Sitting of 30 April 1914

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

ROYAL ASSENT TO BILLS.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Army (Annual) Act, 1914.

2. Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund) Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

3. Alexander Scott's Hospital and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

4. East Ham Corporation Act, 1914.

5. South Metropolitan Cemetery Company Act, 1914.

6. Crystal Palace Act, 1914.

7. British Gas Light Company, Limited (Hull Station), Act, 1914.

8. Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation Act, 1914.

PRIVATE BILLS.
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 Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—
Tramways Provisional Order Bill,
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Cavan and Leitrim Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 19th May.
Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Message from The Lords,—That they have agreed to,
Amendments to—
South Metropolitan Cemetery Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords],
Norwich Electric Tramways Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Accounts presented of the Metropolitan Police and the Police Pension Funds for the year ended 31st March, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 204.]
MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Petition of the Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited, against (praying to be heard by counsel); referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
Copy presented of the Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANDISE MARKS (PROSECUTIONS) ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 9th April, 1914, made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, under The Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894, read in conjunction with Section 4 (11) of The Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, with regard to the prosecution of offences under The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 27th April, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE UNION ACT, 1913 (RULES).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:— Copy of County Court Rules as to the Recording and Enforcement of Orders of the Registrar of Friendly Societies under The Trade Union Act, 1913 [by Act.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Austrian and British Goods (Reimbursement of Duty).
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inquire whether it is impossible for English
  1838
  merchants to obtain reimbursement of duty paid on articles of English manufacture imported into Austria when, for the reason that such articles are found to be unsuitable for the market or otherwise unsaleable, it is desired to return them to the senders in this country; whether, in the case of similar articles imported into Austria from Germany, the duty is reimbursed under similar circumstances on the ground that, in the case of a country charging an Import Duty, a reciprocal arrangement in this respect can be and is made; and whether he can take any steps for the removal of this disability suffered by English traders by reason of the absence of any basis for a reciprocal arrangement due to the duty-free importation of goods of foreign manufacture into this country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I am not aware that goods imported from Germany into Austria can be subsequently re-exported with refund of duty except in a certain limited class of cases. Such return of duty is, however, understood to be accorded where the goods are specially declared on importation as being sent for approval and conditional sale. The question of the possibility of securing similar facilities for British goods has recently been under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, who are about to address a communication on the subject to the Austro-Hungarian Government. There seems to be no foundation for the suggestion in the last part of the question.
  Mr. PETO: May I satisfy the right hon. Gentleman by the production of papers on which the question is based?
  Sir E. GREY: I shall be glad to receive any information on the subject.

  Steamship "Tai On" (Reported Piracy).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can supply any details as to the reported piracy and destination of the steamer "Tai On"; did any British subjects lose their lives owing to the piracy; if so, how many; and was the cargo either in whole or in part British-owned or of British manufactured goods?
  Sir E. GREY: I have at present no information beyond what has appeared in the papers.
  Mr. STANIER: Is the right hon. Gentleman making inquiries?
  Sir E. GREY: Cases of piracy are, unfortunately, very frequent in these waters. I expect to receive fuller information in due course, either from Hong Kong, through the Colonial Office, or from Sir J. N. Jordon at Peking.

  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Mackerel Curing).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to that portion of the latest Report of the Congested Districts Board in which reference is made to the proposed starting of an official brand for cured mackerel; and whether, in view of the success which has attended the institution of an official brand for cured herrings, steps will be taken to bring into general use the system of branding barrels of cured mackerel?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, for Mr. Birrell): The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this matter. The use of a brand for pickled mackerel for export to the United States of America is engaging the attention of the Congested Districts Board. It is necessary in the first instance to secure the approval of mackerel curers, and steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the trade in Ireland.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what steps have been taken to bring to the notice of fish curers in the congested districts the details of the mackerel-curing experiment con ducted by the Congested Districts Board in the autumn of 1913: and whether the Board has considered the advisability of issuing a leaflet, for free distribution, with a view to imparting the methods of selecting, splitting, and curing mackerel for the American market, and thereby preparing the way for the general adoption of an official brand?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board have arranged to prepare for circulation among fish curers a leaflet embodying the statements in the Board's Twenty-first Annual Report as to mackerel curing. A leaflet of instructions for curing for the American market has been very widely circulated with the object of improving the methods of curing and of having the question of instituting a brand considered by the local fish curers.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked if the Local Government Board for Ireland will immediately hold the local inquiries into the schemes for the erection of labourers' cottages, which have been submitted to the Board by rural district councils throughout Ireland?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Inquiries into the schemes referred to by the hon. Member have been deferred pending the provision by Parliament of additional funds for the purposes of the Labourers Acts.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board has yet issued offers to Mr. Richard Gibbons, J.P., West-port, for the purchase of his estates near Westport and Castlebar, county Mayo; and, if so, whether they have been accepted or rejected by the owner?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board in October last issued offers for the purchase of Mr. Gibbons' estates which were not accepted. They have decided to make revised offers which will be issued as soon as practicable.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued an offer to Lord Vaux for the purchase of his property near Newport, county Mayo; and, if so, whether the offer has been accepted or rejected?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they have issued an offer for the purchase of the Lord Vaux estate, and they have been informed by his solicitors that he is not prepared to accept it.
  Lord A. THYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what basis or valuation the price offered was arrived at.?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I shall require notice of that question; it is not involved in the original question.
  Mr. DORISasked when approximately the sale of the estate of the Marquess of Sligo to the Congested Districts Board will be completed?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The principal questions between the Congested Districts Board and the Marquess of Sligo have been settled, but one or two other matters are still under

  1841
  discussion. Until the Board's offer is finally accepted the date cannot be indicated when the negotiations will be definitely concluded. The Board expect that the outstanding matters will soon be settled.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued offers for the estates of the Achill Mission, Mrs. Pike, and Mrs. M'Donnell, in Achill, county Mayo, or what stages the negotiations for purchase have reached?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they have not yet issued offers for the purchase of the estates referred to. They have decided to make an offer in the case of the Mrs. M'Donnell estate. The estates of the Achill Mission and Mrs. Pike have been valued and the question of making offers For their purchase will soon be considered by the Board.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a farm of land at Attymon, county Galway, the property of Mr. J. J. Smyth, trustee for Miss Daly, was offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board over two years ago; is he aware that several small tenants are to be found in the neighbourhood of this farm; was the farm inspected; and will he ex plain the cause of the delay in taking up this farm to relieve congestion?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that the estate referred to was offered for sale in December, 1912, but the Board have recently decided, on consideration of their inspector's report, that they will not make an offer for its purchase. They are aware that there are a few small tenants in the locality, and the Board have purchased grass lands in the neighbourhood which would be available for such relief of congestion as may be considered desirable.

  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information regarding an alleged affray between the police and a crowd of 300 people on Sun day last at Skehard, near Creggs, county Galway; whether, for the third time within a month, an attempt was then made to drive cattle off a large farm belonging to the Rev. Canon Geraghty; and whether any arrests have been made?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The police authorities inform me that on 26th instant a crowd
  1842
  numbering about forty or fifty, including men, women, and girls, assembled at Skehard Farm and drove off the cattle. At a distance of about five miles they were overtaken by the police, and, as the drivers refused to desist, the police were obliged to disperse them by force. No-arrests were made, but the question of a prosecution of the parties identified as having taken part in the drive is being considered. Cattle drives took place on this farm on three previous occasions since 13th March, and proceedings by way of arrest and summons have been taken against fourteen persons in connection with these occurrences.
  Mr. NEWMAN: What offence has the Rev, Canon Geraghty committed. Has he refused to give up his land?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have no information upon that point.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Government intend to take any and, if so, what measures to deal with the continued state of lawlessness that prevails in parts of the province of Connaught, as evinced by extensive and repeated cattle drives, in the breaking down of fences and driving cattle in to graze on the lands of men who have incurred the displeasure of any leading Nationalist, and other similar forms of outrage and intimidation?
  Mr. REDDY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, will ho state whether cattle driving is more criminal than gun-running, and will he apply the same law to both parties?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Fortunately that does not come within my Department. It is a fact that a number of cattle drives have taken place in the counties of Galway, Sligo, and Mayo within the past few months. Eighty-eight persons have been prosecuted in connection with these drives. With the object of preventing this class of offence five police protection posts have been established in county Mayo. As some of the lands involved are a considerable distance from existing police barracks and no houses are available for the accommodation of extra police, the formation of a police camp is in contemplation.
  Mr. DELANEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any cases of piracy or gun-running in Connaught?

  Lunatics, Ireland (Capitation Grant).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary if he will state for each of the years 1911, 1912, and 1913, the amount certified by the auditor as payable to the county council of the county of Monaghan in respect of the capitation grant for lunatics, and also the amount actually paid in each of those years; how much has been paid in respect of the year 1914; whether he can state what the deficit in respect of this year, to be borne by the ratepayers, will probably be; and whether, in face of this annually increasing deficit, he can hold out any hope that the Government will take steps to relieve the local authorities from this burden?
  Mr. RUSSELL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will publish the full statement with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. LARDNER: Is there going to be a continued deficit this year, or can the Government hold out any hope to the ratepayers that this will not be a continuing deficit?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not prepared to answer that.

  General Register Office, Ireland (Superintendent of Statistics).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether the superintendent of statistics in the General Register Office is about to retire; and, if so, in view of the fact that this is a small office with a total staff of only about thirty established officers, will he revert to the practice of promoting one of these officers to the vacant superintendentship?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Registrar-General informs me that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter part does not therefore arise.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Dublin, Harbour)asked the Chief Secretary whether the position of superintendent of statistics in the General Register Office, Dublin, has always been filled by a permanent Civil servant on vacancies occurring since the establishment of the office; whether there is at present any special reason why another general medical practitioner should be deemed to have special qualifications for discharging clerical or administrative duties in this office; if the work
  1844
  of classifying causes of death and of segregating the various diseases which can be accepted as causes of death has been very fully and efficiently dealt with by the present superintendent of statistics; in the event of further questions of this nature arising, will they be referred to Sir William Thompson, M.D., the Registrar-General; and will he resist any recommendation to appoint anyone who is not an established Civil servant to the vacancy?
  Mr. RUSSELL: This is practically the same question as No. 17, and the same answer applies.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) (1) whether he is aware that the owners of qualified pedigree bulls living in county Meath have been refused an entry for their animals at the coming show and sale to be held at Mullingar on the 5th May, on the ground that they were not members of the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association; whether this limitation on the right to exhibit has the sanction of the Department; and, if so, whether he is aware that this will limit the choice of animals to be selected as premium bulls, and to penalise owners who may not belong to an association, the existence of which they had no knowledge; whether there is any precedent for a public Department indirectly forcing individuals to become members of an association by punishing those who do not; and whether, pending the public acquaintance with the rules and regulations of this newly-formed association, the right of entry will be extended to the general public who have qualified pedigree animals; (2) whether he can state when the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association was formed; what steps it took to inform stock raisers of its existence, and that only by becoming members of it they would be entitled to exhibit at shows such as that to be held at Mullingar under the auspices of the Royal Dublin Society; (3) whether, having regard to the fact that only members of the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association can exhibit qualified pedigree bulls at the coming show in Mullingar, which is the only one to be held in the midlands, and that a number of high-class pedigree animals are in the hands of non-members and cannot therefore be exhibited, he will insert an advertisement

  1845
  in the Dublin papers that upon application from a disqualified owner who cannot exhibit he will send an inspector to negotiate a purchase and thereby widen the area of choice; (4) whether the coming sale of premium bulls at Mullingar is the only one that will be held for the midland counties of Ire land; whether he will consider the hard ship that would be inflicted upon a number of owners of pedigree bulls if the Department refused to purchase animals except from those who belonged to the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association; and whether he will state what claim, if any, this association has to a monopoly of the purchases made by a public Department; (5) whether he will represent to the Royal Dublin Society that they ought to admit non-members to the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association to exhibit animals at the forthcoming show to be held at Mullingar, in consequence of so many would-be exhibitors being in, ignorance of the regulation as to the necessity of being members; and (6) whether, if the Royal Dublin Society persist in their refusal to allow non-members of the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association to show animals at the coming show at Mullingar, he will with draw the patronage of the Department from the show and organise one under its own auspices for the benefit of the general public?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department understand that the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association was formed in the year 1909, but they are not aware of the steps taken by the association to inform stock raisers of its existence. It is not unusual in the case of a live-stock show organised by an agricultural society to accept entries from non-members at a special fee, and this, the Department understand, is the course which is being followed in the case of the sale to be held at Mullingar on the 5th proximo. The Royal Dublin Society have nothing to do with this sale, which has been organised by the Irish Hereford Breeders' Association, and at which the Department do not propose to purchase any animals, but only to have bulls inspected for the provisional award of premiums, and to see that the Foot-and-Mouth Regulations are not transgressed. At a recent deputation from the members of the association received by myself the Department offered to have the animals inspected at the residences of the members of the association, or at a show, and the association chose the latter course. A
  1846
  show of Shorthorn, Aberdeen Angus, and Hereford bulls will be held by a firm of salesmen at Maryborough early next month, and suitable bulls exhibited at this show will likewise be selected for premiums. The Department are open to consider any further applications for permission to hold sales in the Midlands. In present circumstances such shows afford an opportunity of carrying out inspection work more economically and expeditiously than is possible with a house-to-house inspection. A number of bulls belonging to persons who were not able to exhibit them at any show this year have, however, already been inspected at their owners' residences. The Department are prepared to so inspect any other purchased bulls which, owing to restrictions, could not be sent to a public sale, and an advertisement accordingly is being inserted in the Dublin daily Press.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President under what Section of what Act he exercised the power of preventing animals from Great Britain being landed in Ireland because of a single area in the former country being infected with foot-and-mouth disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Ruminants and swine can be imported into Ireland from Great Britain only with the Department's consent. Grant of such consent is suspended either wholly or partially whenever the position as to foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain is regarded as rendering such a course desirable. The Orders governing this procedure are made under Sections 22 and 65 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and Section 2 of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Under what Subsection?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have given the Section and the Sub-section.
  Mr. STANIER: Is is not a fact that England exports store cattle into Ireland to-day without leave?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think England really does export any store cattle to Ireland. Ireland exports them to England—that is really what takes place—but I believe it would be possible at the present time to export cattle into Ireland, stores or otherwise. It would be contrary to the Regulations of the Department, but the ports are not closed.
  Mr. STANIER: Could that be done without a licence?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I think, under the present dangerous conditions, a licence would be necessary.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the possibility of permitting under licence fat cattle landing in Great Britain from Ireland to proceed to interior markets, such as Manchester, for slaughter there, seeing that this concession would give the owners the benefit of one of the principal English markets, and one in which there is free and active competition as compared with the limited competition believed to exist at Birkenhead?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis, for Mr. Runciman): The Board recognise the importance of reopening the British markets to Irish stock at the earliest possible moment, but I regret that I am not able to make any definite announcement on the subject at present.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether the resent detention of Irish store cattle in pens for ninety-six hours at the port of landing in Great Britain is inflicting hardship upon the cattle, and is prejudicial to their value and is costly to their owners; and whether, if it is not now possible to reduce this detention again to ten hours, the ninety-six hour period might count from the time of embarkation in Ireland, as was done in 1912?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The requirement of ninety-six hours' detention at the ports of landing must, unfortunately, cause some additional expense to the owners of cattle, but the Board have no reason to suppose that under present conditions the cattle suffer any hardship or deterioration in condition. After careful consideration of all the circumstances, the Board regret that they do not feel justified at present in adopting the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked when it is proposed to give the House an opportunity of considering the recently issued report of the proceedings of the conference held at Birkenhead on the 26th February last on the subject of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at the lairages there?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The House will have an opportunity of discussing this question in the Debate on the Board's Estimates.

  Hampton Court and Holyrood Palaces.
  Mr. WINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state on what conditions and for what reasons the decision to close the palaces of Hampton Court and Holyrood has been modified?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The conditions on which the palaces will be opened have been published in the Press. Owing to the recent outrages by suffragettes, the First Commissioner found himself unable, very much to his regret, to allow unrestricted access to Hampton Court and Holyrood. The only way in which it was possible to provide for the extra expense involved by the surveillance necessary, if the palaces were to be opened at all, was by charging entrance fees. This has been done as a temporary measure, and the course seemed to the First Commissioner, on the whole, better than keeping the palaces closed.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long that measure will be in operation?
  Mr. BENN: It depends on circumstances.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks this charge of 1s. will be the means of keeping the suffragettes out?
  Mr. BENN: No, but it will provide the additional money necessary to provide for increased supervision.
  Mr. FELL: Has the hon. Gentleman received any information that Colonial visitors over here will be very glad to hear of the regulations he has made?
  Mr. BENN: I am very glad of it.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DEATH OF CONTRIBUTOR (J. M. SOUTHARD).
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he is aware that J. M. Southard, an insured contributor under the National Insurance Act, who recently died from advanced tuberculosis

    1849
    of both lungs, was treated by the panel doctor attending him for rheumatism and cold; whether, in making this diagnosis, the doctor submitted Southard to a thorough examination; will he say what time elapsed between the date when Southard was last seen by the doctor and the man's death; whether the coroner's jury in this case censured the doctor; how many insured patients were included on his list at the time; and whether his name still remains on the insurance panel?
    Mr. W. BENN: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the insurance committee's report, from which he will see that he is under a misapprehension as to the facts suggested in his question, and that the insurance committee exonerate the doctor in question from the charge of negligence.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the hon. Member aware that I have put this question down week after week for the last two months?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I said the case was being investigated, and the investigation has only just been completed. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the hon. Member in future, in cases where he asks for questions to be postponed, be good enough to send replies as soon as his investigations are completed?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the case of E. F. Smith, of Battersea, who applied in January last for a medical card in connection with the choice of a doctor under the National Health Insurance Act, and made repeated applications in person and by letter for such card without success; is he aware that Smith has since had an illness and has, in consequence of the inaction of the insurance authorities, had to call in and himself pay for a doctor; will he say if there are any special circumstances to account for the inaction of the insurance committee concerned in this case; and whether Smith is entitled to recover expenses incurred by him for medical attendance since the date of his original application for a medical card?
    Mr. BENN: The particulars given in the question are not sufficient to enable the person concerned to be identified; but if the hon. Member will furnish further particulars the matter will be investigated.

    ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the inadequate amount at present available to meet administration expenses in the case of smaller insurance committees, he will provide, an additional Grant to meet this expenditure?
    Mr. BENN: The matter is under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Anthrax (Fatal Cases).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on Wednesday, the 15th instant, a washbowl minder employed by Messrs. Campbell and Harrison, a branch of Woolcombers, Limited, of Bradford, contracted anthrax in the course of his employment and died of the said disease on the following Saturday, and that on the same day a washbowl feeder in the employment of Messrs. John Cure and Company, another branch of Woolcombers, Limited, contracted anthrax in the course of his employment, and he also died of the same disease; and whether he will say how many cases of anthrax have occurred among the employés of each of the two firms mentioned, respectively, during the period of years 1900 to 1913, inclusive, distinguishing between different years and fatal and non-fatal cases?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have seen reports of the two cases mentioned, in both of which the disease was apparently contracted previously to, and developed during, the Easter holiday. The total figures for the two firms referred to for the period 1900 to 1913 are For the former firm, 18 fatal and 36 nonfatal cases; for the latter, 6 fatal and 14 non-fatal cases. I will circulate the yearly figures with the Votes. As my hon. Friend is aware, an inquiry is now being conducted by a Departmental Committee into the dangers from anthrax in the Bradford woollen industries and the working of the existing regulations.—[See Written Answers this date].

