself that a most critical question, which might

    2325
    have, I suppose, threatened the very existence of Albania as an independent State has been settled and we are all now, I think, only anxious to make it possible for Albania to live, as will be the case, with all the other Powers quite independent and as independently as the other Powers live and capable of enjoying a future development and future growth in civilisation in exactly the same way as we hope will be the case with the other Balkan States. The question which seemed most difficult to the Powers, as was stated, to settle, is now in course of friendly settlement, that is the question with regard to the frontier. As to that, Albania will of course lose towns to which she has a claim. On the other hand, she will retain towns to which other people have a claim. The difficulty is, as far as my knowledge and experience goes in these countries, to find any town anywhere to which at least three or four peoples have not got some claim or another based either upon race, or language, or history, or mutual agreement, or the present position, or something of that kind; and, as I say, the main thing is to try to set up an Albania capable of independent life and development for itself. It is no doubt a very difficult question and the political questions and economic questions which must arise in this connection have not been settled, but what one knows is that these questions can now be discussed and will be discussed more or less at leisure, and as I hope and believe with this desire to help Albania to independence and progress and without any chance of their being crossed by questions on which the Great Powers of Europe might have conflicting ideas.
    As to Montenegro, my hon. Friends on this side of the House seemed to speak as if she was not going to gain a good deal as a result of the war. That, of course, is not so. She will gain in territory as her Allies have gained in territory, and that gain is likely to be considerable. As to the character of the Montenegrin people I will not follow my hon. Friend, except to say that we were all touched when he reminded us of the story about the printing press they took with them in 1484. They are, undoubtedly, a very gallant little people, and if there be any defect in their character it may perhaps be explained by the theory that they regard that printing press no doubt as a most sacred possession, and that they must have gone on using the same printing press from that up to the present time instead of adopting the more
    2326
    modern methods of spreading culture amongst their people.
    As to the question of Scutari only two things are to be said which I can say. They are both absolutely commonplace, but I think they are both quite important. First of all, the fate of Scutari was part of the balanced settlement and balanced agreement between the Great Powers; and, secondly, that even the Great Powers, which had the greatest interests in backing up the small nationalities declared Scutari to be a wholly Albanian town. That is all I can say about it. My hon. Friend dances with such tremendous assurance in a basket of eggs that he made me tremble almost when I listened to him; but he will not get me to go further into the matter of Scutari than I have gone. The only expression of feeling I can give upon the matter of Scutari is a sigh of relief. Last Sunday was not a pleasant day even for one so indirectly concerned as an Under-Secretary, and we can at present only feel with regard to Scutari, as I say, enormous relief that the question of the town is no longer threatening division between the Great Powers of Europe. That is a matter that was settled the other day, upon which the responsible Montenegrin authority are very much to be congratulated in their own interests no less than that of Europe. If I may say so, they have climbed down the tree before the tree was blown up by an explosion which might have set all Europe on fire as well as being very uncomfortable for themselves. As to the outrages, I am rather sorry that that question was debated this afternoon. I did not understand the reference that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness) made to the matter. He either referred to or relied upon the publication which, he said, was referred to by my hon. Friend upon this side. As the hon. Gentleman stated, he said nothing about it or made any allusion to it, so far as I am aware, and I should have thought that if there was one thing about these atrocities which it is difficult to do it is to dogmatise upon the question as to who is responsible or exactly what occurred, and that being so that the best thing to do was to refer to them as little as possible. That is all my hon. Friend said. As to the publication of such reports and statements as we have received, they have been before the House and I will not repeat them. The only point, to my mind, is perhaps a small one. If I was right in thinking that the hon.

    2327
    Member for Bury St. Edmund's said that we had been guilty of delay in bringing these matters to the attention of the Governments concerned——
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I did not say that.
    Mr. ACLAND: Then I misunderstood him. As a matter of fact, as soon as we had statements which seemed to be really reliable in reports which we received from our Consuls, we lost no time what-ever in bringing them seriously to the knowledge of the Governments concerned, and in expressing the hope that they would be inquired into and that matters would be put right.
    A very important and interesting question relating to Armenia was raised by two hon. Members, and I should like to say a word or two about it. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool says, he and his Friends in the House in general have been very kind in sparing us with regard to public mention of difficult subjects during the past few months, but although we have not heard these things publicly alluded to we have heard a great deal about Armenia from his friends and from Armenian committees and societies in private, and the fact that it has not been publicly referred to must not be taken as indicating at all that that question has not been very definitely present to the mind of my right hon. Friend, and, in fact, repeated representations have been made to the Turkish Government upon the question and as to our interest in the question; and we have received, as was reasonable to expect, assurances that everything would be done that could be done to see that when persons returned after the war, or when other persons were transferred from Europe into Asia, and set down, it may be in districts partly inhabited by Armenians, that there should not be again any risk of the terrible massacres which took place in the past. To some extent we have already evidence that these assurances are being carried out. A few days ago there was a rumour in some of the European papers that matters were not as they should be at Adana. We have a Consul at Adana who keeps us constantly informed, and I am glad to say he has been able to report that some hundreds of refugees and families who have come to that part of Asia Minor from Europe have been successfully set down,
    2328
    and work has been found for them, often among Armenian populations. The rumours as to difficulties have been very much exaggerated, and the Armenians up to the present have been absolutely safe, and no difficulty has been occurring. Of course it may be argued that with the best will in the world the Government in Turkey may not be strong enough to see that good order is kept in the Province. That is true; but after all I would emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made, that it is quite clearly in the interests of Turkey just as much as it is in the interests of Armenia and the Armenians that there should be good order and good government established and preserved. After peace is made, as we hope it will soon be, between Turkey and the Allies, matters must come up between Turkey and the Great Powers, and I am able to say that when that happens every possible opportunity will be taken to see that this question is considered from the point of view which the two hon. Members have put in their speeches.