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Home Secretary with reference to the Definition Clause, page 33, of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, whether the expression, line 14, precincts of the cathedral church includes the lawns and burial ground, plantation of trees, and monuments round the cathedral church; whether the cathedral yard at St. Asaph and the monument in it erected to the memory of Bishop Morgan, who gave the Welsh the Bible in their own tongue, will be transferred to the Representative Church Body; or whether, in view of the fact that the cathedral yard is still used for burials, it will be transferred to the local burial authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible to say without an examination of detailed plans and a full knowledge of the actual facts of the case whether the lawns, burial ground, plantation of trees, monuments, the cathedral yard, and Bishop Morgan's monument respectively, are as a matter of fact part of the precincts of the cathedral at St. Asaph. If, in fact, they are, they will, under the provisions of the Bill, be transferred to the Representative Body.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the cathedral yard is regarded by a Court of Law as a public burial ground that then it will be transferred, and all the monuments in it, to the local burial authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have stated exactly the opposite. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I stated in my answer, "If, in fact, they are, they will under the provisions of the Bill be transferred to the Representative Body."
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not desirable to make that perfectly clear in the Definition Clause of the Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is exactly what the Definition Clause does now.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Home Secretary whether the expression ecclesiastical residence, as defined in the Established Church (Wales) Bill, includes all private grounds, plantations, carriage drives, lawns, etc., in addition to the offices belonging to such residence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the definitions of "ecclesiastical
  1852
  residence" and "house," respectively in Clause 38 of the Bill. The latter includes any garden appurtenant to or usually occupied with the house, and the question whether any private grounds, plantations, carriage drives, lawns, etc., belonging to ecclesiastical residences in Wales are included in this definition will depend on the facts in each particular case.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Home Secretary what definition of the term laity of the Church in Wales, as used in Clause 13 of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, he is prepared to insert so as to guard against persons who are not bonâ fide adherents of the Church in Wales from claiming to be laity of the Church in Wales for the purposes of this Clause?
  Mr. McKENNA: I offered when the Bill was first in Committee to insert any definition of "laity" which might be agreed upon by the representatives of the Church. No such definition was proposed to me.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked a question, which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper I shall be glad to answer it.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hope) would be a Nonconformist, and is, therefore, not eligible?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not exactly aware what the hon. Member's faith may be, but if he will put a question on the Paper I shall be happy to consider it.

  Monarkite.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that objection is being taken by the miners to the use of the new explosive monarkite, which is being provided by some of the coal-owners in Lanarkshire, on the ground that a part of the charge nearly always remains unexploded, and that it gives off unhealthy fumes; whether he is aware that among the instructions issued along with this ex plosive is one to the effect that after every blast a careful examination should be made in case any cartridge, or piece of cartridge, should remain unexploded; whether it is now provided under the new Regulations issued under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, that

  1853
  no explosives shall be used in which part of the charge remains unexploded; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to prevent the use of this particular explosive in future until it complies with the new Regulation?
  Mr. McKENNA: The inspector in charge of the division reports that, with the exception of an anonymous complaint which did not mention any particular mine, no complaints have been received in regard to this explosive, and that at a recent inspection of a mine where it is in use in the district from which the complaint came, it was found to be working satisfactorily, and the men had no complaint to make of it. No Regulation to the effect suggested has been issued under the Act, but no explosive is placed on the Permitted List until it has passed the prescribed tests at the Home Office Testing Station and been found to explode in a satisfactory manner. The explosive in question duly passed these tests.

  POST OFFICE.

    GILLINGHAM (DORSET) OFFICE.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Postmaster-General what is the reason for the delay in erecting the post office at Gillingham, Dorset, which has been promised for over two years and for which the site was purchased nearly a year ago?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Owing to financial exigencies it was not possible to assign to this service in the Office of Works' Estimates for 1914–15 more than about half the total cost of the building. It has, therefore, not been thought expedient to arrange for the commencement of the work until late in the year, because, if it were begun now, it would have to be broken off in the middle for want of funds. But I will sec if it is possible to do anything in the way of expediting matters.

    MOTOR VANS (DAMAGE TO ROADS).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Post master-General if his attention has been called to the damage done to the road between Billingshurst and Pulborough by the heavy Post Office motor van conveying the mails from London to the South Coast; whether he is aware that this road is a district council road in a purely agricultural district; and whether the Post Office will make any contribution to the district council concerned in respect of damage done?
    Captain NORTON: The motor vans used for the conveyance of mails from London to Portsmouth via Billingshurst and Pulborough are owned by a private firm which performs the service under contract, and it is to them that any application in respect of alleged damage to the-roads should be made.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Will the hon. Member kindly say whether the Post Office will accept or consider a claim for damage to this road by the heavy motor vans used under contract for Post Office work?
    Captain NORTON: No, Sir; the Post Office cannot do that.
    Sir R. ESSEX: Does the Post Office admit that the damage is done by these vans only or principally?
    Captain NORTON: No, Sir; the Post Office admits nothing.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is this not a proper subject for the consideration of the Road Board, and is it not a fact that the Road Board has £1,000,000 in hand and does not know what to do with it?
    Captain NORTON: That is not a matter for the Post Office.
    Lord A. THYNNE: I would like to ask whether the contractors, under their contract, are not obliged to use these specially heavy vans, and whether firms dealing in other matters which use similar vans do not have to pay in regard to extra traffic?
    Captain NORTON: I must have notice of that question.

  British Foreign-Going Ships (Chinese Seamen).
  Mr. M'GHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is-aware that no figures are available showing the number of Chinese engaged on British foreign-going ships under agreements opened at ports between the Elbe and Brest; and whether he will give orders so as to ensure that such figures will be available in the future showing the number engaged, the number producing continuous discharge books, and the number rejected on account of their failure on the language test?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bums): I am reluctant to add to the heavy duties in connection with

  1855
  merchant shipping which are already-thrown upon Consular officers at ports between the Elbe and Brest, but I am making inquiries with a view of ascertaining whether anything can be done to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend without unduly increasing the work of the Consulates.

  Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that for a number of years the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, in con junction with the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Company, ran through trains over the Dublin Junction Railways and the Drumcondra link line to Punchestown, but that they have refused to continue this arrangement, and that in consequence the Drumcondra link line, which cost the Great Southern and Western Railway Company nearly half a million, is now practically derelict as far as passenger traffic is concerned, the only passenger trains using it being the up and down day mails between Kingstown and Cork; and will he take steps so that the intentions of Parliament when passing the Act for the construction of this line shall be carried out?
  Mr. BURNS: The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in this matter, but I have sent a copy of my hon. Friend's question to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for their observations, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that those Irish railway companies who hither to had declined to fall in with the views of the English railway companies and make return tickets available for six months have, with the exception of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, agreed to grant this facility to the public; and, in these circumstances, can he see his way to bring pressure on the Great Southern and Western Company to give similar facilities?
  Mr. BURNS: I have asked the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for their observations in this matter, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of their reply.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the other railway companies in Ireland have agreed to this except the Great Southern and Western Railway Company?
  Mr. BURNS: That is an additional reason for me pressing it on this particular company.

  Mercantile Marine Service (Unclaimed Wages and Effects).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade for what purposes of the mercantile marine service the balance of the unclaimed wages and effects of the deceased seamen's fund, amounting to £10,826, has been paid into the Exchequer?
  Mr. BURNS: The balance of £10,826 18s. 10d. referred to by the hon. Member has not yet been paid into the Exchequer, but is retained to meet possible claims in respect of the five years from 31st March,1908, to 31st March, 1913. Any sum unclaimed on the 31st March, 1914, in respect of the year 1908–9 will be carried to the Exchequer during the current year. These balances are applied towards the cost of Merchant Seamen's Pensions, which has amounted in all to a sum considerably more than £1,000,000 since they were taken over by the State under the Merchant Seamen's Winding-up Act, 1851.

  Coroners (England and Wales).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board how many coroners there are in England and Wales; and how many of these are paid by way of fee for each inquest held by them?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. There are in all 366 coroners, of whom eighty-two are paid by fees.

  Home Grown and Foreign Meat.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report for the year 1913, issued by Mr. Millman, superintendent of Smithfield Market, to the effect that of the 432,111 tons of meat which passed through the market only 99,148 tons were produced in this country; whether it is therein also stated that the shortage of British-bred pork was more than counter-balanced by very heavy sup plies from Holland; whether the shortage

  1857
  referred to was in part due to the slaughterings undertaken with the object of eradicating swine fever and other diseases; and what steps were taken to see that the supply from Holland had been subjected to a similar process of elimination?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The third part is a matter for the Board of Agriculture. As regards the last part of the question, pork coming from Holland is subject to inspection at the place of slaughter in Holland, and also at the port of arrival in this country, under the Foreign Meat Regulations issued by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that consignments of meat subsequently found to be diseased have been imported into this country bearing the certificates of foreign Governments, to the effect that they have been examined and found to be fit for human food, he will consider the advisability of insisting that all foreign and Colonial firms desiring to send meat into the United Kingdom shall admit to their works a British inspector responsible to the British Government, whose certificate shall be necessary to such inspection?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid it would be impracticable to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it not most unfair to British farmers that their produce should be subjected to this severe examination and that outsiders should be let off altogether?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The system of certificates does not exempt foreign meat from inspection on arrival at the ports of this country except in the case of broken meat packed in boxes.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Is there the slightest evidence that diseased meat has been packed by Australian shippers and sent to this country, as suggested by the hon. Member?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret to say that there has recently been a case in which meat coming from Australia has been found to be diseased.
  Mr. HUNTasked the number of meat inspectors employed by the Port of London Authority; what was the total quantity of meat which passed through that port during the year 1913; and whether it was part of the duty of the Port of London Sanitary Authority to see that all the meat was carefully examined?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Including the medical officer of health and his assistants, there are 19 officers engaged in the work of food inspection in the Port of London Sanitary District. During the year 1913, 8,718,365 cwts. of meat (excluding poultry and game) were imported into London. The inspection of imported meat devolves upon officers of the Port Sanitary Authority, working in conjunction with the officers of Customs.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that number of inspectors is enough to inspect properly such an enormous quantity of meat? Is it not perfectly absurd to suppose that the meat can be inspected, and, as it is not inspected at the other end, it is not inspected at all?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not correct to say that it is not inspected at the other end at all. It is occasionally inspected at the other end, but it is not so thorough as might be desired. I have received no complaint as to the inadequacy of the inspectors. The responsibility for the inspection does not lie with the Local Government Board, but with the local authority. I will, however, inquire, if the hon. Member desires it, as to the adequacy of the inspectors.

  Vaccination Officers.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether, when considering the loss of income suffered by vaccination officers in various districts in England and Wales owing to the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order of 1907, he gave attention to those cases in which vaccination officers had complained to the Local Government Board with regard to their loss of income and in which the Local Government Board had refused to take any action; and, if so, how many such cases there are and what action he proposes to take with regard to them; and (2) whether, when considering the loss of income suffered by vaccination officers throughout England and Wales owing to

  1859
  the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order of 1907, he gave attention to the cases in which the Local Government Board had written to boards of guardians recommending the payment by them of gratuity and an increase in the then existing fees, and in which the guardians had refused to act in accordance with those recommendations; and, if so, how many of these cases there are; and whether he now proposes to take any general action in order to carry out the promise made on behalf of the Government when the Vaccination Bill was being considered in the House of Lords in 1907?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All the cases in which vaccination officers have complained to the Board and have not been compensated have been kept under observation. There are some six cases in which, after correspondence with the guardians on a vaccination officers' complaint, the Board have not thought that there was a case for pressing the guardians to award compensation. (Most of the cases in which guardians had refused to adopt recommendations made by the Board with regard to compensation have now been dealt with. There are ten such cases in which the guardians have not yet granted compensation. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 2nd April, I do not propose to take any general action in this matter, but I will willingly consider any individual case which may be brought before me.
  Mr. PETO: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what these vaccination officers live on while their cases are under consideration?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I assume that they live on their fees and other remuneration.

  Leeds City Council (Pasture Farm).
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the case of Pasture Farm, Stainbeck Lane, Leeds, whether he is aware that the sanitary committee of the Leeds City Council have proposed to offer the tenant, Mr. Simpson, the sum of £100 as a solatium for the less of his wife by typhoid fever; whether he is aware that the sanitary authority for a period of sixteen mouths neglected to take action; that Mr. Simpson denies that
  1860
  he asked for delay in the issuing of an order; and that the town clerk has admitted that the duties of the sanitary authority were not properly carried out; and whether, in view of all the facts, he will have strict inquiry made into the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I received a letter from Mr. Simpson in which he stated that he had offered to accept £300 from the Leeds Town Council as a solatium for his loss, and that the town council had offered him £100. The facts as to the action taken by the sanitary authority were given in the reply to my hon. Friend's question of 22nd April. The statements of Mr. Simpson and of the local officials conflict with regard to the reason for delay in the issue of the notices. With respect to the inquiry asked for, I cannot add anything to the last paragraph of the reply to the previous question.

  Examination of Luggage (London and Paris).
  Captain JESSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the year 1900 the Board of Customs were prepared to make the experiment of sending English Customs House officers to Paris for the purpose of examining luggage registered to London, and that the matter fell through at that time owing to the refusal of the railway companies to pay the expenses of the experiment; whether the Board of Customs now state that at present they are not prepared to take any steps to give practical effect to this suggestion; if so, whether the Treasury will state the reasons that have led the Board of Customs to reverse their decision; and whether, in view of the importance at this time of adopting all means to facilitate intercourse between France and this country, the Treasury will cause the matter to be further considered on the understanding that the expense of the experiment are met by the railway companies?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The abortive negotiations of 1000 had reference, as the hon. Member is perhaps aware, to the special circumstances of the Paris Exhibition, and I am not convinced that under normal conditions the proposed arrangement would lead to any appreciable gain of convenience or saving of time to travellers. But if the railway companies concerned are willing to bear the expenses of

  1861
  an experiment of this kind, and will put forward a proposal, I am prepared to consider it.
  Captain JESSEL: May I ask the hon. Member whether he is aware that such a custom as I have indicated prevails in Germany on the part of the Austrian and in Canada on the part of the United States Governments?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that it has ever been suggested that (his experiment should be tried except at the expense of the railway companies themselves, and if they are prepared to put forward the suggestion I shall be most happy to consider it.

  Railway Baggage Men (Victoria and Charing Cross Stations).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state what are the terms of the reply given to the petition of the baggage men at Victoria and Charing Cross stations in reference to overtime night duty and other matters; and whether this reply has been communicated to the petitioners?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The matter is still under consideration.

  Customs (Ireland).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the total number by which the Customs staff in Ire land has been increased since 4th December last, stating the number appointed to the Leinster, Munster, and Connaught coast lines and the Ulster coast line east and west of Moville, respectively; and whether he can now state, in the public interest, the total number of military as distinguished from sporting and other guns detained by the Customs authorities during the same period?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It would not be in the public interest to give the information which the hon. Member desires.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, in making appointments of Customs and Excise officers to Ulster stations in connection with the Arms Proclamations, any in quiries were made as to whether such officers were or were not in sympathy with the Ulster Volunteer movement; whether any difficulty, similar to that which arose in the Army, was experienced in obtaining officers for this service; and whether any
  1862
  objections were raised by members of the Board of Customs and Excise in connection therewith?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.

  Income Tax (Foreign Domicile).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government has any and, if so, what power to require and obtain from foreigners domiciled abroad a return of their income for Income Tax purposes; and, having regard to Section 2 (1) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913. and to the fact that Income Tax is, and will be, levied provisionally and by deduction until 5th May at the rate imposed for 1913–14, can he say what provision exists for the recovery from such foreigners of the difference between the tax so deducted and any tax at a higher rate which may be ultimately imposed for 1914–15?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): With regard to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the powers granted by Section 41 of the Income Tax Act of 1842, and, with regard to the second part, to my answer to his question of 27th April.

  Mexico.
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information to the effect that a British subject named Body has been arrested by the Federal troops, arising out of the occupation of Mexican territory by the United States; if so, have any representations been addressed to the Mexican Government on the matter, and the result; and what steps are being taken with the object of protecting the lives and property of other British subjects resident in Mexico?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no information as to the arrest of a British subject named Body. A Canadian named Boyd is reported to have been arrested by Mexican Federals whilst on the way to Vera Cruz, and Sir Lionel Garden was instructed on the 26th instant to take whatever steps he could on his behalf. British subjects in Mexico have been warned to use their discretion as to leaving the country, and His Majesty's Consuls have been instructed to take all possible steps for their

  1863
  protection, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to seek, in addition, the good offices of the United States Government for the protection of the property and interests of such British subjects as may be forced through the present situation to leave Mexico. The statement which I made in the House on the 28th instant shows the steps that are being taken for the removal of British subjects who desire to leave the country.

  School Attendance Officers (Superannuation).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of extending the reference of the Committee set up to prepare a scheme or schemes for the superannuation of officers of reformatory and industrial schools so as to include the preparation of a like scheme for the superannuation of school attendance officers?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I fear that it is not practicable to extend the reference of this Committee in the manner proposed. Any question of a scheme for school attendance officers is a matter for the Board of Education.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  CIVIL AND MILITARY FORCES.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state the view that the Law Officers of the Crown take with regard to the legality of the recent Proclamation to prohibit the landing of arms in Ireland; and whether an appeal has been, or is about to be, entered from the decision of Mr. Justice Boyd in the matter?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before that question is answered, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not a well-established rule that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is held to be confidential, and again and again information has been refused? I think it certainly contravenes the rule that while litigation is pending, or probably pending, questions should be asked about it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister will use his own discretion as to whether he chooses to state what the opinion of the
  1864
  Law Officers is. In answer to the second part, it seems to be a very innocuous question as to whether an appeal has been or is about to be entered.
  Mr. RUSSELL: I may say the answer has been revised by the Chief Secretary. The Law Officers have not now, and never had, any doubt as to the legality of the Proclamation prohibiting the importation of arms into Ireland. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 30th ultimo to his question on this subject. The case will come on for argument next Monday before the Divisional Court of the King's Bench.
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Chief Secretary if there has been any interference with the police in Ulster, or any report of probable interference, such as to justify the adoption of special precautions for the preservation of the peace in that province; if so, will he state the date of the first intimation to him of such a contingency arising; and by whom the report dealing with the matter was made?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Various reports have been submitted from time to time by the inspector-general to the effect stated. The first report of this character was on the 29th December, 1913.
  Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War alleged the interference of the police as an explanation of the military demonstrations in Ulster?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No, Sir; I am not aware.
  Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary how many gun licences, under the 33 and 34 Victoria, c. 57, have been issued in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry, and the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, in each of the three years up to the 31st March last how many prosecutions under that Act have been instituted in the area mentioned in each of these years; and whether, in the case of any member of the body called the Ulster Volunteers who has

  1865
  carried a gun contrary to the said Act to the knowledge of the police, a prosecution has been instituted?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The administration of the Gun Licence Duties in Ireland is in the hands of the Board of Customs and Excise, and I am unable to supply the hon. Member with the figures he asks for in the first two paragraphs. The answer to the third paragraph of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. LONGasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware in the first instance of the proposal to appoint Sir Nevil Macready to command the troops in Belfast and to be a resident magistrate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. LONGasked the Prime Minister (i) whether there is any precedent for appointing a military commander to hold a civil appointment in a municipality, thus vesting supreme military and civil control in the hands of one man, a soldier; and (2) whether the fact that Sir Nevil Macready would have held the joint appointments would have authorised him to take any measure which seemed to him to be desirable, including the occupation of the city town hall and offices of the Lord Mayor, thus superseding civil and municipal government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There seems to be some misapprehension about the character of this appointment. It was not intended that Sir N. Macready should interfere in any way with municipal government, nor would his appointment have authorised him to take any such measures as are indicated in Question 48. The object was and is that, in case of necessity, he should be in a position to co-ordinate the actions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the troops. It would be open (unless in a case of extreme and improbable emergency) to the local magistrates to call upon the military to assist the civil power, and also to accompany the troops in accordance with the King's Regulations. As regards precedents I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to
  1866
  the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Kent on Monday last As recently as the recent civil disturbances in Dublin, certain officers were appointed to the Commission of the Peace.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would lay the terms of the warrant or patent appointing Sir Nevil Macready as a White Paper on the Table?
  The PRIME MINISTER: He has now been appointed again. This refers to a past appointment.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The full terms?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no objection at all to laying the terms upon the Table.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether the result of the powers given to Sir Nevil Macready would be to enable him not merely to co-ordinate the civil power and the military power, but also to subordinate the civil power to the military power?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I think not. That was certainly not the intention, nor, I think, would it be the effect.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant at the time of the Union, was also commander of the forces in Ireland, and that therefore he combined in himself, in one man, the whole civil and military power in order to carry the Union?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe, as a matter of history, that is true.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is a precedent which he should propose, to follow in the present instance?
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: May I ask whether the terms upon which Sir Nevil Macready is now appointed are the same as the terms upon which he was previously appointed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have promised to lay the terms on the Table.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms are the same?
  The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I remember they are the same.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked whether recently, before troops were ordered to be in readiness to proceed to Ulster or had proceeded to Ulster, a re quisition was sent in by any magistrate or police officer, as per paragraph 956, King's Regulations; and if not, why was this paragraph not acted upon in the first instance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The paragraph of the King's Regulations quoted does not apply.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister if he can now inform the House what are the appropriate steps to vindicate the authority of the law which he promised the Government would take in response to the recent rebellious exploit in the counties of Antrim and Down?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Measures have already been taken which we hope will prove effective to prevent the possible recurrence of such incidents. The Government have under careful consideration the other aspects of the matter, but it would not be desirable at this moment that I should make any public statement.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask, with great respect, whether the Prime Minister will consider that a national outrage of this magnitude and character, if allowed to go unpunished, will weaken the arm of the law, and diminish the respect for the law?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that the Government are certainly very carefully considering all the aspects of the case.
  Mr. HUNT: Would it not be possible to make the hon. and martial Member for Salford a general officer and send him over to Ireland?
  Mr. AMERYasked whether the orders issued by General Fergusson to the
  1868
  5th Division of 20th March relative to the option offered to officers were first submitted to General Paget?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Major HOPEasked whether, in the event of an officer being dismissed from the Army without trial by court-martial, his retiring allowance can be forfeited, except in so far as provided by Section 529, Pay Warrant, 1913?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to paragraph 517, Royal Warrant "In special circumstances to be determined by our Army Council, the retired pay granted to an officer on retirement, or any portion of it, may be suspended or withheld."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the willingness of an officer to accept dismissal rather than fight against his fellow countrymen to be put in the same category as the misappropriation of public funds?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: May I ask what the business for next week will be?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, as already announced, the Budget will be taken, and the Committee stage of the Income Tax Resolution.
On Tuesday, we shall take the Report stage of the Income Tax Resolution.
We hope this may be taken formally on the understanding that Wednesday and Thursday are devoted to the general discussion of the Budget.
On Tuesday, following the Report stage of the Income Tax Resolution, the first Order will be the Report stage of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill, followed by the Patents and Designs Bill and the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Mr. PONSONBY: When will the Navy Vote be taken, so that we may have a general discussion, as promised?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot fix a date at present.

BLOCKING MOTIONS.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is ever going to move the new Standing Order as promised?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have tried to do so a great many times, but have been defeated by circumstances.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understood yesterday there was an undertaking to put it down as the first Order of the day on a very early day.
The PRIME MINISTER: And so I will put it down.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Could it not be taken next Tuesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.
Mr. KING: In view of the fact that all parties are agreed on the Standing Order, is it necessary to have any long discussion? Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule, so that those who want to make long speeches about it can do it at their leisure?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a very attractive prospect. I am as anxious as anybody can be that the Resolution shall be taken, and I will put it down as early as possible.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER, No. 8 (KINGSTOWN PETITION).
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to draw attention to a matter affecting the privileges of this House. On the 13th August last this House asked the House of Lords to concur in a Standing Order, and the House of Lords did so. That Standing Order embraced this provision:—
"That any Petitions presented against the Kingstown Order in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords], which stood referred to the Committee on that Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8, Kingstown) Bill [Lords], in the next Session of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th August, 1913, col. 2472, Vol. LVI]
The House of Lords carried out its part of the bargain. But yesterday the House of Commons suspended this Standing Order. It was done by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in the exercise of its jurisdiction, of which I do not complain. The rule is, apparently, when a Select Committee suspends Standing Orders, it shall seek the concurrence of this House. Rule 95 provides:—
"When any Petition, praying that any of the Sessional or Standing Orders of the House relating to Private Bills may be dispensed with shall stand referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders, they shall report to the House whether such Sessional or Standing Orders ought or ought not to be dispensed with"
To our astonishment in to-day's Votes there appears this statement, which is a false statement of fact:—
4. "That, in the case of the Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Kingstown Urban District Council,' the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with."
At the end appear the words—and this is the false statement—"Resolution agreed to." The House of Commons, as I understand, as a rule, expects, when a Resolution is agreed to, that it shall be put from the Chair. The Select Committee met last night, I am told, about 4.30 or 5 o'clock. Private business in this House had then been dispatched. Nobody who was interested in this Bill had had any
1884
notice whatever of any such proceeding, and my submission is that to simply put a notice on the Votes that such a Resolution has been passed is really to turn the procedure of this House into more or less a form—I will not say a sham. Certainly when this House is so careful of its procedure and when promoters spend thousands upon thousands of pounds in resorting to this House as a Court of Justice, the least one expects with regard to a Resolution which this House asked the House of Lords to concur in, and which it did concur in, is that notice to suspend it should be given Members interested, and it should not be the case that one should first learn that the Resolution had been suspended when he receives his Parliamentary Papers the next morning. I am told there is a practice in this House of that kind, and I can well understand it in the case of the ordinary Standing Orders of the House. But this is not an ordinary Standing Order. This is a Standing Order which was agreed to as a result of a compact that this Bill should be put in the same position in the Session of 1914 as it was in the Session of 1913. The House of Lords carried out its portion of the compact, but the House of Commons has broken its portion. I do not challenge the ancient practice, if it be one, that the Standing Orders shall be suspended pro forma and without their being put from the Chair. But I ask whether, in the case of a special Standing Order, which we have asked the House of Lords to join in concurring in, we might not at least get the courtesy of notice and a Question put from the Chair?
Mr. MOONEY: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether the Standing Order passed last Session was only a Standing Order declaring that this Bill, when it came before this House this Session, should come before it at the same stage at which it left this House last Session, Chat we should dispense with the First and Second Reading, and that the Standing Order further declared that to save expense to petitioners who had petitions against the Bill those petitions should be kept alive? I ask also whether that Resolution of the House debarred any further petition; otherwise would it not be putting the Bill in a better position this year than it was in last year? I submit that a petition can be presented against the Bill up to the time the Committee upstairs has decided, if it is sanctioned by the Standing Orders.
Mr. SPEAKER: Unfortunately I have not got the Order which was passed at the end of last Session suspending this Bill, but, speaking generally, the effect of this Standing Order is, as the hon. Member who has just addressed me says, to replace the Bill at the beginning of the new Session in exactly the same position as it was in at the end of the old Session. That is, generally speaking, the intention of these suspending Orders. The hon. Member asks is it open this year to any petitioner to put in a petition, even if he may be out of time. I conceive that is so, provided he obtains the assent of the Standing Orders Committee to allow the petition to proceed. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork asks me whether it is suitable and proper that there should be an entry in the Votes that this House agreed to a Resolution which, as a matter of fact, has never been agreed to, and which was never put from the Chair. I have inquired into that, and find it has always been the practice, at all events, for a great number of years, to enter as agreed to the Resolutions which come down from the Standing Orders Committee. I take it that that has been done upon this ground, that this matter being of a semi-judicial character the House has committed to the Standing Orders Committee the decision of all matters which affect Standing Orders and that the House would not of itself, having discharged itself of the duty and handed it over to the Standing Orders Committee, as a general rule, revise those decisions. Therefore, it would be a work of supererogation to put the Question from the Chair. We already have quite enough questions to put. I think that Mr. Speaker Peel, some years ago, added to the number of Resolutions which are entered in the Minutes as having been put, a considerable number which, in fact, never were put from the Chair, which related to purely formal business. I would point out that the hon. and learned Member is not in a worse position by reason of the Resolution having been entered as agreed to, because it is always open to him to take one of two courses—either to move that this matter be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee in order that they should reconsider it, or to ask the House, by Motion which would come on at the time of Private Business, to rescind the Order of which he complains. Those two courses are open to him if he chooses to avail himself of either. I am afraid I cannot assist him any further than that.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am much obliged to you, Sir. All I wanted to know was whether this ruling extends to the practice-of Standing Orders after we have sent a Message to the House of Lords asking them to concur in it, as well as to the ordinary Standing Orders of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the fact that it was a special Standing Order, and that we sent it to the House of Lords for them to concur in, does not differentiate it from the other Standing Orders over which the Standing Orders Committee have control.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Private Bills (Group D),
Sir Edwin Cornwall reported from the-Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the-Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Private Bills (Group E),
Colonel Bathurst reported from the-Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the-Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Public Rights of Way Bill): Dr. Chapple; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Cowan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment of compulsory Continuation Schools in England and Wales, and to amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1902, in respect of the age of compulsory school attendance." Presented by Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY; to be read a second time upon Monday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
  NATIONALISATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To provide for the Nationalisation of Railways, the establishment of a Ministry of Posts and Railways, and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. CHIOZZA. MONEY; to be read a second time upon Monday, 18th May, and to be printed. [212.]
  EASTER OFFERINGS (EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION) BILL.
  "To exempt Easter Offerings to clergy and ministers from taxation." Presented by the EARL OF RONALDSHAY; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Edward Beau-champ, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Bridgeman, and Mr. Edward Wood; to be read a second time upon Monday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Matrimonial Causes in England and Wales." Presented by Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES; supported by Sir William Beale, Sir John Jardine, Sir Frederick Low, Mr. Bentham, Mr. France, Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. Edgar Jones, and Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    POST OFFICE.—HOLT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,151,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones." [NOTE.—£11,000,000 has been voted on account.]
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The expenditure of which I have to ask the Committee to approve amounts to no less a sum than £26,150,000,
    1888
    which is a very large increase, almost, I think, one of the largest increases that has ever taken place upon the current expenditure—an increase of £1,770,000 upon last year. This increase is caused in the main by a rise in the salaries and wages of postal employés. The engineering establishment only accounts for £500,000. On the other side, I expect a revenue this year of £31,750,000, which is a large increase on that of last year.
    Mr. GOULDING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the profit?
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will come to that later. On the other hand, debt has gone up very largely. It amounts to £31,600,000, on which we pay interest amounting to £943,000. The Postal Department is divided into three chief Departments, one of which pays very considerably, on one there is a considerable deficit, and on the other a moderate profit. The postal service proper requires for its maintenance the sum of £15,500,000, and provides towards the revenue which I have mentioned a sum of £21,750,000, leaving the large profit of £6,250,000. Telegraphs provide us with an income of £3,150,000 leaving a deficit on their working this year of £350,000. Similarly the telephones require £6,600,000, and they provide £6,900,000. leaving a profit of £300,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the telegraph and telephone income and expenditure may be set off one against the other, and the whole profit on the Postal Department really arises from the postal service proper. The net revenue to the Exchequer is £5,200,000. taking into account the services rendered to other Departments. I thought it proper to indicate the sums total of the large figures of income and expenditure which it has to provide every year.
    The chief internal event of interest in the postal year must, of course, be the Holt Committee Report. This is the second Select Committee which has been set up by the House of Commons in the last eight years to deal with this subject. Of the first of such Committees I happened to be the Chairman, and that Committee increased the wages of postal servants by an immediate sum of £450,000, which sum is expected to rise ultimately to £690,000. The Holt Committee made an award which, added to what the Treasury and the Post Office between them have conceded since then, amounted to £640,000 immediately, with an ultimate cost to the taxpayer of £1,250,000. The net

    1889
    result, therefore, of the two Committees is that in eight years a sum of £1,100,000 has been added to the wages of postal employés immediately, which will rise ultimately to a total cost of £1,940,000, a very substantial increase to the wages of postal employés, of whom there are about 160,000 within the scope of the Holt Report, and something like 230,000 altogether. I think it is worth while noting that not only in the appointment of the first, but in the appointment of the second Committee the postal staff insisted, and I use that word deliberately, upon the reference of their case to the adjudication of Parliament. The chairman of what is called the National Joint Committee of Postal Servants, speaking in September, 1911 I am sure the Committee will forgive me for quoting the exact words, because they are important—made use of this language:—
    "We ask that the Committee of Inquiry shall be a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The reasons are that, as we are State servants, the House of Commons, seems to us to be the proper tribunal, and it is obvious that the House can best proceed by way of a Committee. We do not think the Government will be likely to assent to a condition which would set up a body outside the House of Commons, and we do not regard that as desirable or advisable. We are State servants and we claim consideration direct from the State."
    That was an appeal to Parliament. That appeal the House of Commons responded to by setting up a Select Committee, and I think, therefore, the House of Commons, having set up this Select Committee and selected the members of that Committee with great care—representatives of all parties in this House, nominated not by the Government, but by the parties which compose the House—it is only fair that the House should accept their verdict. The reference to that Committee was not a restricted or a narrow one. It gave the Committee full power to increase the charges, to settle all the conditions of work, to limit if they so chose the hours of labour of postal servants, and it in no way restricted or diminished their freedom of action. There was, indeed, only one difference as to the terms of reference, and that related to whether or not the Committee in making its inquiries, and framing its Report, should or should not have regard to the conditions of labour outside. The House of Commons decided that the conditions of labour outside should form part of the reference to the Committee, and should be a guidance to them in framing their Report.
    The inquiry was not a hurried one. It lasted twelve months. It embraced, I think,
    1890
    every class of postal servants except very small ones, and the consideration of the evidence occupied the Committee something like three months. Neither the inquiry was hurried nor was the verdict given hastily, and it was almost a unanimous verdict. There were, I think, only six occasions on which the Committee felt themselves so bound by force of argument on one side or the other as to be obliged to go to a Division. I think it can, therefore, be said on behalf of the Committee—I do not know that I am necessarily bound to hold any particular brief for them except to explain the circumstances—a Committee representative of all sections of the House—that having most carefully considered the voluminous evidence—for it is, indeed, voluminous—which was set before them, they came practically unanimously to the decisions which, on behalf of the Post Office, I set out in a Post Office circular on 3rd April last, and the Estimates which I now present for the consideration of the Committee embody those decisions of the Committee almost as they were given. There have, indeed, been one or two variations, nearly all the variations being favourable to the staff. In particular, whereas in regard to some classes of the staff the Committee recommended that the hours of labour should be increased, the Department of which I am the head for the moment decided—the decision practically of my predecessor, which I confirmed—that it would not be wise to vary hours which had long been maintained, and which were well recognised both by the Department and the staff as satisfactory, and they, therefore, did not insist on that increase of hours, which they otherwise might have done.
    I think the main criticism which will probably be made upon the recommendations of the Committee is that though the sum of money which is recommended to be spent in increased wages by the Committee is large, yet the gain to the individual postal servants is but small. I think that is inevitable when you have regard to the great number of postal employés that there are. On the other hand, I think it would not be well to ignore the great relief which is given to classes. I have said there are 160,000 within the scope of postal servants, 94,000 of whom will gain immediate relief by the recommendations of the Committee. I have here a list of a great many of those recommendations and I have adopted them all, and I am

    1891
    not sure whether I should weary or displease the Committee if I read briefly, almost brutally, to them the results as they affect the various classes. Take postmen in London. Above twenty-two years of age the increments on the new scale are larger, the maximum on the new scale is 2s. a week higher, and the maximum under the new scale is obtainable after nineteen years instead of twenty-five years. In the case of postmen in the provinces the maximum is 1s. a week higher in Classes I., II., and III., and that maximum is obtainable after from seventeen to nineteen years' service instead of twenty-five. In Classes IV. and V. the maximum is 2s. a week higher. The increment of all the classes above twenty-two years of age is larger. In the case of auxiliary postmen the rate of pay in Class V. post offices, where 75 per cent. of these postal servants are employed, is raised a 1s. a week, and twelve working days' leave, with pay, is granted. I could take the Committee through the whole list. There are forty or fifty or perhaps even more classes which are benefited in a similar way, and I think it ought to be realised that there is hardly any class of the postal service which is not in some measure or other benefiting by the recommendations of the Committee.
    There is, however, one particular class of postal servants which the Government thought had not benefited as much by the recommendations of the Committee as they might have done, and we have been struck by the fact that whatever may be the value to the individuals or the cost to the State of those recommendations, they leave a considerable number of postal servants at a wage which we can hardly consider adequate to meet the necessary expenditure in maintaining a home and a growing family. It is quite clear that the addition of a 1s. a week to the maximum will increase comfort in a much greater degree than it will increase the expenditure upon necessities, but when a man enters the service that 1s. a week is much more valuable in providing necessities than it is in adding comfort. We have considered this question very carefully and we think it is not possible for the lower paid officials of the postal service on an income of less than 22s. to make that income go, as it ought to go, to provide the modest comforts and requirements of life. And we propose, therefore, in the case of full-time male postal
    1892
    servants of twenty-three years of age and over, which may be taken as the age of marriage, to provide an overriding wage of 22s. per week for all those whose incomes from the State are less than that sum. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that in London only?"] No, all over the country wherever it applies. This will affect about 25,800 men. It will cost approximately about £75,000, and it will yield on the average an increased wage of Is. 6d. per individual. As in the case of other Government Departments, this will apply to Ireland with such modifications as the lower cost of living justifies. That includes the full-time people—postmen, temporary postmen, engineering labourers, stores and factories, cleaners, and various miscellaneous persons.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: Not auxiliary postmen?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will only contain himself for a moment I will deal with that. I was reciting the full-time people, and auxiliary postmen, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are not full-time people. Half - time employés—auxiliary postmen, cleaners, allowance deliverers, and a few miscellaneous persons, making about 22,800 persons; and; there are other persons I have not recited, making 25,800 in all, half-time employés, being paid pro rata. I come back to the Holt Report, and I should like to say a few words upon the reorganisation of the clerical classes. No announcement has been made by the Post Office on this subject for these reasons. The clerical classes have been held over for consideration until after the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report has only recently coma out—I think in the last ten days or a fortnight—and we have not yet had time to study its facts and to apply its remarks and recommendations on the clerical classes. The Holt Committee has given us one very valuable recommendation that the whole class of clerical labour in the Post Office—recruitment, pay, and promotion—which was organised on rather a haphazard scaled with many grades overlapping, and that all should be swept up into one large clerical class, with every member liable to serve in every branch of the service. That does not apply to the Savings Bank, Accountant-General's Department, or Secretary's Office, but for the rest of the service they will give us a large, unified, and