    But one thing has to be borne in mind, and that is that the desire that Turkey should have a good chance of consolidating and developing the possessions that remain to her, is a desire felt by all the Powers in common, and therefore if we raise any matter we must see to it, as indeed the other Powers will see to it, that the matter is raised by the Powers together, and that isolated action is not taken only by one or other of the Powers. We do hope, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree, to be able, and we look forward to being able to raise this matter and obtain proper consideration for it in common with the other Powers, because we know that in doing that we shall be much more likely to achieve a good result than by isolated and individual action. As to the recognition of the Chinese Republic and of the new Government in China, I can give without any hesitation the assurance which has been asked for by hon. Gentlemen. We have no desire to delay it; there is no prospect of delay: there is no lack of unity among the Powers. Our simple desire is that before giving that recognition we should get confirmation of the treaty and customary rights which we with other nations enjoy in China, and after that has been received the recognition will follow immediately. We surely—and I think the Debate last night showed it—stand before the world as well-wishers of China. We

    2329
    have been very patient with regard to the demanding of the instalments of the indemnity. We have gone more than halfway in meeting her with regard to the question of opium. In the more difficult question of the loan, I believe that if there could be a discussion here it could be shown that we have acted in just the same way in the interests of China in that matter as we have done on the subject of opium, and it is the same in this matter of recognition. There is, I repeat, no desire to make any obstruction or to cause delay. There is every desire to recognise the Chinese Government along with the other nations as soon as confirmation is given of the treaty rights, and so on, which are now enjoyed. I hope the House will excuse me for not going more fully into some of the questions that have been raised. They are questions of difficulty, and I think I have said all that I am able to say upon them.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that all questions connected with Tibet will be satisfactorily settled before recognition is given?
    Mr. ACLAND: That, of course, is introducing exactly the other point of view, when we make the recognition of China depend upon other things which would take weeks—they would certainly take weeks—and may take months to satisfactorily settle up. There are, of course, questions with regard to Tibet, but we regard China as an absolutely friendly Government, and I do not think it would be in the best interests of getting a settlement of any difficult question—I will not say difficult—I will say, rather, of any out standing questions—to make recognition depend upon getting all these things fixed up before recognition is given to the new Government.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty was good enough to say, in reply to a question yesterday by the Noble Lord the senior Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), that he would make a statement to-day with regard to a question which has great interest for the workmen of the Royal Dockyards. I think he also said that he would give the Admiralty answers to the petitions which he himself received at the various dockyards. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman not only received these petitions with every sympathy, but has given them his most careful attention.
    2330
    I do not wish in any way to criticise the right hon. Gentleman before he speaks or to anticipate what he is likely to say, but I should like to call attention to one or two matters which greatly concern the men in the dockyards and the building of our ships. The first of these questions is the establishment in the Royal yards. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that since the Government has been in office the establishment of the Royal dockyards has gone down. Prior to the year 1907 the number of established men authorised in the Royal dockyards was 7,000, and the number of men employed in 1906–7 was 25,240, so that in that year 28 per cent. of the men employed were established. The Estimates for this year show that the number of men established is 6,447, the top figure being 6,500, and the total number of men employed is 38,000—that is to say, the percentage has fallen to 17 per cent., or 2 per cent. below the total of the previous year. Thus in seven years of Liberal administration we have seen a reduction of 500 men in the establishment and the proportion of pensioners fall from 28 to 17 per cent. While the number employed has gone up by 13,000 to meet the larger ship-building programme, the proportion of pensioners has dropped by 11 per cent. Both in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in presenting the Estimates, and in that of the Financial Secretary we heard a great deal about the additions which have been made to the workmen's wages. I do not deny that additions have been made, but I think it would be interesting to know what proportion the saving the Admiralty has made upon the establishment bears to the additions to the dockyard men's wages. It seems to me, to use a homely phrase, that what the Exchequer has lost on the swings it has made up on the roundabouts.
    After twelve years' service at sea naval shipwrights may return to the dockyards and become established. Some time ago the Financial Secretary told us that the establishment of these men would be in addition to the present numbers. Looking at the Estimates, I find no provision to carry out that statement although the right hon. Gentleman knows that next October we shall have a considerable number of naval shipwrights returning to the Royal yards. What do the Admiralty propose to do in order to prevent the depletion of our staff of naval shipwrights?

    2331
    They invite these men to break their contracts, and I suppose in doing that they have some good reason. They appear to be under the impression that the new conditions they are offering these men are so attractive that they will be ready to give up their privilege of coming back to the yards. Unfortunately, the naval shipwrights do not view the thing in the same light. They say that the new conditions are not so good as the old conditions, and therefore they do not propose to give up the right of return. They will therefore come back to the yards, which means a great many more men will be put on the establishment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the coming back of these men will not interfere with the number of dockyard shipwrights who ought to be established. If that is the case, how is it that nothing appears in the Estimates to warrant such a statement? It has been the custom for a number of years to establish shipwright apprentices two years after they had served their time in the yards. This custom has been allowed to remain in abeyance for a considerable time. When these boys got into the yards, they hoped and expected they would be established within two years of their time, and non-establishment has disappointed a great number. If the right hon. Gentleman would go back to the old system of establishing apprentices in the yards after two years, I think he would be doing a very useful thing, and he would no doubt retain a greater number of shipwrights in the yards than he is able to do under the present circumstances. I am quite pleased to see there are more apprentices coming into the yards. I have no doubt that to the Financial Secretary a great deal of that is due, because he has taken a very keen and sympathetic interest in these apprentices. But I submit that if there were two examinations a year a still larger number of the apprentices would be obtained. Moreover, the change would assist the fathers and mothers who live in the dockyard towns to get their boys placed out well, and altogether it would be a very good thing for the country at large as well as for the shipbuilding industry.