    1893
    mobile class, which I think will be of great advantage to the postal requirements. As to the wireless staff, they have given us a reorganisation which in the case of officers entering between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-four will put their wages up to 32s. a week, and give them a chance of rising, after passing certain technical and linguistic tests, to a maximum of 70s. These detailed charges are all set out in the Post Office circular of 3rd April, with the contents of which I suspect most of the staff are intimately acquainted, and, therefore, I need not trouble the Committee with further reference to them.
    I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the Return showing the changes in wages and conditions of postal servants which was issued to the House about a fortnight ago. I think a careful study of that will reveal how much has been done for them by this Report, and will show that they have been substantial gainers by it. I should like to say a word or two, returning to the consideration of general postal topics, about the Telegraph Department.
    Mr. GOULDING: You said just now that the auxiliary postmen would be advanced, pro rata. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee how many pence that would be in the week on the personal wage of an auxiliary postman?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot de that off-hand, but before the Debate closes I shall see if I can answer the question.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how much per hour that increase is to auxiliary postmen in London and in the provinces?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is precisely the same question in a different way, and if I could not answer the one I could not answer the other, but I promise to see whether I can get the information, and if I can it will certainly be given to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish to say a word about the Telegraph Department, because it is the least satisfactory of the Departments of the Post Office. It has been carried on at a great loss for a great number of years. In the last forty years the excess expenditure upon telegraphs has amounted to the very large sum of £22,000,000. The greater portion of that excess expenditure is due entirely to the action of the House of Commons. In
    1894
    October, I think it was 1885 or 1886, the House of Commons insisted upon having a sixpenny telegram. Of course, it was a very great convenience to the individual, but inasmuch as the ordinary sixpenny telegram cost on the average elevenpence to transmit and deliver, it is quite clear that the House of Commons was inflicting a great loss on the postal service for the convenience of the individual sender of telegrams. I do not say that is not a justifiable course, but the result has been that, whereas the telegraph service was at that time struggling into solvency, it has been involved ever since in hopeless bankruptcy. It is carried on at a loss of £350,000 a year—a deficiency which docs not include the interest on the original purchase money, liability for pensions of the employés, or amortisation of the original purchase money. It is not satisfactory either altogether from the point of view of the persons employed in it.
    The expansion of the telegraph service, owing to the competition of the telephone—and now, I suppose, wireless—is not as great as it is in other parts of the Department, and though the remuneration, taking into consideration what was given in 1908 and now, is, I think, adequate for the work done, undoubtedly the work of the operative section of telegraphists is much more monotonous and wearisome than that of other postal employés. The finance is not in a satisfactory condition. It seems to me that an inquiry into the organisation of telegraphs would do something to make good the loss to the Exchequer which is involved by the present service, and might, I hope would, increase the efficiency of a service which I should be the last person to decry, but which I think might be more economically and better performed; and, finally, by the establishment of a Post Office laboratory on a much larger scale than anything we have got at present, and by thus admitting of much more extensive and close research into telegraphic problems, I hope the Committee of Organisation, plus closer research into the problems of high speed and other matters of telegraphy, may enable us to set this Department on a much more satisfactory footing than at present exists. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the loss on Press telegrams?"] Undoubtedly it is a very serious loss.
    Mr. JOWETT: Why do you not mention it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are many statistics which I could have given to the Committee. That did not occur to me. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have given the sixpenny wire."] I am afraid that accounts for a great part of the loss, but I am coming to Press telegrams in a moment from another point of view, namely, the telephonic point of view. I wish to refer to the subject of telephones, in which there has been a good deal of interest shown everywhere. We spent in purchase from the National Telephone Company a sum of £10,685,000, and we spent on the development of our own telephones a sum of nearly £18,000,000, making a total expenditure upon telephones of £28,262,000. They are valued at the present moment, making account for full depreciation of these telephones, at about £23,000,000. Perhaps I ought to mention at this point that there is a small sum outstanding which is receivable in respect of the Hull Corporation purchase of the telephone of £100,000. Despite all complaints which reach me in varying quantities from the public, and despite even cartoons in the illustrated papers, I think there is a very considerable and happy development of the telephone service. It is a very serious rival to the telegraphs, and I think it is quite possible that the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that some of the expenses now borne by the country in respect of telegraphs will be lifted off its shoulders by the replacing of this service by the telephones. But the telephone development at the present moment is very great. Constantly Members and others of the public are writing to me and saying, "We applied a month ago, or two months ago, or even three months ago, for a telephone. You promised it and sent your inspector to inspect the roof, and we have not got our telephone." It is not altogether our fault, it is a difficulty which must occur in every expanding business.
    We have got under our charge at the present moment nearly 2,000,000 miles of telephone wire, and we find it impossible to procure the services of skilled and trained workmen in sufficient numbers and with sufficient skill, not only to maintain this great amount of existing wire, but to lay down new wires required by the public service. We have a large number of schools in London and the provinces for training telephone workmen, and we hope to turn them out at the rate of something like 3,000 or 4,000 a year. Perhaps the Committee would
    1896
    like a few brief details as to what is being done in respect of telephones both in London and the provinces. In London there are nearly 243,000 telephones, an increase on last year of over 14,000. I hope this year or next to be able to open four new exchanges, and I intend to spend this year on the extension of the telephone system in London about £750,000. In the provinces there are about 480,000 telephones, an increase on last year of nearly 29,000. I propose to spend in extending the service all over the provinces £1,650,000, which I hope may procure a more rapid development of the system than has yet been possible. There is one kind of telephone which may interest agricultural Members. It has been found possible to provide in the country what are known as rural party lines for telephones. They were looked upon at first with great suspicion by farmers. Conversations could be overheard. Persons who used them were afraid lest their neighbours should know what their prices and their hopes of profit were. They feared lest when they were talking exclusively to one another their conversations should be overheard by someone else. A great deal of those fears have been dissipated by the facts. There are now 2,300 of such telephones constructed or in course of construction, which represents an increase on last year of over-1,400, and the demand for them, I am glad to say, is spreading very rapidly and very extensively. I hope to be in a position to meet all the demands which may be extended to the Department this year with rapidity and with satisfaction to the subscribers. Another aspect of the telephone system which I might mention is the creation of an inter-town communication. At the present moment Liverpool and Manchester can talk to each other not as formerly, as if they were on different exchanges, but as if they were on the same exchange. It may interest the Committee to know that 70 per cent. of the calls which originate in one or other of these towns are now satisfied within less than a minute. This system has given the greatest satisfaction to men of business in both those towns, and I hope to be able to extend it between Leeds and Bradford at a very early date, and eventually to spread it all over the country. It would do a great deal to quicken up business communications.
    Mr. WATT: What about Edinburgh and Glasgow?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I hope that that will be done also. My hon. Friend does well to call my attention to these places, and I will do what I can to meet his wishes as early as possible. Within the last few years they have adopted in America a system of automatic exchanges, of which we in this country were exceedingly shy when it was first brought to our notice. In Germany they have adopted the automatic exchange on a large scale. I saw the other day an exchange in Berlin which was operating, I think, 4,000 lines, and in Dresden, I think, they have two with 17,000 lines, and they have a system on a larger scale in Munich. Here in this country we have not been so quick to adopt this system. There are only two in existence at present, and they are on a very small scale—Epsom, with fewer than a hundred lines, and the official switch at the General Post Office. The machinery is very delicate and complicated. It requires very skilled and expert workmen to manufacture it. But the result has been uniformly good wherever the system has been tried, and I propose to extend it on a very considerable scale in this country as soon as possible. I hope at a comparatively early date to supply Accrington, Darlington, Dudley, Grimsby, Newport, Paisley, Ports-month, Stockport and Leeds with automatic exchanges. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stafford."] Stafford is not yet ripe for an exchange of this sort. If they prove successful at these places, as we believe they will, I am sure that it will be found to the advantage of all concerned that they should be introduced rapidly all over the United Kingdom.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Would the automatic system be the same system as in Germany?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are three principal manufacturers of automatic telephone machinery. We give orders to these three in turn. Some of these places will be served by machinery manufactured by one company, and others by machinery made by one of the other companies.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What about London?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is also a semi-automatic exchange system which can be provided. London will, no doubt, be dealt with as opportunity occurs, but we have to consider the number of lines, as in these automatic exchanges there are much greater complications than
    1898
    in an ordinary telephone exchange, so that this system can only be developed very slowly. I can make no pledge about individual exchanges in London. When it is possible to apply the system to London, I shall certainly desire to do so. I am sure to be asked in the course of the Debate what about telephone tariffs. I think that my predecessor was challenged on this point more than once. I had hoped to be in a position to make an announcement upon it not only to-day, but even at an earlier date. But though I am in communication with the Treasury upon the point, I have nothing definite to say to the Committee beyond this, that the net profit of the telephone system being only something like £300,000, it is impossible, looking to the great number of telephone subscribers that there are in the country, to give an individual subscriber any hope of much reduction. But what I think will be done is, that there will be a great readjustment of charges, and more particularly I hope to be able to introduce a system of a measured service rate which will get rid of many of the present anomalies and differences, and I hope, though I do not want to excite too much hope on this point, that I may be able to accompany that measured service rate with a subscriber's meter, which will enable subscribers to check accurately the number of calls which are made on the telephone.
    Whether having a check on the number of calls made upon his telephone will make the subscriber more happy than he-is now, I do not know, because our information goes to show that an enormous number of calls is made upon various individual subscriber's telephone, far more calls than the subscriber is aware of, and all sorts of conversations take place upon the telephone of which he is absolutely unaware. Therefore, while I hope that they may give satisfaction to the subscriber, I am not altogether without hope that they may be a source of profit to the Post Office as well. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) has said something about Press telegrams. A certain number of Press telegrams is occupied with the speeches of prominent Members of this House, and the telephone is a very dangerous rival to the telegraph in this connection. The commencement of the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) in Belfast in 1912 was actually being sold in print in Liverpool and Leeds before he had ended the speech in Belfast, the first portion

    1899
    having been sent to those places by telephone. In the same way, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George), delivered in Bedford last year, was distributed in places so far apart as Swansea and Aberdeen by telephone, and it never went over the telegraph wires at all. The speech made by the Prime Minister in Fife the other day, was telephoned by the reporters from their shorthand notes to London, and redistributed over the country by telephone, without passing over the telegraph wires at all. This new mode of transmission saves a great deal of time and a great deal of money, and gives universal satisfaction, and I am very glad to have a testimonial from the press associations as to the case and rapidity with which these speeches are now transmitted by telephone.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Press have a special rate?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of that, but I will make inquiries. Perhaps I may say a word about the position of wireless. There are two aspects of that: one internal and the other external. I am not all all satisfied that the distribution of the internal wireless stations is all that it ought to be or might be. There are nine ship to shore stations. A new station is coming into existence at Valencia, and the plans are ready for the erection of the station at Stonehaven, which it is intended to maintain in case of accident to the telegraph system, so as to keep communication with Dundee and Aberdeen, which was so seriously interfered with last year. I am not sure as to whether the rearranging of wireless internal communication might not lead to a more extensive development of the wireless system in this country, and to a quicker and easier means of communication. With regard to external wireless communication, and what is known as the Imperial wireless chain, the Committee may like to know the position. There are two stations in England—one at Leafield and the other at Devizes. The sites are purchased. At Leafield, which is near Oxford, the erection of masts has already begun to take place. We are considering the power plant, but we have not yet settled details of the wireless plant. The second of the stations includes one near Cairo, in Egypt, for transmitting, and one near Ismailia for
    1900
    receiving wireless messages. The sites have been acquired, and the masts are in process of erection. There is only this difference between the statement made by my right hon. Friend and what is being done, that the station in Egypt will be what is called a three-way station instead of a two-way station, and will communicate with India and East Africa.
    The third of these stations is at Poonah. In regard to those three stations, which have been approved by the House of Commons, they are being erected and established by the Marconi Company. With regard to the other three, in East Africa, South Africa and the Straits Settlements, although the Marconi Company has a lien on the erection of those three stations, their claim does not go beyond the lien, and the Post Office may give notice at any time before their completion that they intend to hand it over to another company. I myself feel that there is not enough competition in wireless with the Marconi Company, but it is very difficult indeed to obtain competition. The Marconi Company are closely related to or in a dominant position with nearly every other wireless corporation. Some they have acquired, and some desire to be acquired by them, and the consequence is that in whatever direction you look you find that you are up against a very extensive and powerful corporation. Personally, I think that competition in everything is good, in order to keep down the price which a nation has to pay for its necessities. There is at the present moment, as far as I can see, in this country only one serious competitor of the Marconi Company, and that is the Poulsen Company, which has a station in county Kerry, and I understand that they have got a contract with the Canadian Government to supply a service at the rate of 400 words a minute.
    If they can demonstrate their ability to give us an efficient service, and I am bound to lay great emphasis on the word "if," we would gladly give them a licence and let them at least try their service. But I am waiting at the present moment, and I have been waiting ever since I was first appointed to the office of Postmaster-General, to get a test which will satisfy us as to their ability to carry on this service. It has always been promised to me, but the promise has never been fulfilled. I will gladly receive a demonstration of their ability to enter on commercial conversations and communications, but, until I am

    1901
    in a position to sec that they can actually enter on such communications, I, at all events, on behalf of the Post Office, cannot avail myself of their service. I only desire to say a word or two upon another point. I have said nothing about the postal department, which is, as I pointed out to the Committee, the most profitable portion of our enterprise. Some hon. Gentleman asked me what has been the increase of the Post Office personnel this year. It has gone up by 11,000, and that is some measure of the expansion of our business. Perhaps I may indicate, in a few sentences, how quickly the service extends. There is a daily sale of stamps to the value of £81,000, which yields an enormous revenue for the year. We deal with 3,471,000,000 letters a year, which is an increase of 3,250,000 per week. That gives some concrete idea to the Committee of the vastness of the expansion of the postal service. Last year we took on a thousand more men for Christmas work than we did the year before. This year we have a surplus of deposits over withdrawals in the Savings Bank of 12,000,000. We do that not as in the old days, at a loss, but with the substantial profit of £160,000 a year. I think it reflects enormous credit on the present Controller of the Savings Bank, though I do not wish to make too much of that profit, because with a substantial rise in Consols probably a great portion of that profit might disappear, but it has removed what has been a great burden on the Exchequer, and turned it to a profit.
    My predecessor made mention last year of what are called postal drafts. They are provided for the purpose of enabling approved societies to make payments to their members, and while making those payments at the same moment to secure the receipt for that payment. I propose to issue very shortly four fixed denominations—one of 30s., one of 10s., one of Vs. 6d., and one of 5s.; and in a fifth denomination, any person can fill up any amount he desires to remit up to 10s. We calculate that we shall use about four and a-half millions every year for this purpose alone. We know that it is desired to utilise them for naval allotments, and we expect they will require them to the extent of two and a half millions a year. I have no doubt that cooperative societies will desire to make use of them, and that we shall use them for our own payments as well. It will afford a ready means of transmitting smaller sums of money to many per-
    1902
    sons who find difficulty in getting cheques cashed, however small. It will give to the payer an absolute receipt, and will show that the person to whom he has sent the money has received it and acknowledged payment. It will enormously simplify the work of approved societies, and will prove, I hope, a boon to the person who receives as well.
    There is only one other matter on which I wish to say a word before I sit down. It is this: That I have received a great deal of correspondence which points to the existence in this country, of which we were fully aware before, of an enormous amount of literature employed in the service of bookmakers, moneylenders, and touts, and lottery promoters of every description. A great deal of this business is carried on abroad. It is carried on, as I think, to the detriment of this country which receives these touting communications. The power of the Post Office to deal with literature of this sort has been greatly over-rated. I am continually getting letters pointing out that so-and-so has received a great mass of literature from these touts and bookmakers in Geneva, and it is asked, "Why-do you not put a stop to it?" The power of the Post Office to deal with this matter, as I have said, is very greatly over-rated. We have no power to deal with it unless it comes to us in open envelopes, and we can claim that it is injurious to the morals of the staff to have this literature transmitted from those who post it to those who receive it. We guard their morals as jealously as we can in this particular, but, of course, an enormous amount of this literature slips through our fingers. The House of Commons has always been, and I think very rightly, very jealous for the absolute sanctity and inviolability of letters and messages handed to the Postmaster for transmission. Last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Herbert Samuel) drafted a Bill to prevent the use of the Post Office in connection with business carried on abroad, which, if carried on in England, would be illegal, whether in respect of letters going to or coming from such persons, but time did not permit of the pursuance of the subject, or of bringing the Bill to the notice of the House of Commons. I should like to give some idea of the volume of this sort of literature. Take the advertisements posted and addressed to people in this country on behalf of

    1903
    people resident abroad. There is the Turf Pool Syndicate of Geneva, who for their sweepstake on the Grand National this year, posted 184,000 circulars. For the "John Bull" sweepstake on the Derby of last year there were posted 72,000 circulars, and this year, no doubt encouraged by the success of last year, there have been posted 115,000.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: Is it desirable to give an advertisement for these things?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it is, in order that the danger may be clearly recognised. Two other people posted circulars—one 28,000, and the other 24,000. But worse than that because this points to what is effected by these people, the replies to those advertisements posted in the month of January at a particular place in London, numbered on 3rd January, 20,000; on 10th January, 35,000; on 17th January, 37,000; on 24th January, 38,000; and on 31st January, 47,000. All these replies, I will not say all of them, but a very considerable portion of them, no doubt, contained remittances either in anticipation of bets or payments of results. The harm done to the country is very great and is increasing. I believe that legislation can be introduced into this House, and ought to be introduced in this House, of an entirely nonpartisan character. I hope and I believe that if I were in a position to put forward such legislation I might secure support in every quarter of the House for it. There can be no question, I think, of the harm that is done, and done especially to the working classes of this country, by this sort of advertisement. I do not think, however, the Postmaster-General ought to have the authority to originate legal proceedings. That is not his sphere of action at all, but I do think he ought to be in a position to prevent his Department from being the agency for this kind of rascality and for distributing these advertisements wholesale throughout the country. It is not the purpose for which the Post Office exists. It cannot have any beneficial effect at all, and I do not think the House of Commons could be better employed than in preventing its continuance in the future. I have dealt with a great number of topics, and I hope that I have presented them clearly.
    Major DALRYMPLE WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state on what basis the postal wages will be considered,
    1904
    whether on the cost of living or proportion of population? It is rather important in discussing the rate of wages.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not quite understand the hon. Member. The Report of the Holt Committee indicated that both of these factors were taken into consideration by them. It is upon their recommendation that I have based the decisions which I have come to and submitted to the House.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich): May I ask—
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members had better take their opportunity in Debate to raise their various points, otherwise they might cross-examine the Postmaster-General for the rest of the day if they adopt the method of asking questions.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £15,151,730, be granted for the said Service."
    5.0 P.M.
    I do so not because I desire that the right hon. Gentleman shall have less emoluments than he possesses, but because this is the means by which I may criticise, as I wish to do, the statement he has made. I wish to begin by saying that I do not think, and I am sure both sides of the House will agree with me in this, that we have been treated quite fairly, because the object of both sides of the House has been for many months to secure a discussion about the Report of the Holt Committee. The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made is extremely interesting and full of fresh matter for consideration. But the tendency is to divert the attention of the Committee from the Holt Report which has been the matter of grave consideration and anxiety on the part of postal workers throughout the country, and, what is just as important, of anxiety on the part of those of us who represent the workers throughout the country. I do not think it is quite fair that the Prime Minister did not appoint a day in which, without having to consider anything else or any new proposals, or the work of the Post Office for the year, we could discuss in how far the Holt Committee, as it is called, adjusted the grievances of the postal servants of all kinds and grades, and in how far the Postmaster-General has carried out the recommendation and awards of the Holt Committee.