    The Admiralty at the present moment give no pensions to hired men, and yet these men to a great extent work the same number of years in the dockyards as the men who become established. They are
    2332
    in a way just as capable workmen, and there is no fault as a rule to find with their work. Establishment is a game of chance. I would not say that it is a gamble, though it is very much the same kind of thing. One man is taken, another is left. One man gets on the establishment and gets a pension, and the other remains a hired man all his time, and he has to retire at sixty with only a gratuity. I am sure the Financial Secretary will give the matter his attention and endeavour to bring about some more equitable arrangement which will commend itself not only to the Admiralty but also to the House of Commons. The men want a pension system which will be guaranteed by the Admiralty. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman offered the men the services of the Government actuary and asked them to draw up a definite scheme and submit it to the Admiralty, then the Board would have before them a document upon which they might act. If the Financial Secretary is prepared to do that, I think I may answer on behalf of the men that they would be willing to give up certain very substantial privileges which they now possess. The labourers in the Royal dockyards are divided into two classes. There is the ordinary labourer, and there is the skilled labourer. Last year the right hon. Gentleman read to the House a very pathetic letter which he had received from a skilled labourer at 22s. per week. He told the House that it was a very small sum for this man to live upon. After various payments had been made there only remained 1s. 3½d. per week to cover the cost of clothing and boots, medical attendance, and other incidental expenses. What did the Admiralty proceed to do? They proceeded to give 1s. extra a week to the ordinary labourer, raising his wage from 21s. to 22s., the very amount which the man was receiving whose pathetic letter the Financial Secretary had read to the House, adding it was impossible that sort of thing should continue any longer.
    What did the right hon. Gentleman do for the skilled labourer? He also raised him 1s., but he only raised the man at the bottom of the ladder, the intermediate rates remaining as before. I believe I am right in saying that within the last two or three weeks the Admiralty have admitted they made a mistake by issuing an order giving the 1s. rise to the intermediate rates. Even that is not sufficient. What the Admiralty should do is to consider the

    2333
    question on a businesslike basis. They know very well that the cost of living, and of rent and everything that has to do with the existence of a man and his family, has gone up in price. They know that the rise has been a very considerable one. In fact, I think I am right in placing it at 20 per cent. during the last thirteen or fourteen years. Under these circumstances, the Board ought to give the ordinary labourer 24s. a week as a minimum, and they should give the skilled labourer 26s. as a minimum. Perhaps the House is not quite familiar with the work of these skilled labourers. They rise from ordinary labourers. They receive a certain amount of training in the yard which enables them to do work done outside by different men following different trades who would have been apprenticed to those trades. The skilled labourers begin at 23s. and go up to 30s. a week, with a special maximum of 31s. They are doing exactly the same work as men outside are doing for a very much larger wage, and, therefore, the Admiralty, though they train the men themselves, are saving a very considerable sum on this class of work. I submit that that should not be the case, and that they ought to pay the men very nearly or exactly the same sum as is paid to men doing similar work outside.
    If the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will look at the petitions presented by the labourers he will find, as I have found after making a calculation with some care, that the approximate annual cost, if the rates were raised in accordance with the men's request, taking the maximum at 31s. and 32s., would be £65,185 and £65,505, respectively. If he takes the other line, which I hope he may do, and gives the larger increase, the total cost of a 34s. maximum would be £104,369. If he will only look at the matter in a business-like way he will see it is not a very large sum of money for the Admiralty to pay, more especially when you consider that the First Lord, in his speech on the Naval Estimates, did not hesitate to tell the House that prices had gone up so greatly that he had to pay a considerably larger sum now for the building of ships in the contractors' hands and for the materials with which the ships had to be supplied. I think he went so far as to put the extra cost at £250,000. If that is the case, why should he grudge paying from £65,000 to £100,000 in order to give these men a proper living wage? That is a point
    2334
    which I venture, with all respect, to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman.
    I now come to the dockyard shipwrights. The Financial Secretary has received a deputation from these men, and I understand he paid very great attention to everything they put forward. The Financial Secretary always does that, and I should like to say here that I have never yet gone to the right hon. Gentleman but that he has done everything he possibly could to fully understand the case I have presented, and he has always been exceedingly fair in the answers he has given. I feel sure that the shipwrights, if the same attention is paid to their case, will receive a substantial rise in, their pay. Last year the right hon. Gentleman announced, with a great deal of gusto, that he was going to give the shipwrights in the Royal dockyards the magnificent rise of 6d. per week. That was hardly what I expected from the Admiralty. At the very time the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed on these men the necessity of paying 6½d. weekly for their insurance, and, therefore, they got no rise at all. What the right hon. Gentleman gave with one hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer took away with the other. I am speaking now on behalf of the greater number of the shipwrights in His Majesty's dockyards. There are 7,000 of them, and at least 6,700 have signed a petition setting, out that their present wage is inadequate. They are getting 36s. What is the wage given for similar work outside? For new work on the Clyde, on the Tyne, at Barrow, and at Birkenhead, it is 40s. 6d., and for repair work from 42s. to 45s. is paid. In the Royal dockyard for exactly the same kinds of work only 36s. is paid, whether it be repair work or new work. I think the Admiralty should give a substantial advance on that amount, especially on the ground of the increased cost of living.
    There is another point which ought to be emphasised, and that is that these men are doing very responsible work indeed, work of a very important kind. You cannot get them at any price. You were, if you are not still, short of shipwrights. Within the last year you have done everything you could, through the Labour Exchanges and in every kind of way, to get a proper complement of shipwrights for your yards. With that knowledge, and in view of the increased cost of living, as well as with the knowledge that men outside are getting from 40s. to 45s. weekly, it would be wise for the Admiralty to

    2335
    give these men the sum they ask, namely, 40s. per week. When the Admiralty makes a contract with a contractor for the building of a ship it insists that the men shall be paid the trade union rate of wages. Shipwrights consequently are paid 40s. 6d. a week when engaged on a ship being built for the Admiralty by a contractor, but when the Admiralty itself is building a ship it only gives the shipwrights it employs 36s. weekly. I say it is unfair and unreasonable and a very great mistake to adopt such a cheeseparing policy when you know you must have the ships and that you want good men, whom you cannot get unless you pay them properly. I have perhaps trespassed too long on the time of the House, but these points are very important, and, no doubt, have led to the present unrest in the yards. If the Financial Secretary is able to make a satisfactory statement; if he is able to say that the Admiralty, having considered all the points, are willing to give what would be considered a satisfactory rise in the rates of pay to the men in their employment, I feel certain, speaking on behalf of men whom I have had the pleasure of talking to, that they will be both satisfied and grateful, and that you will get out of them the best work that they can possibly give. The only thing they ask is that you should pay them a proper and decent wage.