    1905
    I must confess it is with some surprise I learn at this moment, in answer to a question of my hon. Friend behind (Major White), that the Holt Committee had the power, and that it was in their terms of reference that they should, as it were, consider and decide upon the matter of the classification of districts, and the classification of postal servants in relation to districts whether by population or in any other way. I do not find that in the consideration of the Holt Committee that that was very thoroughly entered into, and if we are to judge by the Report of the Holt Committee I am bound to say that it is extremely unsatisfactory.
    The right hon. Gentleman has to-day made a concession. I do not want to say that the right hon. Gentleman has made the concession because of political pressure, because I think it a loathsome idea myself that Members of Parliament should be subjected, where the Civil Service of this country is concerned, to political pressure, and I intend before I sit down to make a proposition which I believe will haves the assent of the greater part of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has made a concession of £75,000, affecting 25,800 postal workers of all classes, and, so far as the postal servants in my own Constituency are concerned, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that concession, but I hope the Committee will not think that that concession ought to prevent us from putting forward the grievances which no party in this House presents, but the grievances which postal servants present to us, who, under our present system, they are justified in approaching in order to redress their grievances. The postal system of this country is, I think, and I am sure we all believe, the best postal system in the world. I think that we have the most efficient system that exists. Anyone who has lived in any other country realises the extraordinary efficiency of our postal system—how a person can receive a letter in the morning, reply to it, have an answer by six o'clock in the ordinary way through the post, and send a reply to that letter which is delivered by half-past nine at night. That does not occur and cannot occur in any other country in the world. What has made that system so efficient? It is partly due, of course, to the organising ability of the British people. It is also due to the wonderful sense of duty which our postal servants represent in our national organisation. All that is to the good, but I am bound to say under our
    1906
    present system the fact that postal servants have to approach Members of Parliament in order to secure adjustment of wages, in order to induce reclassification upon a just system, is bad from every point of view. I am certain that the postal servants do not like it, and I am certain that we do not like it.
    This Committee is fairly well filled today. I would not like to seareh every heart, but I am quite certain that most of us present have come here, as I have come here, in the first place, because we have a vivid sense that the well-being and comfort and welfare of the workers of lower and higher grades in our national servies is a matter of the deepest interest, and ought to be a matter of the greatest responsibility for everyone in this House. But also, I confess, I um here, and most of us are here, I relieve, because of the political pressure brought to bear. Both of those things play their parts, and the Postmaster-General himself I do not think represents solely the idea of benevolent and kindly consideration for the welfare of the postal servants. That is no diminution of appreciation of his qualities. He has made to-day a concession which I venture to say is the result of political pressure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think I am trying to do him an injustice, but it would be a most surprising thing if the Postmaster-General was not affected by the political pressure which is brought to bear on him, and it would really be a reproach and a stigma upon the influence which we possess in this House. I am afraid, if it is not the result of political pressure, that the postal servants will think very little of us in the future. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very flourishing account of the affairs of the Post Office, the profits of which are greater than they have ever been before. The telephone gives a profit and the telegraphs a loss. He has accounted for all. The right hon. Gentleman, or the Government, or no Member of Parliament, can properly give the reply that if the postal servants deserve higher pay, or, if it hung in the balance, that it should not be given because of the enormous expense attached. The Post Office is the milch cow for the Government. It is the business concern that is earning money for the Government every day in order to pay expenses of administration which we, every one of us, would have to pay out of our pockets if this milch cow of the Government did not give the necessary pail of financial milk.
    If it can be proven that the Holt Committee did not do justice, the right hon. Gentleman cannot fall back upon the position that the country cannot afford it. The country can afford it, because I, for one, believe that the Post Office should not be a purely commercial organisation for national profit, and from that standpoint I think the right hon. Gentleman would not have an adequate case. We have had continual unrest and dissatisfaction, and it has become chronic. The Hobhouse Committee, which represented a vast amount of work on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and fitted him, if I may say so, for the high position which he, has attained, produced a Report which was unsatisfactory. There were constant protests, constant claims made. The Holt Committee produced a Report which gave advantages, as the awards of the Hobhouse Committee gave advantages. Is it not an extraordinary thing that the bitterness that has come since the production of the Holt Committee Report, and the application of its awards by the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor, has been greater than it was after the Hobhouse Report? There must be something wrong, and there is, as I believe, something absolutely wrong in our system. The Holt Committee's Report to my mind is a monument of industry and of devotion and of indefatigable care, as the Hobhouse Report was. The Holt Committee, however, to my mind shows in its conclusions how difficult it was to digest the whole of the evidence, to organise their conclusions, when you had in connection with that evidence representatives from so many bodies in connection with the postal service; and with all the grades and all the ramifications of the postal service, one can realise how absolutely impossible it is for any Committee like the Holt Committee within a few months to unravel the series of grievances, and testimony bearing on those grievances, and to adjust its awards fairly and equitably in all directions.
    I believe it to be humanly impossible, and to throw the responsibility upon the Postmaster-General, how much more impossible! He is here to-day, another one will be here to-morrow. He has replaced one who was in power for a couple of years, and who also replaced one who was in power for a couple of years. What is the Postmaster-General? He is the manager of a great commercial concern. He is at the head of a great scientific organisation. He has his Parliamentary
    1908
    responsibilities. He governs telephones and telegraphs. He has to keep his great organisation in the same condition as a great store like Harrods or Self ridge's, with this difference, that he has a thousand branches, or five thousand branches, which are under his immediate directions, and it is impossible for him to be the judge, the final and adequate judge, of the adjustment of wages and at the same time to perform his duty as manager and administrator. The Holt Committee's Report I regard as unsatisfactory, in spite of all the good work done by the Committee, in the sense that its award was not in accord with the rules which it laid down for its own guidance, namely, that it should consider the cost of living, the standard of living, and the value of the work. The result is that the Holt Committee has, in effect, awarded 4½ per cent. for the present, and ultimately 7 per cent. after twenty years. The Committee very properly took into consideration the Report, of the Board of Trade that, in regard to eighteen articles of consumption and rent, the cost of living had increased by 11.3 per cent. since the last Committee's Report. It looks unfair on the surface, if the cost of living has increased by 11.3 per cent., to grant only 4½ per cent. now and 7 per cent. in the course of twenty years. It has been proven throughout the country that the cost of living cannot be contracted to those eighteen articles of consumption and rent alone. I do not think that the Holt Committee took sufficiently into consideration other expenses and the increased cost of living in other directions. There was the matter of clothing; there was also the matter of rates, which the working man has to pay, directly or indirectly.
    Mr. HOLT: Rates are included in rent.
    Sir G. PARKER: I do not think that that is the case exactly. I know that the Holt Committee concluded that rates were included, but it is not the case in all directions. Nor did the Committee take into account gas or coal. I have cut out a report from the newspaper of a meeting at Bishopsgate yesterday, at which it was stated that the cost of the weekly washing for poor people has increased by 25 per cent. That is only one item. Every man in this House knows that, no matter how humble the household, there has been an increase, not only in the cost of those articles dealt with by the Holt Committee, but also in the whole expenses of domestic life. Every Member

    1909
    knows that, no matter what his income may be. What I venture to suggest is, while finding no fault with the Holt Committee—it represented both sides of the House and all parties—that if it had to reconsider the matter now, in the light of subsequent criticism, many of its awards would be more satisfactory. In the light of subsequent criticism it would probably have given a larger percentage of increase directly than it has given. I know that postal servants have asked for an increase of 15 per cent. But we all ask for more than we are likely to get. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I think the postal servants themselves recognise, when asking for 15 per cent. increase when the cost of living in regard to certain articles and rent represents only 11.3 per cent., that they are little likely to get it from this House, not from any lack of sympathy, but because the cost to the taxpayer under the award of the Holt Committee would be immensely greater, and, as I think personally, much too great. At the same time, the gap between 15 per cent. and the 7 per cent. ultimately to be given is very great indeed. The standard of living in this country for all classes, and particularly for those on the lower levels, has gone up. There is not a working-class family in which, largely owing to the spread of education since 1870, the standard of living has not gone up—that is to say, there is a demand for a higher scale of living.
    I do not think that the Holt Committee, in its conservative view of the situation, took that quite sufficiently into consideration. I suppose the members of the Committee said, "Postal servants have continuous employment; therefore, a certain percentage must be deducted for that. Postal servants have better conditions as to pensions, and some percentage must be knocked off for that." I agree that these are considerations, but I do not think that they are adequate. I think the Holt Committee might well have gone further in view of subsequent criticism, which has shown that there are large numbers of men on the lower levels who, under the Holt Committee's Report, receive no advantage whatever. May I cite a few? There are 2,000 men employed in the Factory and Stores Department who have no increase in pay. There are 2,000 on the engineering side of the Post Office, thousands of sorting clerks and postmen, a large number of supervisors of grades and overseers, and more than half the salaried sub-postmasters, who get absolutely no increase,
    1910
    or, as in the case of supervisors, only a very slight increase. There are thousands of men who get no increase whatever, in spite of the fact that the Holt Committee in making their award were to take into account the fact that the cost of living had gone up by 11.3 per cent. The Postmaster-General gave us a list of benefits conferred by the Holt Committee and his awards upon the recommendations of that Committee. I have given a list of those who receive no awards of any kind from the recommendations of that Committee. There are some 2,000 male telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office who get no increase of their maximum. There are women telegraphists and sorting clerks, approximating to 6,000 in number, who receive no increase of any kind. I have already mentioned about 12,000 who get no increase. To-day a concession has been announced. I cannot say on the spur of the moment what is the absolute value of that concession; I doubt whether any member of this Committee can say what its value is; but I do say that it comes very late. It is only after threats of a most serious kind—threats to stop a public service entirely.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
    Sir G. PARKER: I am going to put it as the right hon. Gentleman wants it to be put. The concession is only given after threats of that kind, which I am bound to say were discountenanced by the leaders of the postal servants, and it was decided not to have a national strike. But it was after that kind of threat, which I am absolutely certain was the result, not of mere agitation based on the desire to get something more out of the Government, but of the feeling that they had been treated unfairly—however unwittingly, still unfairly and inequitably. It was because of that that the bitterness was engendered. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made this concession because of the threat of a national strike; he was not in power at that time; but I do say that as a result of this intense agitation, culminating in a threat most dangerous to the interests of the State, followed up by pressure of a serious kind upon Members of Parliament and upon the Government itself, the right hon. Gentleman has made a concession to-day, for which we say "Thank you." But like all people who have received gifts which are inadequate to their needs and deserts, we ask for more. I have read out a list to

    1911
    the right hon. Gentleman. In addition to those to which I have already referred, there are some 3,000 auxiliary postmen who until to-day have had no increase under the Holt Committee's Report. It must be borne in mind that it is the Holt Committee's Report we are discussing. I do not want to discuss these Estimates, nor the reason of the concession which the Postmaster-General has made. In the provinces there are 6,000 auxiliary postmen who have had no increase of pay under the Holt Committee's Report. This is the case in spite of the fact that the cost of living on certain articles has gone up by 11.3 per cent., and I venture to say that if you take into account other things you will find that the cost of living has gone up by at least 13 per cent. Moreover, the Holt Committee were supposed to have taken into consideration the increased standard of living, the larger demands made in the matter of education, recreation, and all those things which the working class ought to enjoy as far as possible. More than half the salaried sub-postmasters receive no advantage, as only those in receipt of £100 a year or less will obtain any benefit whatever.
    I do not know whether these figures are correct or not, but they have been put before me, and if they are correct hon. Members need not feel any compunction in pressing any just claims on the part of auxiliary postmen, supervisors, engineers, and other branches which demand an increase. In 1905 the wages of postal servants in relation to the total revenue was 48 per cent.; in 1913 the percentage was 47.23, while profits have advanced from nearly £4,000,000 to nearly £6,000,000. It is true that the expenditure of the Government has been great, and administration has developed; but the argument need not be used that any extra concession will alter the proportion of profit which the right hon. Gentleman can hand over to the Exchequer to help pay the cost of the administration of this great community. Before I sit down I want to say a word or two on the system of which I complain. I believe the system to be wrong. I believe that in the system of classification—hon. Members on both sides of the House I think will agree with me—you have got, for the purpose of adjusting wages, the greatest anomaly is the postal service. Take Birkenhead and Liverpool. You have postal servants there in equal communities, as it were, receiving different
    1912
    wages. You have got postal servants in Liverpool getting higher wages than the postal servants in Birkenhead, although in many cases the Liverpool postal servants live at Birkenhead. The whole classification I believe to be bad. I believe the unit system to be bad. I think it really an extraordinary thing—it is not done in any other commercial organisation—that you pay postal servants according to the amount of profit made by the individual post office in which they are. Let me take an example, which has been handed to me to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. Take Colchester and Ipswich. At Colchester you have got sorting clerks and telegraphists belonging to Class III., Provincial. They receive a maximum of 50s. per week. About 50 per cent. of them receive the maximum. The remainder get 48s. They now get nothing.
    It takes sixteen years to reach the maximum. The cost of living applies to seniors as well as to juniors. The complexity of the work has increased, not only in Colchester and Ipswich, but in other places—the work of postal servants has generally increased. At Ipswich, which is in Class II., because they had more work in the office—that is because more profit goes to the Exchequer from the office—the maximum is 54s. per week, against 50s. at Colchester. The amount of work is, in effect, identical. The postman has to cover the same ground. He has to fulfil the same number of hours at his work. I venture to say that any honest working-man would rather be busy to the full during the hours he is at work than not busy during those hours, if he is a real sportsman—as I believe most working men are at their work. You have that intolerable classification at Ipswich whereby sorting clerks and telegraphists get a maximum of 4s. higher than in Colchester, while the cost of living is higher in Colchester than in Ipswich. Colchester is classed at 105, whilst Ipswich is 99, according to the Board of Trade classification. What I am saying about Colchester applies, I think to numberless other places; to scores and scores of places throughout the country, and that is why I say I believe this system of classification to be radically wrong. I do not think there is a member of this Committee to whom this grievance has not been put by the postal workers in his own district, not for himself necessarily, but for the whole class of postal workers.
    I am going to suggest that the Government should take into consideration

    1913
    the question of a new kind of classification entirely—classification according to the value of the work done. It ought not to be that the wages of a postal servant should be decided by the amount of profit which his particular branch turns over to the Exchequer. Is it not clearly absurd that there should be seven different scales of payment for the London district? The postal servants are asking, and as I believe soundly and fairly asking, for the same wages to be paid throughout the twelve mile area, which corresponds to the building trades' area, while the county council have a twenty miles' area around London. I am only a layman—I am not an expert: most of us in this House are not experts—but our poor limited intelligences are unable with such information as we have, and from any explanation Ave have received, to grasp why there should be seven different scales of pay in what ought to be the London area. It seems to me that in all the surrounding suburbs the cost of living is practically the same. I do believe that the Post master-General would not only be well advised, but would be doing what is fair and just if this anomaly was put right. In my belief, you will never get an absolutely fair adjustment under the present system. There will be the same trouble five years from now as there is to-day. For myself, I favour the idea of a Permanent Statutory Commission outside this House, as there is in Australia, which would take note of every change from day to day, from week to week, and from year to year, in the cost and standard of living and other pertinent considerations. If a Labour Government ever came into power in this country, I believe they will do what the Labour party did in Australia— establish a Statutory Commission—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and so remove this question—
    Mr. CARR-GOMM: Are the members of the Commission paid?
    Sir G. PARKER: I do not want now to outer into that. I am putting what I believe to be a most important question for this Committee and for this country to decide: Not for the purpose of being relieved from political pressure—
    Mr. JOWETT: That is what it is for.
    Sir G. PARKER: That is not why it is put forward.
    Mr. JOWETT: Yes.
    Sir G. PARKER: I think it is a custom in this House when an hon. Member makes a statement on his honour that it should be accepted.
    Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my interjection. I did not mean that he was putting forward his suggestion in bad faith, but that the reason that actuated the suggestion at its source in Australia or elsewhere is the one which the hon. Member repudiates.
    Sir G. PARKER: I do not advocate it in order that we may be relieved of political pressure. I believe that political pressure is a bad thing for the Civil Service. It is bad for this House, for I am absolutely certain that concessions are sometimes given hastily on the Front Pencil opposite. The result is that other interests are disturbed by that hasty decision to give a benefit, and that decision is not of real value under such circumstances. I am going to make another suggestion. We cannot have that at once. That must be the decision of the whole Parliament. It means a radical change in the whole organisation of the Post Office; but I believe when it does come that this anomalous system of classification will disappear and greater justice will be done to the postal workers. I have only pointed out a few of the anomalies that still exist after the findings of the Holt Committee. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who could present a series of grievances and injustices since the Holt Committee reported.
    Mr. THOMAS: Would the hon. Gentleman take away postal servants' civil rights altogether?
    Sir G. PARKER: I do not want to enter further into that question. Personally, I certainly should not if the service were removed from the immediate responsibility of this House. There are enormous grievances which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with at all. The Post Office Estimates ought not to have been put down; we ought to have had the Holt Report quite independently. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the grievances which have been poured into his hands by the score, and perhaps he will reply to myself and other hon. Members. Agitation will go on after this discussion to-day in spite of the £75,000 granted to all grades of the postal service, and the situation of the Government will

    1915
    be just as unsatisfactory to-morrow as it is to-day, unless one thing is done. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should appoint a Committee of three persons, consisting of the Chief Industrial Commissioner, a representative of the Post Office, and a representative of the postal workers, to consider in how far the Holt Committee have failed to meet the grievances of many of the branches of the postal service, and to consider also in how far the awards already made by the Postmaster-General either meet the recommendations of the Holt Committee or have failed to meet the grievances which still exist after the awards of the Holt Committee. I suggest that for this reason, that it may do something—I believe it will do much—to show the Postmaster-General that he and his predecessors so far have been unable to see the very complicated nature of the whole business, and that there still remains a vast number of inequalities which have not been adjusted. I am not now speaking from my side of the House; I am speaking upon my own responsibility. Whatever is done, I think that ought to be done. Meanwhile, as these things stand at the present time, the grievances, well known and well understood, of the postal servants have only partially been adjusted by the Holt Committee and have only partially been met by the Postmaster-General. Unless satisfaction is obtained in the case of these luminously flagrant injustices, the agitation which has begun will go on. There are many of us in this House who are so convinced of the justice of certain of the claims made by the postal servants that since we are Members of Parliament, and since pressure might be brought to bear upon us now, we will continue to make it difficult for the Postmaster-General to lead a quiet and happy life. We will do this in the interests of the workers of this country. I make that threat because I am absolutely certain that on both sides of the House the spirit behind my threat is shared by most Members of the Committee.
    Mr. POINTER: I desire, in the first place, to join with the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat in regard to what I believe was the promise made by the Government as regards the discussion in which we are taking part to-day. I think I am not mistaken when I allege that the undertaking given to us was that we
    1916
    should have a day for the discussion of the Holt Report. I make the claim that that, statement and promise has not been fulfilled. This can in no way be said to be a day for the discussion of the Holt Report. I know, of course, it is the intention of the Government to deal with the Holt Report, and I dare say every Member who wishes to take part in the Debate desires to deal with the subject-matter of the Holt Report, but that does not make it a discussion of the Holt Report, and the reason I say that is because there is a real difference in regard to our power and freedom of discussion under present circumstances. What we wanted is not to discuss or criticise particularly, except in so far as we think it deserves it, the action of the right hon. Gentleman in giving effect to the Report—what we wanted to do was to express an opinion upon the Report itself free from any trammels or Government pressure. What is the position to-day? The position, I take it, is this, that many Members of the Liberal party who feel very strongly about the Report and the result to the workers will be somewhat frightened, or at least tied up by the question of party loyalty, so much so that they will not want to express themselves, I will not say dare to express themselves, certainly not quite as freely as they otherwise would do. I protest against that alteration because I believe it is a serious departure from both the letter and the spirit of the promise given to us.
    I, for my part, want to deal with the question mainly from the standpoint of the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me has already argued upon these lines, and I want, if I may, to supplement and amplify the arguments he has used. Before I do so, I would like to make one or two general remarks in regard to what I may call the operative parts of the Report—that is, Clauses 14 to 17, which lay down the general conditions of wage basis. One of the counts in the terms of reference is that comparison shall be made with those in outside employment, and I was rather interested to find that the Committee say:—
    "The Committee found it extremely difficult to compare the condition of Post Office servants with those of any outside employment."
    I was not in the least surprised to read that, but I was a little surprised to read the next paragraph, which runs:—
    "In spite of several challenges to the witnesses on behalf of the staff, no evidence was adduced to support the proposition that Post Office servants suffered any disadvantage in the matter of wages as compared with persons engaged in other occupations."

    1917
    That is to say, that while the Committee themselves were totally unable to act up to that part of their instructions which had to do with the comparison of the conditions in which the Post Office men work with those outside, they felt still free to indulge in a vote of censure upon those who gave evidence before the Committee because they were unable to do that which the Committee themselves failed to do. That, I think, is rather peculiar and worth noticing, because it does appear as if the Committee recognised quite well that the task set to them, so far as comparisons were concerned, was not an easy one, but they did not like to admit defeat without having a fling at someone else. I am most anxious to deal with the cost of living. I am not actuated in the least by any political pressure, but the idea struck me rather forcibly when I first heard it that we were discussing this matter to-day because of political pressure, and not because of any innate justice of the claim the men were making.
    Sir G. PARKER: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that I said that?
    Mr. POINTER: I understood the hon. Gentleman to make that point—that political pressure is very bad.
    Sir G. PARKER: Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me. What I did say is this: That I was convinced my self that most of us were here because of the justice of the claim, but in order to make my future proposal clear, I was saying that I thought it was advisable that political pressure should not be exercised in the case of Civil servants, but that they had no other course under the present system, and that we were here, as we ought to be here, under that political pressure.
    Mr. POINTER: I do not wish to misrepresent anything the hon. Gentleman has said, and since he assures me that that is not what he meant, I withdraw the suggestion contained in my remarks that he said anything of the kind. But I know this position is held, that this question is taken up because it means votes. I have heard quite recently suggestions of that kind, although I did not, of course, think that I should be called upon to make any remarks in regard to that. As far as I am concerned, the thing that weighs with me is not how many votes it may mean, or any political considerations of that kind, but simply that the party to which I
    1918
    belong and with whom I work have been for many years past pointing out, when; hon. Members of both sides of the House were denying it, what we believed to be the fact, namely, that the cost of living was rising very considerably, and one of the things the Committee had to decide was how far it was justifiable to give Post Office employés a rise in wages because of the rise in the cost of living. I suppose every member of the Committee has read the Report, or, at least, the preliminary parts of the Report. If any Member has not, he has unlimited opportunity afforded' him of gathering all the points upon which the postal servants are complaining in regard to this Report. Paragraph 15 points; out quite clearly, so far as the prices of standard commodities are concerned, that there has been a rise of 13.7 per cent. When that is weighed with the rent paid it comes out at a rise of 11.3 per cent. Now the whole complaint of the postal servants centres round that point, namely, that here you have a Committee which, dealing with Board of Trade figures—figures, of course, for which they are not responsible, but since they have adopted them they accept the responsibility—admitting an increase in the cost of living of 11.3, and then proceeding to give recommendations which register an increase, not of 11.3, but of 4½ approximately, though ultimately probably rising to 7 per cent. in seventeen to twenty-one years hence. The position would be open to doubt as to what the Committee meant if they had-been less explicit, but they tell us quite clearly why they have done it. They say in the succeeding paragraph:—
    It must also be borne in mind that the increased prices do not affect the whole expenditure of the individual.
    This is a point, I think, of the utmost importance, because, observe, what is the suggestion in that phrase? If it means anything at all, it means this: That outside the articles covered by the 11.3 you have articles which are stationary in price-or falling in price. I Venture to say there is no one in this Committee, when the-matter is put in that plain way, who would venture to defend such a proposition for a moment. We have, however, some little guidance in this matter, because we have it on the authority of the Board of Trade, which issued, if my memory serves me-right, in September of last year, an important and very illuminating Report dealing with the rise in the cost of living, the rise in rents, and also in wages. May I say with regard to certain remarks made

    1919
    by the hon. Member, I think he was in error with regard to his statement about rent and rates. I think in this Report rent and rates were taken as one figure, and treated as falling and rising together, for the purpose of the Report, so that the Committee, in dealing with that point, would naturally take the figure and system of grouping adopted by the Board of Trade.
    6.0 P.M.
    Fortunately, as I say, we have some guidance in this matter. The Board of Trade, in the document to which I referred—Command Paper 6995—pointed out that so far as eighteen articles of food: are concerned, they covered 61 per cent. of a man's income—that is, taking the average wages that may be applied to Post Office servants, the amount they spend upon the eighteen articles scheduled for food covers 61 per cent. of the man's expenditure, leaving, of course, 39 per cent. to be still accounted for. If I understand the attitude of the Committee aright, it is this: That the 39 per cent. covers articles which are not rising and which, of course, the inference is, may be falling. I want to prove by a simple illustration that that is a contention which cannot be supported in any way. I have taken out of the White Paper just issued in regard to questions of wages and conditions of service in the Post Office two of the scales. I had no particular object in taking these two particular scales except that they were moderate wages and were the first I came to. The wage that I took is a maximum of 37s. per week, and then I calculated what 61 per cent. of 37s. was, and I found, of course, it came to 22s. 6d. Now that covers eighteen articles of food in the wage of a man who is earning a total of 37s. Then I said, "That man will want coal. That is not covered by these eighteen articles," and I put down what I thought—and, of course, these Were arbitrary figures—would be fairly representative and typical for a man of that wage, and I put down 2s. 6d. for coal per week. That is one of the articles in the margin. No one can suggest coal has not gone up in price; we all know by experience the exact contrary is the fact. Then I put down 4s. for boots and clothing I think hon. Members will agree that for a married man, even if he has clothes found, 4s. for boots and clothing is certainly not an extravagant estimate if he has a wife and two or three children. I
    1920
    know the price of clothing is going up, whether the price of boots is going up or not I do not know. The Report shows that clothing during that period has advanced by 14 per cent., therefore we have two items which have rapidly swallowed up the margin which the Committee have contemptuously ignored—perhaps, that is too strong, and I will say that they have set that matter aside, although there still remains the important point of rent and rates. Taking those two as one item, I have put down 6s. 6d. for that. Hon. Members will not think that is unreason-bale for the weekly rent of a man earning 37s. per week. It happens to be the rent I paid when I was getting a shilling more than the wage I am actually dealing with. That brings us to 35s. 6d. out of 37s., leaving a margin of 1s. 6d.
    Wittingly or unwittingly, the Committee, have been treading on very dangerous ground, and they have decided upon principles and by methods which after careful consideration cannot commend themselves to Members of this Committee. I will take the wage of 29s. and follow the same procedure in regard to it. I take 61 per cent. of 29s., and that is 17s. 6d., and that covers the eighteen food articles which we have in mind. In this case, instead of 2s. 6d. for coal, I put down 2s., on the assumption that the man who earns 29s. would in all probability not pay quite so much for coal as a man who has 37s. per week. Similiarly, when I come to boots and clothing, I put down 3s. instead of 4s. as in the other case, and rent and rates I lump together at 5s., that being a very reasonable amount, and, if it errs at all, it is on the side of modesty. Here, again, you get a total of 27s. 6d., every copper of which is spent upon items which are rising and none of which are stationary, leaving just 1s. 6d. to cover incidentals. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about travelling?"] I have not counted travelling at all, because one of the difficulties is to know how the wage is made up and how it is expended. I once tried to live on 22s. a week for two years, and I am afraid I made a miserable failure of it.
    The difficulty is, when you divide and sub-divide, to know how these people really exist at all on a small wage and pay their way. The Committee, in dealing with the margin which is not swallowed up by those articles and commodities which are rising in price, have unwittingly destroyed the effect of their finding, and

    1921
    have put themselves in this peculiar position, that they have not followed up their recommendations or their findings in regard to the rise in the cost of living by embodying it in the recommendations they make with regard to increased pay. I want to deal briefly with one or two points which were mentioned by the hon. Member who preceded me. One of the remarkable parts of the Report is that such a large body, and sometimes entire classes, have been left out, and have had no advance of any kind whatsoever. For instance, there is the London telegraphists counter clerks, who have not had any advance at all. I know there is an idea abroad that the pressure behind this demand comes from the higher ranks of the service. For my part I am not so particular whether that is so or not. I make no difference between the lower paid and the higher paid man, except that I have a natural sympathy for the bottom dog. I always have had, and I cannot help it, because it is part of my nature as well as part of my creed. But that apart, I do not know whether the pressure is coming from one place or the other. What I suggest is that all employés of the Post Office have alike suffered by reason of the rise in the cost of living, and if all have suffered all ought to be taken into consideration and relief offered where necessary. I am not exactly upon weak ground in making that claim. I want to refer the Committee to a statement which F extracted from a Report of the Board of Trade, and it is as follows:—
    "Any percentage increase in wages owing to a rise in food prices and rent should be, roughly, in inverse proportion to income the income of increases in pay going to the lower rank."
    I associate myself with that in its entirety, and I have the authority of the Post Office employés representative when I say that they recognise that as a perfectly logical, fair, and equitable basis upon which to proceed, for the simple reason that the more a man's wages and the bigger the percentage, the bigger is likely to be the margin which is left after necessities have been provided. Therefore, it is only equitable that the lower paid men should be treated rather more generously than the higher paid men if there is any difference at all. I do not think that justifies the Committee in saying that the higher paid men shall have no relief whatever, and that they ought to be left out of the calculation altogether. Take the London telegraphists. As far as I have been able to gather they have had no advance, and this is the peculiar part of their case. They were asked to submit evidence as to
    1922
    how their conditions compared with those of a similar class outside. They willingly, and I should rather imagine joyously, came forward to the Committee and submitted their argument. It was to the effect that cable and telegraph companies outside, such as the Eastern Telegraph Company, who employ men doing similar work to the London telegraphists, were paid a maximum of £270 per annum, while those in the employ of the Post Office Department had £165. That is a diference of £105. I do not think any hon. Member will suggest that that is a reasonable difference to be observed between employés of a public Department, even if they do get pensions and free medical service, and one or two other perquisites of that kind. No one can suggest that that is a reasonable margin to observe between those two classes. In my earlier remarks I pointed out how the Committee said that none of these classes had been able to establish the fact that they were unfavourably situated as compared with outside men. Here at least was one case, and it is rather significant that there is no reference to that evidence in the Report in any way whatsoever. These men have to submit to an increase in the cost of living just as other people have.
    I think one of the most important parts of the Report, so far as the advance in wages is concerned, is that which deals with the women. I do not know whether I am quite right or not in saying that none of the women, either in London or the provinces, have received any consideration whatsoever. Whether the argument is that women, not having families to support, do not come within the disabilities of the rise in the cost of living, I do not know, but what I have stated is certainly the case, so far as I have been able to observe. There is another point which ought not to be lost sight of, namely, the rise in the cost of living. If there is to be any claim by the Committee that they have met that point in any degree whatsoever, I think they ought to be able, as a result of the consideration of this Report, to establish, firstly, that all members of the postal service had been able to get an advance; and, secondly, that they were able to get that advance now. The peculiar part of it is that in no class no present advantage is to be received, but the advantage is to be given on the maximum, and the maximum is to be reached from the time of entering the service, from thirteen up to a period of twenty-one years. There are whole

    1923
    classes and whole blocks in classes that have been in a way, I will not say singled out, but the net effect of what has been done is that they get no present relief. It would not be so bad if the increment going up to the maximum was a yearly increment, but in most cases, if not in all, it is the three years' increment. It is quite possible that while thousands of Post Office servants to-day are reading in their newspapers that they have been so wonderfully and generously treated by this Report, they know from their own experience that not another penny is coming into their pockets, and probably will not do so for another two years. That, I submit, does not justify the Committee in claiming so very much when so much of it is in the sweet by and by. Like other people, Post Office servants want to live in the present, and they are not concerned overmuch with the future in making comparisons with their present needs.
    I want to say a word or two about the auxiliary postmen. This is a very unfortunate class. I observe that there are five classes. The first of them receive a wage of 5½d. per hour, and that goes down until you reach 4¾d. per hour. That class are going to receive one farthing per hour advance, and I hope those people will not go delirious with joy all at once at having been treated so handsomely. I would like to emphasise the point that 74 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the auxiliary postmen belong to Class V., who are working for 4¾d. per hour. I believe that the Postmaster-General in his generosity has granted certain relief to certain of the low-paid workers, and, if I understood him rightly, the auxiliary workers are to receive advantage pro rata. I believe that when they have got their pro rata advance, they will be in receipt of the magnificent sum of 5.08d. per hour. I want to say this without offence, if I can. It is a scandal and a disgrace for a Government to employ men at 5d. per hour. Personally, I am sick to death of hearing the phrase, "The Government, a model employer." What better ambition could a Government and a State Department have than to make themselves the model to which private employers could approximate? I was rather struck by the revelation of the Postmaster-General—I do not know whether it struck him in the' same way—when he gave us those figures telling us that 25,800 of the lower-paid servants of the Post Office are
    1924
    to be raised to a minimum of 22s. I do not know whether the full significance of that statement was understood by him. It means, I take it, that there are at the present time 25,800 persons working for less than 22s. That is one in nine of the total staff of the Post Office. It means that one in nine of those employed by the Post Office will, even when the increase has taken place, be working under conditions of sweated labour. It is nothing at all to be proud of.
    I was rather interested to find in the hon. Gentleman opposite a modern equivalent of Oliver Twist. He said, "Yes, we thank you for this, and we ask you for more." I should think we do ask for more when there is an attempt to satisfy us with a miserable 22s. per week as the minimum of 25,000 workers. There are many other classes to which I want to refer briefly, because it all emphasises the fact that the grievance is not an isolated one, and does not refer to a few men here and there. It seems to refer more or less practically to every grade. I find that the Engineering and Stores Department, the department in which I surmise the majority of those 25,000 persons, or at least a big proportion of them are to be found, are to be treated in various ways. Some of them are having allowances stopped, and others are having to submit to a reduction in the hours of labour, which brings a reduction in the total weekly wage. Here is a man who ordinarily before the Holt Committee reported worked 50½ hours per week at a rate of 6½d. per hour. That, of course, was a wage of £1 7s. 4d. There is nothing very extravagant about that. He would not be able to go to Monte Carlo on the money, though he might, with strict economy, muddle through somehow. That man, instead of working 50½ hours, is dropped to 48. I am a believer in the 48-hour week and do not want to put any obstacle in its way, but I suggest that the Post Office have taken a niggardly view in saying to that man, "We will compel you to have a 48-hour week, but you must sacrifice your wages for the odd 2½ hours." It is a thing of which this Committee ought to express its disapproval. It means a reduction of Is. 4d. per week.
    I can quite understand the representative of the Post Office saying, "Yes, but he is not in that position now, because we have given him 1s. since." Yes, they appear to have been so ashamed of this and the Report on which they are acting that from 25th November of last year they have

    1925
    been giving the extra shilling, and the man now, instead of losing 1s. 4d., is losing 4d. per week. There is, with regard to this class a serious complaint of a reduction in the lodging allowance. When working away in other districts and unable to get home at night they had an allowance of 28s. per week, but that now is graded down to 7s. 6d., a loss, if a man is working away from home for a week, and cannot return at night, and has to depend upon the lodgings he can get, of 20s. 6d. per week. The meanest thing is this: We know what wages the labourers are getting, because the right hon. Gentleman has informed us this afternoon that some of them are below 22s., and on the average, I think he said, the rise in wages will be Is. 6d. Some of them therefore are working for 20s. 6d. per week, and I believe that they get it once a week. These people had a night-lodging allowance of 10d., but now it has dropped down to 9d. I do not know whether the Department are proud of being employers of men whom they treat so handsomely that they have to go to the common doss-house if they are to get a night's lodging anywhere.
    I must say a word or two about the telephone employés. These people have a very serious complaint, because they were transferred only a very little time ago—I think in January, 1912—and they had a guarantee, when they were transferred from the old National Telephone Company to the control of the Post Office, given them by the late Postmaster-General, that they would not in any way suffer by reason of that transfer. They have suffered in every conceivable way. A year-after the transfer a deputation went to see the Department, and their grievances were so many and so important that the Department gave them three days in which to formulate them. Two thousand separate cases were formulated, and up to the present time not one of them has been settled to the satisfaction of the people who are complaining. Wholesale reductions in scales are to be found. For instance, the male clerical staff are graded up to £150, whereas under the old order they had £182. It is so right throughout. Some idea of the scope may be gathered from the fact that there are men to-day who have been regraded and reclassified by the Post Office who are receiving a bigger wage than the maximum of their own class and of the class above in addition. I can only assume that regrading has gone on with
    1926
    the one object, that now entrants shall come in at a lower scale, but the older and transferred men have to keep the wage they had, and they are graded to a class to which they do not properly belong, and have a bigger wage even than the class above that in which they serve.
    There is only one class left, and that is the sub-postmasters. They have none of the privileges and perquisites which apply to the ordinary established worker. They have no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay or free medical attendance, or anything of the sort, and I have only to mention one fact for everyone to see that they come within the scope of the argument based upon the rise in the cost of living, just as other people. They have to keep up their offices, either buying premises or paying rents; they have to pay rates and all the rest of it; and all the incidentals in the rise in the cost of living really applies to them. One of the difficulties of the postal service in regard to the interpretation of this Report is, as we heard advanced this afternoon, the saying that the aggregate amounts of the present increases is £640,000. The postal service, reckon it how they will, cannot make it come to that or anything like it. They have applied to the Department several times for the particulars as to how this huge sum is made up, and they have been told that they would be supplied, but the figures are not forthcoming. That promise has been made several times. I could not help being reminded of the promise when, with regard to the Poulsen system, the Postmaster-General said that they had often asked for a demonstration, and it had often been promised, but it had never been given. That seems to be the position between himself and the Post Office staff.
    I have here a rather illuminating letter, dated 7th October of last year, sent from the General Post Office to the General Secretary of the Sub-Postmasters' Federation. It sets forth particulars of the increases the Department are going to bear on account of the sub-postmasters. It starts off with a statement that the conversion to salaried sub-officers will cost the Department £10,000, but it is obvious, if you are going to convert a scale office, where a man works by himself upon the conditions referred to, into a salaried office where he has to pay a salary to a young man and a young woman assistant, the sub-postmaster is not going to get very much out of it,

    1927
    although it may be true that it is costing the Department £10,000. The Postmaster himself, as a matter of fact, has reduced that by £8,000, He says now that the benefit accruing to sub postmasters will only be £2,000, although the extra cost of £8,000 will be thrown upon the Department. The national insurance work is put down as £23,000. I submit that ought not to be counted. It is entirely new work. It is not work which they have been doing for long years past, and therefore it ought not to come within the purview of those things which are advances to the staff. There is an item of £50,350 for telegraph work. I am assured by the sub-postmasters that the alteration from the Morse telegraph as a means of conveying messages to the telephone is going on so rapidly that in a few years' time there will practically be no telegraph instruments left. The telephone is taking its place, and is much easier and cheaper. These people, therefore, out of that £50,000, will get perhaps £5,000. Out of the £140,580 which the Post Office declare it is going to cost them to make the changes, the poor sub-postmasters themselves will receive less than half of it, £64,260. That is rather remarkable, because it does show there is a good deal of indecision, and a good deal of misconception about this matter. I think Post Office servants of all ranks have good reason for feeling anything but easy about their treatment in the future.
    I want to support the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite. It came, of course, from the postal servants themselves. They are most anxious to find a way out of these difficulties. They have no desire to create any friction, no desire to threaten strikes, or anything of that kind. All their desire is from what they believe to be justice and fair treatment. It may be argued, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman did argue, that they had had two Reports—the Hobhouse Report and the Holt Report. The first did not suit them, and neither does the second. That was, briefly, the position which the right hon. Gentleman outlined. It looks a rather formidable indictment, but when you have a Committee which puts boldly into print that the cost of living is so much, and then proceeds to recommend an advance on the wage scales altogether different, and very much lower, there is at least some excuse for the postal servants being in a state of dissatisfaction. I want to make it quite
    1928
    clear what it is they want. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to paragraphs 14–17, he will see their point quite clearly. It may be divided into three parts. First, they say here is a statement that the cost of living is so much, but we have not been treated on that basis. We have been treated on some other basis. Secondly, we make a claim that, whether the cost of living has gone up this percentage or that percentage, there is one thing that cannot be denied, and that is that the standard of desire has risen very much more quickly than our standard of attainment. That is very clearly expressed in paragraph 16, which says, "The ideal of family life" ought to be within the reach of everybody, and that the present generation should be able to live in better style than their grandfathers. The Committee put that in black and while, but, so far as I can see, they have not made one single attempt to realise it in the programme they have laid down or the recommendations they have made. That is the second point that they want to have reconsidered with these two things in view. The third thing they want is the point raised by the hon. Member opposite that wages should be based on the value of work done. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give that proposal his very serious consideration. We do not press it with a threat. We simply bring it forward frankly as a suggestion and somewhat as a compromise. We want justice done, and I wish to state that I am authorised by the postal servants to say this, that if an Arbitration Board is set up in the way suggested by the hon. Member opposite, constituting of a representative, each of the Board of Trade, of the Post Office, and of the staff, they agree to accept the findings of that Arbitration Board upon the points that I have submitted, the points which are contained in paragraphs 14 to 17.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Let me get a clear impression of what that offer means. The hon. Member opposite spoke of two Committees, one a statutory or permanent Committee, and another an Advisory Committee. Which Committee is the hon. Member now speaking of?
    Mr. POINTER: It is the second Committee mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. He suggested, first, a statutory Committee, and then went on to say that at present such a Committee might be unattainable. I am not so much concerned