    Mr. BARNES: I shall not venture to say anything about the proportion of men on the establishment, or pensions, or any of those other technical matters referred to by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke); neither shall I say much about wages in the dockyards, because that would be travelling over the same ground twice. In regard to that matter I wish to read to the House a Resolution which is printed on the Journals of the House, dated 6th March, 1893, which I think ought still to operate in determining the policy of the Admiralty in regard to wages in the dockyard. On that date Sir John Gorst moved a Resolution declaring:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no person should in Her Majesty's Naval establishments be engaged at wages insufficient for a proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, insurance against accidents, provision for old age, etc., should be such as to afford an example to
    2336
    private employers throughout the country."
    That Resolution is just over twenty years old, and it is twenty years overdue of being put into operation. I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman to-day that at last the Government mean business. I take it that that Resolution meant nothing less than the frank abandonment by the Government of that day, which was a Liberal Government, of competitive wages so far as their own workmen were concerned, and that the wages should be such as would yield a proper maintenance. It was further emphasised by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in his declaration that—
    "the Government ought to be in the first flight of employers."
    6.0 P.M.
    I have only to say, backing up the hon. Gentlemen who represent dockyard constituencies, that it is within the knowledge of everybody that the Government, so far from being in the first flight of employers, have paid wages to their labourers upon which it is not possible for them to secure decent maintenance. The wage of 22s. a week which they have been paying up to date is not sufficient to secure the ordinary decencies, let alone the comforts of life. I join with the hon. Member for Devonport in the hope that the wages of the labourers will be raised to at least 24s. a week. It should be even more. Even if it is raised to that sum the wages will be no more in the way of real wages than they were when the Resolution I have quoted was passed. At that time the wages were 18s. a week. I find that in 1890, three years before that date, a change had been made by the then Conservative Government involving an annual charge of £100,000 so far as the dockyards were concerned. Therefore the Government have a good example shown to them by a Government of the opposite persuasion. The need at the present time is quite as great as it was then, because although the wage is now 22s., as compared with 18s., probably the cost of living has increased more in proportion than the 4s. Therefore I hope there will be a substantial rise for the labourers, and that the mechanics will be brought up to 40s., which will only put them on a plane comparable with their fellow-craftsmen outside as regards wages. Although I know that they work eight hours, and that the bulk of the men outside work longer, that is no argument against paying them the

    2337
    same wages, because although the firms in the engineering and shipbuilding industry outside work only eight hours, they pay the men who are working eight hours exactly the same wages as are paid to the men in other yards working nine hours per day. There is no warrant for the Admiralty bringing forward the working of eight hours per day as a privilege and weighing it up and deducting something from the wages in respect to it. I hope there will be no more of these paltry paupers' prizes of 6d. for the labourers or mechanics. I hope that at least the labourers will get 24s. and the mechanics 40s. I shall have no hesitation in advising the mechanics to keep up the controversy until they get their wages up to the £2 level.
    I desire to say a few words about the Navy training scheme. I have mentioned this matter so often that I am afraid some of my fellow Members will think I am keeping a bee in my bonnet. But I make no apology for introducing the subject again, because so far I have received no adequate satisfaction or anything in the nature of an explanation why this scheme has been set up or continued with, as I believe, danger to the efficiency of the Navy. It is altogether unfair to large numbers of people in the community who cannot put their sons into the Navy except as fetchers and carriers to those who have money. I find that a boy at Osborne or Dartmouth costs his parents, in round figures, from £120 to £130 per annum. That is not in fees, but is spent by the parents in respect to each boy, and includes the fees and various other things in the way of expenses. There are not many people in this community who can afford to spend that amount of money upon a boy of thirteen years of age. The position has got worse recently, first of all, because by the scheme of 1905 the engineer officer is lumped in with the executive officer, and therefore you are drawing a very much larger body of men to fill the executive rank. The position is also worsened because we have now an increased Navy. Since this peace-loving Government came into office seven years ago, they have increased the Navy by 50 per cent., and are still increasing it year after year. That involves a larger number of executive officers, owing to the lumping of the engineers with the bridgemen, and it means drawing a larger number of boys from the same section of the com-
    2338
    munity who supplied these ranks before. It is obviously unfair to those who are shut out, because of their poverty, and it must necessarily involve running the risk of getting a less efficient man for your engineer officer and for the executive officer as well, having regard to the fact that you are drawing a larger number from the same section of the community. All this has been admitted over and over again from the Front Bench, and I refer to it to-day because I want some definite statement of a change. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted the evil. Some years ago his predecessor talked about meeting the difficulty by sending the hat round somehow or another for those whose parents were too poor to pay the full fee. That never matured. More recently a scheme has been brought into operation whereby some young fellows are being drawn from the public schools, and admitted at a very much reduced fee—I believe £50. I do not think that will meet the situation either, because it will simply mean that the officers in the Navy will be drawn from two classes of people, and there will be friction between them. To my mind, there is no solution of this difficulty except a very large reduction of the fee imposed upon the parents of boys who go to Osborne and Dartmouth, and who are destined to positions of responsibility in the Navy, thereby opening up a field of selection to a very much larger section of the community. I hope to-day we may have some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that that will be done.
    Now I come to the artificers. The conditions of naval service—I think I have the support of the Noble Lord in this—are now such as to make these men much more important than ever they were before. The evolution of the Navy has been from sail to steam, and from that to electricity and hydraulics and submarines, and now aircraft, and every step taken in regard to evolution of the Navy in this regard has been to make it more complicated, and therefore to make it more necessary that the man who does the practical work in regard to the engines and machinery should have full technical and even some scientific knowledge, as well as the ability simply to work with his tools, and do what he is told with them. I believe, on the whole, you have got such a man. At all events, in all the time that we have had this question upon the floor there never has been any complaint made in

    2339
    regard to the artificer, either as to his disciplinary spirit, to his efficiency as a mechanic, to his zeal in getting about his work, or anything. It has generally been admitted that you have in the ranks of the artificers in the Navy a thoroughly efficient body of men, but they have not always been treated as they ought to have been. They ought to be looked after with some comfort while on board ship. They ought to be able to retire to a quiet place for study when they come off their watch, they ought to have fairly comfortable messing conditions, and they ought to be treated in every way differently and better than they are treated to-day. There has been no change in the wages of the artificer class since the year 1882—that is to say for thirty-one years, during which wages—money wages, at all events—have risen very considerably, and during which there has been an enormous increase in the cost of goods outside. It is admitted by everybody that wages outside have considerably advanced, and yet the wages of this very deserving class of men in the Navy have remained exactly the same as they were thirty-one years ago. You admit a man on a wage of 5s. 6d. a day, and although he is paid seven days a week, yet at the same time he has to work all the hours he is required to work. Sometimes we are told that the pension might be reasonably regarded as a set-off against the work the man in Government employment does. Unlike the ordinary workman outside, he works, if necessary, not eight or nine hours, but sometimes ten or twelve, and even more than that. He does not complain so long as he has recognition, pay, and the prospect of promotion, which we think are his due. It is said that he has chances of promotion, but, as a matter of fact, his chances are rather less in recent years than they have been, because of the fact that, instead of paying him better, and, therefore, attracting the best men in the engineering profession to the ranks, you have introduced a new class of men to take the place of artificers at a lower rate of wages—I believe it is 4s. per day. I am glad to have had this opportunity of offering a few words of protest, in the first place, against the exclusion of everybody but the rich from positions of responsibility in the Navy; and, secondly, against the contemptuous treatment of a very large body of men who have done good service, who are still willing to do good service, but who are not recognised
    2340
    as they ought to be, either as regards pay, chances of promotion, or anything else.
    I want to say a word or two in regard to the application of the Fair-Wages Clause to the ordinary contractors for the Navy. I say that the Admiralty are not at all energetic in giving fair and square application of the Fair-Wages Clause. I have heard of numerous cases during the last few years where the clause has not been adhered to. For instance, there is a shop in the West-End of London, to which I have referred on the floor of the House more than once. I have spent days on that case, and here we are, after two or three years, and I suppose that, although the case has been referred to at least a dozen times, at this very moment that firm is not complying with the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause. They are paying a less rate for night shifts and overtime than is generally paid throughout the whole district of London. They are not paying a very large body of mechanics in their shop the proper rate of wages. I will make a suggestion. Hitherto it has been the practice of the Admiralty to require proof of these cases of maladministration of the Fair-Wages Clause when they have been brought up. We have been asked to give such details regarding breaches of the clause as names and rates of wages, and we invariably find that when we have supplied those names and other details we are told, "It may be true that they are not getting the right rate of wages, but they are not engaged on our work."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)indicated dissent.
    Mr. BARNES: Very often. I think a fair and square interpretation of fair wages would be that Government work should be given only to employers of labour who are fair in the sense of paying all their workmen the proper or standard rate of wages. That is the only satisfactory solution of the problem, because though we thought three years ago, when we got the Resolution amended, that we had at last arrived at a solution, seeing that the Government contractors were going to have imposed upon them the necessity of paying what good employers pay, we find that we are very little forrader, and the only solution is that Government contractors shall be only those people who employ, I do not say trade unionists, but men who are paid

    2341
    trade union rates of wages, or the rates of wages generally paid to trade unionists in that district.
    Major GUEST: Both the preceding speakers have mentioned the question of wages in the dockyard. There is at present in the dockyard a considerable feeling of unrest. When the Naval Estimates were raised this year both the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow and another hon. Member drew the attention of the Admiralty to this fact, and said that, unless the question was sympathetically looked into, there would be some action taken as a protest against the delay in dealing with this matter. A protest has taken place. In some of the yards the men have refused to work overtime until their protest had been dealt with in this respect. The dockyard worker in relation to his employer is in a different position from the man who is working outside, because his hand to a certain extent is tied by the fact of the deferred pay, either pension or gratuity, which he has earned during his previous service. This makes it more difficult for him to put forward his case in the same way as ordinary workmen would do with an ordinary civil employer. The two main causes of the unrest are the rise in the cost of living and the advance in wages which has been given in the civil yards. I remember that in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, on the Minimum Wage Resolution on the Address, he showed that the increase in the cost of living in the last five years was something between 25 and 30 per cent., and that the purchasing power of the sovereign is far less now than it was a few years ago. In addition, in a dockyard town we find that the rents of houses have gone up. All this adds to the difficulty which dockyard workers have experienced. The Government have done a considerable amount of good by the increase in wages in yards during the last six years, which has amounted to £142,000, but, on the total scale of wages paid, this only comes to about 5 per cent., whereas in the civil yards, largely owing to the pressure of work and other causes, the increase in wages has been 15 per cent. This discrepancy in the rate of increase in the dockyards and in the civil yards is the main cause of the discontent and unrest. But quite apart from the discrepancy in the rates of wages paid to the men in both cases, the men in the dockyard are earning on an average between 4s. and 5s.
    2342
    less than the men who are doing the same work outside.