    1929
    about the difficulties of the future. I wish to deal with those of the present. The idea is this. Here are certain points specifically laid down. The first is that your percentage does not agree with the percentage found by the Committee to represent the actual rise in prices; the second is that the ideal of family life and higher standards has been altogether left out of account; and the third is that wages should be based, at least partly, on the value of the work. As I was saying, I am authorised to state that if a Board of Arbitration is set up for the purpose of giving consideration to these conditions, the postal servants will agree to be bound by its findings thereon, and they, for their part, would expect the Department to also agree to loyally abide by any decision arrived at by the Committee. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us in that way. There is one other point. It may be said that if the Post Office are to have a man on the Committee the Treasury must also have one, because its findings may involve an expenditure of money. If that be so, then the Post Office servants would like to have a second representative on the Committee, not so much because of any consideration of party voting or anything of that kind, but the right hon. Gentleman must see that if there are expert men—one from the Post Office, another from the Treasury, and still another in the chair from the Board of Trade, it would be a matter of infinite difficulty for the postal servants to put their points of view forward, as they might be overwhelmed by the weight of argument and have no chance whatever. That, briefly, is the position, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it very serious and kindly consideration.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: It is impossible to avoid a feeling of sympathy with the kind of appeal to which we have just listened. I am intervening for but a few moments, not for the purpose of dealing with general questions, but merely to say a word in support of that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker), in which he called attention to certain anomalies still in existence. My hon. Friend spoke of anomalies in the payment of Post Office officials at Colchester and Harwich, two places very close together, where the amount and character of work was practically the same. A still more striking case was the disparity between Liverpool and Birkenhead. I should like to call attention to the case of two
    1930
    other offices, Carshalton and Wallington, both in the county of Surrey. They are no great distance apart, and the officials of these two offices are urgently demanding that they should be paid a shilling per day more than they receive at present. And why? They have a very good reason. These places are near to the town of Wimbledon, and the postal officials in that town are in receipt of 7s. per week more than those at Carshalton and Wallington! What is the reason for this distinction? It is that Wimbledon is within what is called the London district. But is that any reason why the officials in the other two places should be so much worse paid? I really see no justice whatever in it, and I am moved to intervene on this occasion in order to point out the injustice, which is only symbolical of what exists in a great many other places.
    Then there is the case of the auxiliary postmen. They, too, are demanding that they should be paid a 1s. per day more than they at present receive. What is the answer to their demand? It is that the Post Office do not employ, and ought not to employ, people of this kind unless they are satisfied that they have other means of livelihood which would make their position as good as that of the other postmen. Is the Postmaster-General going to tell me that there are no auxiliary postmen appointed, and now employed by the Post Office, who are not in that position? If so, I think he is entirely mistaken, for there are great numbers of auxiliary postmen to be found who are not in that happy position, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can contradict me I shall continue to believe that that is the case. I think there is a distinct injustice in these men not being paid on the same scale as others, and it is one which I am sure the House will agree calls for a remedy. Another hardship is emphasised by the fact that there are many districts not very far from London where there is a growing increase in the rents which the people have to pay for their habitation, and there continues also to be a considerable increase in the cost of living. These things taken together show the necessity for doing away with the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Gravesend has called attention—anomalies which I have supplemented by instances drawn from my own personal knowledge, and I hope that they will receive the earnest attention of the Postmaster-General. I apologise to the Committee for having intervened in a debate on the work of a department with which I do not pretend

    1931
    I am specially familiar, but I felt that I was justified in thus supplementing what was said by my hon. Friend behind me.
    Mr. HOLT(who was indistinctly heard): I may have to trouble the Committee for some little time in the observations I shall address to them in defence of the findings of the Select Committee, over which I had the honour to preside. A great deal has been said against the Report of the Committee, and this is the first time on which the Committee has had an opportunity of speaking publicly in defence of their Report. I hope I may be able to show that, in some respects at any rate, if not in all respects, the criticism of the Committee is not well-founded. First of all, I would draw attention to the reference to the Select Committee. It was appointed
    "to inquire into the wages and other conditions of employment of the principal classes of post Office servants, of the unestablished sub-postmasters, and of such of the smaller classes as the Committee may think necessary; and, having regard to the conditions and prospects of their employment, and, as far as may be, to the standard rate of wages and the position of other classes of workers, to report what alterations, if any, are desirable."
    It is very important that this Committee should have in their minds the exact terms of reference. It should also be remembered that that reference was passed by the House. It was, indeed, passed twice, because the Committee had to be set up on two occasions. It was passed without a great deal of discussion, and mast be taken as having been accepted by the House. Several criticisms have been made with regard to the Report of the Committee which seemed to have entirely failed to consider what the reference was. I submit that any criticism which is based on the proposition that the Committee ought not to have acted in accordance with their terms of reference is unfair. That criticism ought to have been raised at the time the reference was made, when every hon. Member had an opoprtunity of raising it if he thought fit. I saw a criticism in the public Press, which I rather think emanated from the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money), that the Committee ought to have taken into consideration the increasing wealth of the Income Tax paying class.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HOLT: If that was the view of the House the House ought to have said so in the reference.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his remarks, but may I ask him whether that consideration was excluded by the House?
    Mr. HOLT: I think it is perfectly plain that the reference meant that the Committee were to consider the wages in accordance with the usual standard of payment for that class of work. The Committee were not entitled to go out of their way to find a totally new and different standard of wages for Post Office servants. If the House had intended the Committee to recommend wages based on some considerations totally different from those on which wages are usually based, then it was the business of the House to have said so explicitly in the reference, and it is not a duty which any Select Committee ought to arrogate to itself. First of all, let me refer to the question of the comparison with other work. It is quite true that it is very difficult, except in one or two isolated cases, to find anything like an exact parallel between Post Office workers and other classes of workers, but, so far as any parallel can be drawn—I shall draw attention to that later the Committee-were entirely of opinion that there was no ground for the general allegation when the sittings commenced that Post Office workers are badly paid as compared with other members of the community. My personal view is that, compared with persons doing work of a similar value and in similar positions in life, the Post Office workers are, on the whole, a very well paid class. I shall dwell on that later on. As regards the cost of living, the figures have been quoted. They were obtained by the Board of Trade, and they are not seriously disputed. The figures for rent include' rates. There is no doubt about that, for the Board of Trade were asked about it and they said they were included. I would like to remind the Committee that rates are spent for certain purposes. Persons who pay more rates presumably get more value in exchange for them. They either get this or select local authorities which waste their money for them. You cannot have it both ways. Either the money is spent for their profit, in which case the inhabitants get the profit, or else it is wasted through their own foolishness.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that

    1933
    a great increase in rates is not for local purposes at all, but for national purposes?
    Mr. HOLT: I am dealing with whatever purposes rates may be for. I suppose the hon. Member refers to education. Who gets the education? The children of these very people get the advantage. Either the money is wasted, or there is an advantage, and if there is an advantage, these are the people who get it. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the proposition that because rates have risen, as indicated, there has been an actual loss to the people concerned. On the other hand, there has been a benefit. I ask the Committee to remember that this was in many respects a semi-judicial inquiry, that is to nay, Post Office servants came forward, made their own case, presented their witnesses, who were examined and cross-examined, and the Department did the same thing. We asked the Post Office servants what was to happen—this is a question which has to be faced—if the cost of living falls. Are wages to be raised every time the cost of living goes up, and are they not to be reducible at all? II that is to be the case, it is quite obvious there will be no limit to the scale at which wages may ultimately arrive. I ask the Committee to remember that the cost of living has not been rising for all eternity. Since statistics were first taken, the cost of living, in round figures, was, on the whole, steadily falling until 1897 or 1898, and the rise has occurred since that time. It is not a steady rise. The Committee will not fail to appreciate the fact that 1012 was a year of great prosperity, when prices were high, and any person would be very foolish indeed if he took it as a typical year, or as one showing a level of prices which are likely to remain normal. So far as I can make out from figures I have seen published in the "Economist" newspaper, on the whole, the cost of living is now showing a tendency to fall. There is no reason to believe that it will not fall in the future. Secondly, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Post Office servants themselves were by no means ready to base their claim entirely on the cost of living. They had very good reason for not doing so. They asked for an advance of wages which was out of all proportion to any figure which could possibly be justified by the cost of living. Perhaps I may read one or two questions and answers on that point. Question 5977, put by the hon. Member for the Richmond
    1934
    Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Orde-Powlett) to a very capable witness, Mr. Ammon, was:—
    "Yon wish that the cost of living should be the prime factor?—No, I do not; I am glad to have the opportunity of making' that clear. The reason I raise the question of I he cost of living here, in the first instance, is that it shows an actual decrease in real wages to us as over 1897; to that extent our wages, we say, have been reduced. Our wages have always been based on the value of our work. I hope that is clear. "
    There was another witness, Mr. Frampton, who was asked, in Question 4818:—
    "Does that mean that you put forward cost of living as the sole basis on which wages should be assessed?—No; I make that clear later when I say that that in itself would be a sufficient reason why a rise should take place: but I do not base, that at all as a reason for an advance in my own particular case. As a matter of fact, I am rather opposed to the cost of living taking any place at all in the regulation of our wage."
    That was a witness put forward as the official representative of the Society of Postmen in the East-Central District in London. He expressly repudiated the idea that the cost of living was to be the basis of the wages.
    Sir G. PARKER: There who took the opposite view.
    Mr. HOLT: No, there were no witnesses who took the view that the cost of living-was the principal basis of their claim. One reason I will mention for that is that their claim could not possibly be justified on any basis of the cost of living; and, secondly, none of them were prepared to admit that they ought to be reduced if the cost of living fell.
    Sir G. PARKER: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent them. I believe that Mr. Stuart plainly said that if the cost of living fell, of course, on that principle, wages also should fall. I have the statement here.
    Mr. POINTER: May I point out that, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Stuart did make that point. Whether he was in line with other witnesses I am unable to say now, but he certainly made that statement. This was the question asked:—
    "At any rate you are quite ready to recognise that, a falling off in the cost of living might justify a reduction of wages?—Most certainly. We cannot have it both ways."
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOLT: I quite accept that, but the fact remains that many of the other principal witnesses did not take that view. What actually happened? The Post Office servants came to this Committee—the Committee listened to them most patiently—and made claims of a very considerable character. They claimed that

    1935
    they did not get enough. They now come to the House with a new claim, totally different from any claim presented to the Committee, and are trying to get the House to put forward that new claim and adopt it, namely, a claim for an all-round 15 per cent. increase in wages. It is a very unreasonable and unfortunate proceeding that any body of men who have elected to submit their claims to a Select Committee should, after those claims have been disallowed, put forward a totally new claim. I do not think that is a legitimate manner of proceeding, because it means there cannot be any sort of finality about it, if, immediately one claim is disallowed, they put forward another. The 15 per cent. all round is in itself an unfair thing. It would clearly give most to those persons who deserve it least. That, I think, will be admitted. It also assumes that no person whatever, before this claim was made, was getting more than he ought to have done. I want to ask the attention of the Committee to another consideration. Supposing the wages of everyone are raised in consequence of the increased cost of living, how is anyone going to be better off? What claim have the postmen more than other workers? If the wages all round are raised in proportion to the cost of living, the cost of living naturally goes up again, because everyone has to pay more for everything he consumes. The effect of raising the postmen's wages would be. I suppose, to prevent the remission of taxation, and so far to increase the cost of living to other persons in this country, and every rise of wages, unless it is accompanied by greater efficiency of work, must have the same result, and in the long run it must cause the cost of living to keep on rising.
    I want to turn next to the particular case of the postmen. The claim they originally made was this: they asked that persons under twenty should have 20s. a week, persons over twenty 24s., rising by 2s. 6d. a week, with double increment after twenty-five years, with a maximum in London of 62s., and in the provinces four different classes of 50s., 46s., 42s., and 38s. I do not know what the Committee think of these figures, but it seems to me that they can hardly be described as erring on the side of modesty. It is a very considerable and a heavy demand to make. What is a postman? A man who goes
    1936
    round and collects and delivers letters. Can anyone contend that a postman is really a skilled man? I do not believe there is such a thing as unskilled labour at all. There is no sort of work that a man who has never tried it before can go and do as well as a man who is practised at it. When you consider the amount of skill involved in the duty of a postman, surely it will be admitted that it is very small, and in the rural districts it is very small indeed. It is one of the least skilled occupations that I know. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the postman is required to be an exceptionally steady, regular, and respectable man. Also it is a 48-hour week, which is not by any means a long week for persons to engage in manual labour. He is not in an unfavourable position compared with other persons. I should now like to call attention to the wages actually recommended to be paid to postmen, because I think there is some misconception on the subject. I will take the highest class and the lowest. The postmen in the central district in London, who are the highest paid, come in at eighteen years of age at 19s. At nineteen they get 20s., at twenty 21s. 6d., at twenty-one 23s., at twenty-two 24s. 6d., and then by increments, 27s., 29s., 31s., 33s., 35s., 37s., 38s., 39s., three years at 40s., three years at 41s., three years at 42s., and then at 43s. I submit that compared with the usual payments made for work of anything of a comparable kind these are decidedly generous wages. There is nothing mean about that at all.
    I will now refer to the least well-paid class. That is to the postmen in Class V. districts in the provinces, which are the most purely agricultural districts. The postman at twenty-one gets 19s., at twenty-two 20s., then 21s. 6d., 23s., 21s., and on to 29s. Compare these wages, for a 48-hours week, with those paid to the agricultural labourer in the same district—a man who is certainly doing work much longer in duration and, in my judgment, which requires more skill. Certainly the postman seems to me, making that comparison, to have a more fortunate position within the community in which he lives. In addition to that, the postman gets Bank Holidays and three weeks' holiday on full pay, uniform clothing, and a guinea a year boot money, and he avoids what must be to the labourer one of the most tremendous anxieties—all risk of unemployment. His employer is

    1937
    not going to leave the country, he is not going to change his residence or become bankrupt, nor will he die. His position is absolutely assured. When he has served to the age of sixty or slightly over, he retires on a pension very much more than 5s. a week—a pension, roughly speaking, of half his pay. He gets free medical attendance and the benefits of the Insurance Act without paying for them. That is not a bad position as far as the postman is concerned. The comparison that they themselves made, when they were pressed for a comparison, was with the police force.
    I cannot help thinking that the bulk of Members of the House, and of the public will consider that of the two the policeman is the more important character. The policeman has work which is certainly arduous and more dangerous than that of the postman, and as he has considerable possibilities of interfering with the liberty of the subject, I should have said that his work is of a good deal more responsible character. I find that the wages paid to a policeman in the City of London range from 27s. a week to 38s. a week. The policeman, on the other hand, has 3s. boot money monthly, as against a guinea annually, and the policeman receives other allowances which are not specified. Making the comparison, it seems to me that it is difficult to say that the postman is underpaid. And, remember, that the postman is allowed to receive one valuable perquisite, and that is the Christmas box. The Committee will be astonished at the value put upon the Christmas box by the postmen's representatives. It averages 2s. 6d. per week per man throughout the whole service. I think it is in the town in which I live that I am told there is a postman who receives as much as £70 in Christmas boxes, and I am told there are undoubtedly cases of persons receiving from £50 to £60. It would not be proper to take that into consideration in fixing the amount of wages, but one cannot blind one's eyes to the fact.
    Mr. POLLOCK: In the Report it is stated that the Christmas boxes are taken into account in fixing wages, therefore the Post Office cannot claim that that is an addition to the wages. On page 44 it says: "In support of this claim it was stated that Christmas boxes were considered in fixing wages, and the Post Office admitted that they should not be abolished without compensation." If so,
    1938
    the Post Office cannot claim that they pay their men on a liberal scale, and that in addition they get Christmas boxes, because by this statement it is admitted that in fixing the wages they take into account the fact that they are going to receive Christmas boxes.
    Mr. HOLT: The hon. and learned Gentleman has road from a statement made by a Post Office servant. That is their allegation.
    Mr. POLLOCK: And the Post Office, too.
    Mr. HOLT: The position is clear. The wages fixed by the Select Committee do not include the wages set out in the Table, and the wages quoted by me to the Committee do not include Christmas boxes.
    Mr. FIELD: How can the hon. Member arrive at any estimate as to the amount of Christmas boxes given relatively to each postman? It is all a mere guess.
    Mr. HOLT: The reason I made the statement about Christmas boxes is that it was made to the Committee in evidence by the official representatives of the postmen. That is the only authority I got for it. It may be quite untrue for all I know, though I do not think it is, but it is their own statement. There was a circular statement sent down to Members of the House which contains a paragraph dealing with postmen, to which I should like to draw attention, it is under the heading of "Increment and length of service to each maximum":—
    "In the case of postmen and one or two other classes a triennial incremental system has been introduced at a certain point, which causes the period before reaching the maxima to vary front seventeen to twenty-one years. The period is not only too long but is unjust, having regard to the incremental system of other classes where the increments are annual."
    Who would believe from that statement that the triennial incremental periods were in substitution for the quadrennial incremental periods which took place under the stripe system. One is entitled to complain of a controversy of that kind. Attention is drawn to the fact that the maximum is reached in from seventeen to twenty-one years. I think that is probably true, but at any rate it is reached in six years less than before the Committee sat, and there is no reason for that at all. That paragraph sent down to the House would undoubtedly convey to hon. Members a false impression of what is done.
    May I draw attention to the question of the length of the period taken to reach the

    1939
    maximum. I have sat on several inquiries into the Civil Service—not only the Post Office, but the Customs and Excise—and there are in different Government Departments and different branches, cases where there is a longer scale, and it takes a considerable scale to reach the maximum, and there are cases where there is a short scale, and you get to the maximum very quickly. If it is a long scale, you will be told by the servants that it is too long, and that one's life is nearly spent before getting to the maximum. If it is a short scale, you will be told that it is too short, and that the servants reach the maximum immediately, with the result that there is stagnation in the Department and no room for promotion. What is certain is that whatever scale you have it is the wrong one, and that you can only alter it by increasing the wages of the classes concerned. Therefore, if Government servants can induce you to alter a scale, they will do so. I would ask hon. Members not to pay too much attention to that complaint. If hon. Members study all the complaints which come from all the classes and endeavour to find out one which commends itself to everybody, they will be disappointed, for they will find that there is no such scale in existence.
    With regard to auxiliary postmen, the Committee will not think me enamoured of that class. It is not a satisfactory thing to have half-time or quarter-time workers. They are, however, a necessary class, and they have been recommended for an advance. The proposal which my right hon. Friend made to-day, namely, that of increasing the wages of postmen who are twenty-three years of age and over to a minimum of 22s. per week is one which I think will have the sympathy of everybody. The servants in the Engineering Department and the Stores Department will get an increase, and these men are quite as deserving as those in some of the more highly organised classes. I come now to the question of the classification of offices, of which a good deal has been said to - night. The first proposition I wish to advance to the Committee is that classification in some form or another is absolutely necessary. Suppose you have no classification, and say, "We are going to pay people the same wages all over the country," see how absurd that would be. You would be committed to this, that you would be giving the same pay in London as in the outer Hebrides,
    1940
    or in Ireland, or in Dorset. That is the effect of no classification. It is clear that you would be giving the same rate of pay all over the country. That proposition has only to be stated in order to see how absurd it is. If you are to have a classification, you have to draw the line somewhere.
    The postal servants are themselves advocates of classification. The postmen's claim, which I laid before the Committee just now, calls for classification. One of the largest societies in connection with the postal service in the United Kingdom say, "We are against classification, but we ask to have London treated separately." But I would point out that in asking that London should be treated separately, they have admitted the principle of classification. Once you have admitted that there ought to be classification of some kind, I think if you take the most important town, which is London, and compare the condition here with those of less important places, the fact will at once appear that there is an immense difference, and that what is appropriate in the case of London would not apply to other places. It is like a line white at one end and black at the other, and which gradually shades down from light to darkness. It is impossible to say where the line should be drawn in any system of classification. That applies to every kind of classification you can possibly think of. There will be places just on the line where the scale of payment varies. I think the Committee will have no difficulty in seeing that the proposed classification is a reasonable one. I must say that the comparisons which have been made are ingeniously made for the purpose of proving a particular grievance. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) said that the classification was ridiculous, or, at all events, he used some strong language in regard to it. I admit at once that it is not logical, but I do not believe that a logical classification can be made by anybody. It must be more or less a rough and ready plan. We hold that this plan is superior to anything which has been put forward in competition with it. Certainly to classify offices in relation to the comparative cost of living in different places would put the Committee in an absurd position. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied the incidence of the cost of living. The cheapest places are those from the Midlands rising up to the Mersey, while the