    To be honest, I think that this is penalising the man too much. I admit that the dockyard worker has advantages which his brother workman outside does not enjoy. He has his pension, he has four days' holiday a year, he has the forty-eight week, and he has continuous employment. But the man is hardly able to insure himself against bad times when so great a proportion as 4s. is taken out of an income of something like 28s. or 30s. a week. I have had no opportunity of consulting the men, but I am not sure that they do not feel they would rather be paid the trade union rate of wage and not have so great a value placed on the concession which the Admiralty claim that they are giving. I should like to ascertain the views of the men on that part of the case. Although there is a great feeling in many of the yards that the establishment should be increased, personally, I believe some good will be done to the workmen in the yard by paying them a better remunerative wage to carry them through the difficulties which they experience in life, than that they should only consider the question of being on the establishment to the end of their lives. Another question has reference to hired men and the pension scheme. They do not ask the Admiralty to provide them a pension, but they are most desirous that the Admiralty should give them assistance to work out the scheme for themselves. I am informed that the Secretary to the Admiralty met a deputation from the dockyards the other day and discussed this subject. It was stated that the men were willing to resign the gratuities that they get at the end of their service, and also to be deprived to the extent of 5 per cent. of their weekly wage in order to form the nucleus of a scheme. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in answer to a question a few days ago, said he hoped that he might be able to assist the men in this matter, and if, in the result they can work out a scheme for themselves, the men will owe a debt of gratitude to the Admiralty.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I did not intend to address the House, as the right hon. Gentleman promised me yesterday that he would make a full statement in respect of the grievances of the dockyard workers, which have caused such grave discontent, and which many of us think justify the men-in bringing them forward. But, in the circumstances, I wish

    2343
    to make one or two observations on what has been said. The hon. Member opposite made some remarks on the question of education, and said he had a bee in his bonnet on the subject. If he has a bee in his bonnet it is a very sensible bee. The education scheme of 1902 has absolutely failed. This is proved by the fact that the Marine branch has been knocked out of it, and we have gone back to where we were before. The scheme has not supplied the number of officers we wanted, and we have now to get officers from three different classes—from the lower deck, from the schools, and from the Royal Naval Reserve. That is entirely because the scheme has absolutely failed. I hope that the Admiralty will not persist in saying that it is a success when everybody knows that it is not. In regard to artificers, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in claiming all that he did for them. We are very short of engineering officers, so short, that I personally think that the position will become dangerous. Why not promote engineering officers from the rank of the artificers as is similarly done in other branches of the Service. The men have drawn up a very good scheme themselves, and the Admiralty might just as well do what they ask because they will have to do it by and by. They are so short of officers that these men will have to be on the quarter deck. They are invaluable for the work of a man-of-war, from the artificer to the engineer. As I have said, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, it was a mistake to bring in the class of mechanician who is not an apprentice himself, to drive engines and work boilers. To do that you must have men who understand how to make the engines, and the boiler, or else you will have accidents. I have always been strongly in favour of stokers receiving their fair share of promotion and of appointment, but there is plenty of work for mechanicians to do besides doing artificers' work, which should be done by trained artificers who have been so from boyhood. I am very anxious to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on a grievance which is not in any way a party matter, and which all people connected with the dockyard, no matter what their politics, recognise as a grievance, principally owing to the fact that the dockyard men, notwithstanding their privileges, have not as fair a position as the men outside.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) raised the question, the discussion of which he has often initiated, and, if I may say so, with great ability, namely, that of the cost of naval cadets' training. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth expresses his judgment that the system of common entry for naval officers has failed. That I entirely deny at once; it has not failed. My hon. Friend, in his comment as to the cost, said a great deal which is worthy of serious consideration. There is no doubt that the cost limits the area of selection, and there is no doubt that it tends probably to keep some suitable lads out of the Navy, but the Noble Lord must not upon that make the general statement that the whole scheme has failed. It has not. The scheme stands foursquare to-day.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It is entirely altered.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Noble Lord is referring to a much broader proposition, but on the point of cost we have before us the Report of the Custance Committee, which suggested that we might meet this question of the difficulty of cost by a system of bursaries. Whether that is the best way to proceed or whether a better way would be a general lowering of the fee charged, I will not now commit myself to the one or the other, but I can give my hon. Friend this assurance, that the point he raised has engaged, and is engaging, our close consideration. As regards the E.R.A., that is an old controversy between the hon. Member and myself, and he will absolve me from any desire to be discourteous if I do not further pursue the matter at this juncture, because there is another matter to which I should like to refer more fully.
    In the distribution of the Admiralty business it is my duty to deal with general labour questions and hearing of petitions. In pursuance of this duty I have visited each yard and heard the workmen's petitions. My reports have been considered, and they have received the approval of the Board of Admiralty and of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I take the opportunity afforded by the questions put to me yesterday and to-day to make some announcement on the matter. In the first place, I think it necessary to remove one or two misconceptions. There has been a good deal of criticism, in the House and out of it, of alleged delay in replying to the petitions

    2345
    What are the facts? We undertake to make a yearly survey or review and to give yearly decisions. Last year we issued our decisions on the 22nd July. This year the principal decisions, that is, regarding wages, will be issued to-morrow, the 9th May. Therefore we are two months better than our word. The talk of delay has arisen in this way. Directly the decisions of one year are issued, we immediately ask for petitions for the next. Last year, as I have stated, we issued our replies on the 22nd July, and in August and September we straightway asked for new petitions. I am replying to those to a large extent to-day. It is quite true that eight months have elapsed since the petitions were received. Hence this charge of delay, although the replies are well within the scheme of annual revision. I think myself that we should probably escape this charge if we did not ask for new petitions quite so hot-foot upon the issue of the annual decisions.
    It is quite fashionable, in the House and outside, to say that practically every petition is not acceded to. That is not exactly true or just. Since 1906 down to last year our concessions on the then numbers added to our wages sheet a charge of £100,000 a year. Last year the concessions added a further £42,000 a year on the then numbers. Let me shortly state the principal concessions of those seven years. In 1906 we gave the labourers an increase of 1s. a week, the skilled labourers an increase of 1s. a week, the shipwrights an increase of 1s. a week. In 1908 we gave the joiners an increase of 1s. a week. In 1909 we gave the riggers an increase of 1s. a week. Last year we gave the labourers another 1s. a week, and we increased the minimum for skilled labour by 1s. These are the principal items; there were many minor concessions. Therefore, it is not precisely true to say that the revision is a farce, and that all the petitions are not acceded to. In recent months, since the issue of the last decisions, the representations of certain classes of workmen in favour of increased wages have been very insistent. They point out—and it is quite true—that in the shipbuilding and engineering trades outside there have been recent increases—in some cases, indeed, of a substantial character. Those have been made possible by splendid prosperity in the industries concerned, which prosperity we may well hope will long continue. The weekly wages outside therefore have, as a result of those increases and that prosperity, in
    2346
    certain cases run past the weekly rates in the dockyards. I admit that at once. Hence these insistent demands. But I must point out—it is my duty to point out—when you have compared the weekly rate in the dockyards and the weekly rate for corresponding work outside, you have not completed the investigation. I would further point out—I do not know that I had better use the word "privileges" in this connection—that there are considerations that may fairly be stated. There is the forty-eight hours' week, which is by no means universal outside. There is the chance of establishment, with security of tenure and pension. About one in four of the skilled mechanics have a chance of being established. Once they are established they enter a branch of the Civil Service, with an ultimate pension, a pension which I admit at once they have themselves largely to contribute to. Take the case of the hired, the non-established, man. I am perfectly safe in saying that 75 per cent. of the hired men are far surer of continuous employment than the men outside. In respect to the hired man, the non-established man, it is quite true a margin stands off, may be called upon to stand off from time to time according to shipbuilding and repairing necessities. But the point that I want to make—and I think it is quite a fair one—is that a wave of industrial depression, which is so disastrous, as my hon. Friends know, to the shipbuilding and engineering industries outside, does not necessarily affect the Royal dockyards at all. Good times or bad times, the building, repairing, and refitting of His Majesty's ships goes on. It will continue to go on unless by agreement the Powers alter their policy.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: What will happen then?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about the naval holiday?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Unless by agreement the Powers alter their policy. In 1908 23.2 per cent. of the shipbuilding industry employés outside were unemployed. In 1909 the mean average was 22.1 per cent. The dockyard is immune from fluctuations of so sweeping a character as these figures represent. The outside man is now no doubt getting a higher weekly wage than the dockyard shipwright—I admit that. But take the five years, 1908–9–10–11–12, and add up the total aggregate wages of the shipwrights—I am speaking of the dock-

    2347
    yards—and I should not be very much surprised to find that the aggregate had not fallen, for the men have most likely been continuously employed all those five years—I say I should be surprised to find that a man's aggregate earnings had fallen very much below the same class of man who to-day is getting a larger weekly wage than the dockyard employé.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Not in the last five years?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I have given the last five years. I said that in 1909 the mean of unemployment was 22.1—nearly one in four—and in 1908 it was 23.2 of unemployment among outside men. My point is a simple one: that although these men outside may be getting a better weekly wage now, yet if you added up the aggregate earnings of my dockyard shipwrights, they would compare favourably with the men outside the dockyard, and I should be very much surprised to find that in the five years' earnings the dockyard men were very much below.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Not better than men in continuous employment outside.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I pointed out that the fluctuations in industries do not sweep down upon the dockyards as they do outside You cannot leave continuity of employment out of the question; it is important, and must be borne in mind. Then take the non-established men, although they do not get pensions or security of tenure, yet if they have served seven years, and that then we have not got any work for them, they get a gratuity of one week's pay for every year of service. If a man has done fifteen years, and that for any cause, save misconduct or his own request, he is put off, he gets a gratuity of one week's pay for every year, and in our Estimates for 1913–14 we expect to dispense £13,500 in gratuities to hired non-established men who do not get a pension, and in the tea years, from 1902 to 1912, we have paid gratuities to hired men amounting to £169,864. We have taken these things into due consideration. We have given them due weight, but we have not by any means appraised them too highly. But notwithstanding these things, we think we are bound to meet the men's request, if not entirely, at least in a substantial degree,
    2348
    and therefore I have pleasure in announcing the following advances of wages: The shipwrights, non-established, will be raised from 36s. to 38s. per week for hired men; and from 34s. 6d. to 36s. for established men, the difference between the hired and the established rates being met by superannuation in the latter case. The annual cost of this advance on present numbers for the shipwrights will be £35,750 a year. In the engineering trades, that is fitters, boiler makers, coppersmiths, founders, and pattern makers, the minimum rate will be raised from 36s. to 38s. for hired men.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Are the plumbers in that?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I will come to them. The increase for established men would be from 34s. 6d. to 36s., the difference between hired and established men being met again by superannuation for the established men in this as in the other case. The maximum will still remain at 40s. for hired men with a few special rates beyond as at the present time. The total annual cost of the concessions to the engineering trade will be about £25,000 a year. Unskilled labourers we propose to raise the rate from 22s. to 23s., and the rate at Haulbowline from 21s. to 22s. The total cost of the increases towards unskilled labour will be about £14,000 per year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does that include the works department?"] It will include all the labourers on the minimum rate in the works department as elsewhere. For skilled labourers the minimum is 23s. now. That minimum will be treated as a probationary rate, and when a man has been upon it at the 1st of June for one year or more he will at once proceed to 24s. Haulbowline will go up from 22s. to 23s. The ordinary maximum of 28s. ordinary rate, and the special maximum of 31s. will remain the same. The cost of that will be about £19,000 a year.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I thought they had from 23s. 6d. to 24s.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not in my time. Twenty-three shillings was the minimum rate last year, it is still so, but it is to be a probationary rate and any man who has been at that rate for one year will go on to the next scale. Joiners: hired men will be increased from 34s. 6d. to 36s., and men on the establishment from 33s. to 34s. 6d. Plumbers and braziers will be

    2349
    raised 1s. 6d. the same as the joiners. Sailmakers will get 1s. 6d. of a rise, making 31s. to 32s. 6d. for hired men, and 29s. 6d. to 31s. established men. Riggers will get 1s. rise, from 29s. 6d. to 30s. 6d. hired men, and 28s to 29s., established. Smiths, we propose to increase the numbers at 38s. hired men and 36s. established. The hired messengers will get an increase of 1s. on their minimum rate. The ropemakers will get 1s. on the ordinary maximum and 1s. on the special maximum. The electrical station staffs will get the following increases:—Supervisors, B. class, scale raised by 3s. 6d. a week; mechanic drivers and dynamo attendants, minimum raised by 2s. 4d. a week; assistant drivers and dynamo attendants, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week; switchboard attendants, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week; leading stokers, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week; stokers, scale raised by 1s. 2d. a week. These concessions will take effect as from the 1st June. Last year the rises we gave dated from the 1st August, so that at any rate we have given two sets of rises in the course of ten months. I make that remark in reference to the suggestions that there has been delay. The cost for the rest of the current financial year of the rises I am now announcing will be £83,900. On present numbers, for future years, a full year's operation, the cost of these concessions, which I may say have been assented to with the greatest readiness by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be £103,910 per year. When these concessions are in full operation they will increase our wage sheet—together with those already conceded since 1906—on present numbers by no smaller an amount than £250,000 a year. It is possible we may be able to meet the extra £83,900 for 1913–14 out of the aggregate of Navy Votes, but, if we cannot, we must come for a Supplementary Estimate. I have stated our proposals in detail, but I dare say many hon. Members will desire to ask me questions, and I will put into the hands of any hon. Member who wishes it a copy of the Order, which will state all these details. There are a number of matters outstanding in the annual petitions. There is the question of overtime, and several matters of an administrative character. These increases impose a
    2350
    heavy additional annual charge upon the Exchequer, a charge of nearly £104,000 a year when they are in full operation. I say that they are reasonable, that they are just, and that they are well merited. I have admitted that they do not meet in full all the demands of the men, but, after the most painstaking consideration, we say that they represent what we think may fairly be conceded, and I submit that they constitute an adequate reply to the petitions that have been submitted to us.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, the 27th May," put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Adjourned at Seven minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tuesday, 27th May.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
  The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
    MONDAY.
    Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petition from Trimley St. Mary, in favour.
    TUESDAY.
    Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Newsham, Rawtenstall, and Withington.

    THURSDAY.
    Local Government (Qualification for Office) Bill—Petition from Westminster, against.
    Bankruptcy (Scotland) Consolidation Bill—Petition from the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour.
    Parliamentary Franchise—Two Petitions from Australia, for extension to women.
    Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill—Petitions in favour, from Long Clawson and Rawtenstall (three).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  INSURANCE BOOKS.
  INSURANCE BOOKS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  POST OFFICE DEPOSITORS.
  POST OFFICE DEPOSITORS.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  HEARTS OF OAK SOCIETY.
  HEARTS OF OAK SOCIETY.
  POSTMASTERS AND POSTMISTRESSES (IRELAND).
  POSTMASTERS AND POSTMISTRESSES (IRELAND).
  INSURANCE COMMITTEES (ADMISSION OF PRESS).
  INSURANCE COMMITTEES (ADMISSION OF PRESS).
  Customs Watchers.
  Customs Watchers.
  Allowances (Departmental Committee).
  Allowances (Departmental Committee).
  Income Tax (Coal Mines).
  Income Tax (Coal Mines).
  Parliamentary Debates(Official Report).
  Parliamentary Debates(Official Report).
  Wallace Collection.
  Wallace Collection.
  Super-Tax (Income Assessed).
  Super-Tax (Income Assessed).
  Civil Servants (Half-holiday).
  Civil Servants (Half-holiday).
  Customs and Excise (Unattached Surveyors).
  Customs and Excise (Unattached Surveyors).
  Necessitous School Areas.
  Necessitous School Areas.
  Retail Licences (Total Yield).
  Retail Licences (Total Yield).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Labourers' Cottages, Ireland.
  Labourers' Cottages, Ireland.
  Brosna Boys' School, County Kerry.
  Brosna Boys' School, County Kerry.
  Knockeenahone Girls' School.
  Knockeenahone Girls' School.
  Floods (County Cork).
  Floods (County Cork).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Boat-Slip (Tarbert, North Kerry).
  Boat-Slip (Tarbert, North Kerry).
  Stephen Grehan's Estate, Banteer, County Cork (Legal Proceedings).
  Stephen Grehan's Estate, Banteer, County Cork (Legal Proceedings).
  Canadian Cavalry Brigade.
  Canadian Cavalry Brigade.
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Elementary Schools (Mountain Ash).
  Elementary Schools (Mountain Ash).
  Drawing Examination.
  Drawing Examination.
  Holloway Prison.
  Holloway Prison.
  Umesh Chand (Pension).
  Umesh Chand (Pension).
  Meat Prices.
  Meat Prices.
  Live Stock (Detention in Port).
  Live Stock (Detention in Port).
  Scottish Board of Agriculture (Sires).
  Scottish Board of Agriculture (Sires).
  Eviction Riots, near Luxor (Lord Kitchener's Report).
  Eviction Riots, near Luxor (Lord Kitchener's Report).
  Poor Law Administration (Shropshire).
  Poor Law Administration (Shropshire).
  Vaccination (Conscientious Objection).
  Vaccination (Conscientious Objection).
  British Exports (Produce and Manufactures).
  British Exports (Produce and Manufactures).
  Emigration (Young Persons).
  Emigration (Young Persons).
  Port of London Authority (Surrey Commercial Docks).
  Port of London Authority (Surrey Commercial Docks).
  Railway Rates.
  Railway Rates.
  Royal Commission (India).
  Royal Commission (India).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.