    1941
    dearest are the small districts south of London, and to suggest that the wages in Manchester and Liverpool should be on a lower level than those at Epsom and places of that character really seems an absurd proposition. I do not think it is a proposition which anybody, having regard to the standard of wages in the country, could possibly get up and justify.
    The state of trade in a town may be taken as an index of the postal activity in that town. If the postal activity in a town is great, it means that there is a great deal going on, that trade is brisk, and that wages generally are higher. It is not a bad rough and ready test whether wages in that place are high or low. I say that we have got a system which, on the whole, is fairly reasonable. I believe that any hon. Member who will patiently investigate the facts will come to the conclusion that the system of classification is a fair one. I would ask the Committee to be very cautious indeed how they change it. It is extremely objectionable to make a change unless you are certain that you are going to get a decided improvement. In my opinion it is an unwise thing to do. Something was said about London and other places in the neighbourhood. The claim has been made that everything within a twelve-mile radius of Charing Cross should be treated as London. There is not, so far as I can see, any basis for that proposal, except that it is the basis accepted by the building trades organisation. There is only one way of deciding the area of London, and other large towns, and that is to do what has been recommended, namely, to have something in the nature of a Boundaries Commission in which both sides will be represented to settle what the boundaries of a town are. The only way in which you can do that is to have regard to the particular circumstances of each case. When that has been done, you will still have hard cases brought forward. That is absolutely insuperable from being on the other side of the line.
    Mr. GOULDING: Can the hon. Gentleman justify a difference in the wages of men in Liverpool and Birkenhead?
    Mr. HOLT: Yes, Sir, I will with the greatest possible pleasure. Liverpool is a town in which there is a great deal of postal activity, while Birkenhead is a town which has a postal activity, having regard to its size, which is extremely small, for
    1942
    the reason that the bulk of the persons who live in that town spend their whole time in Liverpool, have their business there, and post their letters there.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that half of the men in the Liverpool Post Office live in Birkenhead? If they live there, why should not the men in the Birkenhead Post Office, who live along side, get the same wage?
    Mr. HOLT: If the Post Office were to undertake that kind of investigation, they would be told that they were making an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of their servants. No Government Department can regulate wages with regard to the places where the servants live. If you did that, and if you told the servants where to live, it would be bitterly resented. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman opposite is one of those who sleep in or about Birkenhead, and do their business in Liverpool. I would suggest that he should carry on his commercial correspondence in Birkenhead instead of Liverpool. Another charge brought against the Committee is that they have not increased the wages of women in the same proportion as the wages of men. I do not know whether the suggestion of those who make that criticism is that because you do something for men you should do the same for women pro rata. If that is so, the suggestion does not seem to me to be based on very sound logic. Women are only employed in respect of work of certain classes. They are not employed as postmen or on the engineering staff. They are engaged almost entirely in clerical duties and in the indoor classes. The bulk of the money which is being spent on the recommendations of the Select Committee is being spent on the postmen, the engineering staff, and other branches of the Post Office. And how could we, if we are going to benefit mainly the postmen, the labourers, and the less well paid persons, when there are no women doing work of a similar character, give them increased pay? The proposition to do so is one that is incapable of being made good.
    I would draw the attention of the Committee to a fact which very materially influenced the judgment of our Committee. At the moment we were sitting the Government had just taken over the National Telephone Company. That company employed a very large number of telephone operators who were women. Those

    1943
    women were doing exactly comparable to that of the Post Office servants. The wages that were paid to the female telephone operators by the telephone company in London Mere from 10s. to 20s. a week, and the average actual money received was 15s. 1d. I do not think that anybody with experience of the telephone is going to say that the Post Office operators are better, more skilful, or more generally acceptable than were those of the National Telephone Company. The wages that are paid to the telephone operators in London begin at eighteen years of age at 16s. They go on to at nineteen years, 18s.; at twenty years, 19s.; at twenty-two years of age, 21s.; and then they go on by 1s. 6d. a week to 28s. The reference directed us, as far as possible, to have regard to the wages and conditions of any other employment outside. How could we as a Committee, when we found this outside corporation paying people who did exactly similar work 20s., say that 28s., with much superior conditions as regards pensions, was not adequate? I do not think that any body of men, with the reference before them, could, in face of those facts, have come to any other con-elusion except that the Post Office servants were adequately paid. Remember that at least half the telephone staff were therefore themselves actually receiving a very considerable advance. That is an argument which, I think, is entirely conclusive, having regard to the reference.
    Mr. D. MASON: The hon. Member refers repeatedly to the reference. He knows better than I do that the reference is in two parts. The first is to inquire, and the second part is in regard to the comparative wages paid by other bodies.
    Mr. HOLT: That is exactly what I say. I am speaking of the comparative scale of wages. The National Telephone Company was paying up to 20s. as a maximum. The Government are paying up to 28s., with much superior conditions as to pension and oilier things. Roughly, half the Government's telephone servants received at once, in consequence of amalgamation, a very substantial rise in their wages, and I do not think that any reasonable person could have recommended the Government to pay more.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: With regard to telegraphist work, in which both men and women are engaged, I notice that the recommendation is that there should be
    1944
    an increase of 3s. in the maximum for men and no alteration in the maximum for women. Would the hon. Gentleman explain why there is this difference?
    Mr. HOLT: That is exactly the point that I was coming to. The argument which weighed with the Committee was this: The Committee had also got to consider the relative value of the work of female telephone clerks and female telegraphists. If the hon. Member will look up the wages at present paid to female-counter clerks and telegraphists he will see that they are very much in excess, something like 10s. a week, of the wages of telephonists. It appeared to us that in those circumstances we had got a line of comparison. The female counter clerks in London go up to 40s. as compared with telephonists at 28s., and it appeared to us that that was more than sufficient additional pay for the telegraphists as compared with the telephonists. There was not the difference in the character of the work sufficient to justify any further increase. That is how the case presents itself to us. I now come to the engineering staff. The Committee recommended that the hours of labour of the casual labourers on the whole engineering staff should be reduced from fifty and a-half to forty-eight hours a week. I believe that this Committee will think that we did wisely in doing so. It was not the intention of the Committee that any of these persons should earn less in the forty-eight hours than they did in the fifty and a half hours and the Committee raised the minimum of all these persons by a farthing an hour, and that, taken over forty-eight hours, comes to about the same as the full wage for the two and a half hours which had been taken off, so that the lowest class, according to the recommendation of the Committee, gets precisely the same wages for forty-eight hours as they were getting previously for fifty and a half hours. The Committee still more substantially raised the rate of wages for the better paid class because it did appear to us that some of the best workmen were probably not getting enough. We did not say in terms, but we did intend that each person serving forty-eight hours should earn as much as he previously earned in the fifty and a half hours. I have consulted my colleagues on the Committee only yesterday, and I have their authority to say that that was clearly in the minds of all of us, and I hope the Post Office will determine the recommendations in that respect in this sense

    1945
    that no one should earn less in the forty-eight hours than he would have earned in the fifty and a half hours. That was our intention. Of course, if that is done, a very substantial benefit will accrue, especially in the summer months, when they will be paid for two and a half hours additional at overtime rates.
    There is another point for which the Committee have got no credit. I am afraid that if we want to get any credit we will have to hire our own trumpeter. I would draw attention to the very large number of persons in this Department whom the Committee have transferred from being hourly servants, paid at an hourly rate, into established servants paid at a weekly rate. I find that after the Hobhouse revision of 1908 there were 1,017 of the engineering staff established, that is to say, on weekly wages, with pension rights and other privileges. An amalgamation of departments was made in 1911 which raised the number of established persons to 2,323. The National Telephone Company staff raised that number to 4,606. Under the award of the Select Committee there are 7,500 persons on the establishment getting better wages, and, in most cases, pension rights. No inconsiderable benefit has been conferred on no inconsiderable number of persons. When complaints are made against us of not having done enough for these labourers I think that that might be remembered, and a certain amount of credit might be given to the Committee. Before the Committee sat these servants who were being transferred from the unestablished to the established list were getting in London a maximum which worked out at 32s. 7d. per week, but a certain class had been put on the established list as Class IL, and get a scale of wages of 28s, rising by Is. 6d, to 38s. The position has been very substantially improved for a considerable number of people. The hon. Member for Sheffield made a complaint as to the manner in which servants transferred from the National Telephone Company have been treated. That was a matter which has been very carefully considered by the Committee, and we certainly came to the conclusion that the whole of those complaints were ill-founded. I do not know whether any hon. Members have done the Committee the compliment of reading what was said, but what we find is this: that, first of all, the promises made with the authority of this House, to the telephone servants at the time of the transfer
    1946
    —and those were the only promises in respect of which there was consideration— were very considerably amplified by the late Postmaster-General at the time of the transfer. They have been fully kept we are satisfied.
    Of course it has been a matter of very great difficulty to take over the engineering staff of the telephone company, which was organised under a different system from that of the Post Office, and put every person into exactly his right place. What has been done is that the position of every individual person and his proper rate was considered by a Committee of the Post Office staff and some of the servants of the late telephone company. Everything was most carefully and properly considered and the best decisions, as far as we can make out, have been arrived at. No one can guarantee that no mistake has been made on the subject, but every effort has been made to avoid mistakes. I would like to draw special attention to this, and I think that the best thing would be to read the actual words of the Report, because those words have been carefully considered:—
    "The cumulative effect of these concessions is that the National Telephone Company employés joined the Post Office on either their former scale of wages or on those of the corresponding Post Office classes, whichever benefited them most, a remarkably liberal arrangement. The complaints made against the execution of this arrangement are that many of the officers have lost prospects of advancement, and that many have been placed in a grade of Post Office servants lower than that to which, having regard to the character of their duties, they ought to have been admitted. The first of those complaints, which was largely based on a classification published by the Telephone Company made in the year 1910, only a year before the transfer, and therefore to the knowledge of all parties incapable of talking full effect, your Committee consider to be unfounded. Ever since August, 1905—as they have already observed— the prospects of the servants of the Telephone Company were to become Post Office servants on January 1st, 1911, and to accept Post Office conditions from that date, neither more nor less—and this, and more than this in some instances, they have received."
    The claim is based on a classification which was made only a year before the transfer. They knew that the promises of the Telephone Company were incapable of fulfilment, and promises not capable of fulfilment are not binding on any standard of morals. When a person makes a promise which he knows cannot be fulfilled to a person who knows it cannot be fulfilled that promise is not one the fulfilment of which can be claimed. The Report goes on to say:—
    As regards the second complaint, owing to the fact that the organisation of the Telephone Company was not identical with that of the Post Office, many of the Telephone Company's servants were performing duties not wholly identical with those of any class of Post Office servant, and it has been in some cases a matter of

    1947
    real difficulty to decide in which particular class an ex-telephone servant should be placed. It must not be forgotten that, while it would he unjust to the transferred staff to place them too low, placing them too high would involve an injustice to the pre-transfer Post Office staff, whose prospects of promotion would thereby be materially damaged."
    That is a very important consideration, for if the telephone staff were to get more it would have to be taken from other Post Office servants: it would be taking it from one set of Post Office servants and giving it to another. The Select Committee were quite satisfied that every effort had been made by honest and well-disposed persons, who knew what they were about, to do justice in regard to each particular case, and I do not think it is possible for this Select Committee, or anybody else, to go further into an extremely technical and difficult matter of that kind. I now turn to what is probably a small subject, namely, the treatment of the K Company of Royal Engineers. The Committee recommended that the Company should be treated for pension as Civil servants, and they were to be treated not as military, but entirely as Civil servants. That was the unanimous opinion of the Committee. There was no shadow of doubt in the mind of any one of us, after hearing the evidence, that the whole of the service of the K Company ought to be treated as for pension as Civil servants, and that the men of that company must be treated not as military, but as Civil servants. If that is not done, the K Company would be justified in making a charge of bad faith, and if legislation is necessary to make that good it ought to be passed. I think this House should pass a Bill to remedy what is a clear case of injustice. I should have thought that a small measure of that kind might be carried by agreement. I must now turn to the question of the scale payment sub-postmasters. It is an extremely difficult subject, and I would ask hon. Members to be careful not to form a very hurried judgment upon it. In our view, the scale payment sub-postmasters should be put on a proper basis, and if a post office is doing business which requires the whole time of an official, then it ought to be taken over by a proper salaried officer under Government control. But mostly these sub-postmasters are really agents, who only give a small portion of their time to the business of the post office, and it is almost impossible for anybody to unravel how much time and energy is spent by the sub-postmaster on
    1948
    the business of the post office for the money he receives. I will direct your attention to the evidence on the subject, because it is really quite interesting. What I am about to quote has reference to the postmaster at Overstrand, in Norfolk, who was a grocer at a place eighty yards distant; he acted as a house and estate agent, he was an agent of the Royal Insurance Company, and had several other occupations. This question was put to him:—
    "You being apparently independent altogether of a post office, may I ask yon why do not you resign the appointment altogether?—Well, that is putting it in rather a bold way, but for two reasons. In the first place, as you will notice in Clause 7, we were the means of establishing the office in the face of great opposition.
    Opposition by whom?—from people in the parish who would not sign the paper. Even the old rector of the parish would not sign the memorial. He said it would be useless; he had been talking with Mr. Arthur Blackwood, and he said we would never get a post office. Then I brought it to the notice of the G.P.O. myself.
    Then apparently you have brought your misfortunes on your own head?—No, I do not call it misfortune but after having had the office for twenty-five year we are not going to give it up without a struggle.
    At any rate the position was not forced upon you by the Post Office?—Certainly not."
    A little further on the witness admits that the getting the post office in the first instance was the means of establishing the whole of the rest of his business. Nobody can deny that the position of a post office is a most important advantage in competition with other trades. It brings customers to a shop, and it means, admittedly, the establishing of the whole of the rest of his business. He had gone out of his way to get this post office, and when he obtained it he built up the rest of his business on top of it, and nothing in the world would induce him to give it up. There is another witness who gave evidence in relation to a post office in Banffshire. He was not only a postmaster, but he was also a coal merchant, bootmaker, and harbour master, and nobody can say that, with these various pursuits, he could properly devote his attention to the post office. I think that substantially the scale of payment to sub-postmasters, where they are bonâ-fide agents, is quite enough, and if it is not quite enough, then they can be left to themselves to bargain or to refuse the office. It is not possible, I can assure hon. Members, for a Committee to go into this question whether or not the payment to a particular sub-postmaster is according to the work done. The recommendations made by the Committee will mean a very substantial advance on certain payments to postmasters, taken as a whole,

    1949
    and I am afraid I cannot say very much more than that.
    8.0 P.M.
    We have heard a great deal about the allowance made in respect of the work done under the Insurance Act by Post Office servants. It should be borne in mind that the average value of a transaction represented by the sale of insurance stamps is 5s. 6d., while in the ordinary case they are represented by 4d., so that obviously the percentage for transactions of a total of 5s. 6d. should not be as high as for transactions of a total of 4d. There is one more subject to which I must draw the attention of hon. Members. I think that the Post Office may be fairly criticised for want of foresight, or for want of taking a sufficiently sanguine view of the future expansion of business in the Department. It is quite clear that in many cases overtime to an improper extent has been worked, and it would appear that an insufficient view of the expansion of business is taken. The same observation applies to new buildings, where again an insufficient view is taken of the probable expansion in the Post Office business in towns or districts where it is very likely to increase. The result is that buildings are erected on an inadequate scale, and in a very short space of time it is found that the new accommodation is insufficient. That is a criticism offered to the Post Office which I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will repeat to his chief, and it is one which the Committee agrees is thoroughly well founded. I want to express my great obligation to the members of the Committee for their assistance during the long period the proceedings continued. We were very harmonious. We only had five divisions, of which two were as to more liberal treatment of Post Office servants, and were successful. With regard to the recommendations I may almost say that they were unanimous from the Committee. In many cases there was compromise, as there ought to be, but substantially the Committee was agreed. I do suggest, that being so, the Report of the Committee ought to come to this House with some authority. If the Report of any Committee is capable of having authority, that Report ought to have some authority. I think it is rather hard under those circumstances that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) should have accused the Committee of assenting to "flagrant injustice," I think he called it. I think that is rather
    1950
    hard language to use towards a Committee of this House which, at any rate has done its very best for eighteen months., and the members of which are themselves satisfied that they have not assented to anything like flagrant injustice, and would not have done so.
    Sir G. PARKER: The hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to remember that I said that the task of the Committee was an overwhelmingly difficult one, and I did not blame the Committee for this injustice directly, but, through the confusions, that there was confusion of judgment, I had not the slightest doubt, from the mass of evidence they had to consider.
    Mr. HOLT: The Committee might make mistakes.
    Sir G. PARKER: That is what I said.
    Mr. HOLT: But to say that they committed flagrant injustice is something beyond a mistake. We, at any rate, are not of opinion that we have assented to anything that is unjust in any way whatever. We believe our recommendations are not only just but wise and fair.
    Sir G. PARKER: Omission of justice is injustice.
    Mr. HOLT: I do submit that this House ought to be very careful in its dealings with public servants, how far they allow public servants to squeeze us and, through us, the taxpayers, whom we are bound to represent in this House. I have no hesitation in saying what I think everybody knows, and what I think everybody almost would say, that there is a real danger to our country in the immense amount of pressure which various bodies of public servants do bring upon Members of this House. I must say frankly, yielding to that pressure, unless you are really satisfied in your mind and from your knowledge that the demands made by public servants are themselves just and fair, but simply for conciliatory purposes, is in-essence the same as trying to conciliate voters by the distribution of half-crowns which do not come out of our own pockets. I think there is a real danger that we may be induced by this pressure to sacrifice the interests of the many in this country who are not organised in this respect to the interests of a very few, a comparatively small number of persons, who are skilfully organised and bring severe pressure to bear upon us. I hope that Members in all quarters of the House will unite

    1951
    to resist this pressure. I do hope that in whatever quarter of the House we may sit that we may agree amongst ourselves that we will not be parties to proceedings in the constituencies trying to force pressure upon candidates who oppose us or upon Members who may sit for particular constituencies. I would make a most serious appeal to the House not to allow themselves in any shape or form whatever to yield to that pressure, which I think is very unfair pressure, and not to allow themselves to be parties, in treating the Post Office servants, who are a liberally and very generously paid section of the community for the work they do, to take from the taxpayer, and from many struggling taxpayers, moneys to be handed over to people who have. I think, received very ample recognition from the State.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Though many of us may have come here rather to blame than to praise the conclusions of the Committee known as the Holt Committee, yet there is not one of us but would offer our tribute of praise and admiration to that Committee for all the good and useful work which it performed. It has been the means of placing much information at our disposal, and if we pay that tribute a very large share of it indeed would go to the hon. Gentleman who presided over that Committee and who has displayed this afternoon such very intimate knowledge of the case which he undertook to treat, and evidently displayed great powers of industry and, may I also say popularity, in getting on almost all occasions the Committee to agree in the decisions to which they came. I must join first of all in the complaint which has been made from more than one quarter of the House against the Government for their treatment of this case. I think it must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General that there ought to have been an entirely separate day set apart for the consideration of this Report, and that we ought not to have mixed up our debate upon this Report with the debate on the general subject of the Post Office. It is not fair to the Report and it is not fair to the Estimates, and it is unfair to the Committee. We shall continue now until eleven o'clock hunting a hare and the fox. There never was a kill under those circumstances, and nothing that contributed to either sport or any other form of agreeable enterprise or industry. I hope
    1952
    the right hon. Gentleman may be convinced before this Debate closes that the Government ought to give another day for the consideration of this very important case.
    The Postmaster-General brought before us many very interesting features and new developments as regards the Post Office which we might like to praise or blame. I should like at once to say how much I appreciate the novel enterprise and activities which have been shown in the Post Office, as I think the Post Office has always shown. They are being shown particularly in the direction of bettering our telephone system. That is a matter which we have all had in our minds for some time, and we all hope that the Postmaster-General will succeed, as he rather thinks he will do, in very much improving the telephone system. We should have liked to make comments on many other things. I was particularly interested in what he said towards the end of his speech, and I hope he will persevere, and that the House, without any party feeling, will back him up in his efforts to prevent the Post Office being used, as it has been used for so many years past, as an agency for carrying on the malpractices of foreign gambling shops. Those are matters as to which I think we might legislate without any division of party at all. I have a Bill which succeeded in getting upstairs, and there is only one hon. Member who has shown any opposition to it. He put down out of the silliest of Amendments to it. There is also a form of betting known as the coupon system on football results. Those are matters on which we might well join in trying to promote legislation. I believe this day was to be set apart rather to criticism of the Holt Report than to the criticism of the many matters which might usefully and very properly be criticised in connection with the Post Office. Therefore, I will confine my remarks to my criticism of the Holt Report. The. Postmaster - General commenced his speech by pointing out to the House and to the country that the postal service had succeeded in obtaining, either through the Hobhouse Committee or through the Holt Committee, increases of wages which will amount, when they are worked out, to nearly £2,000,000 per year. He seemed to think that the House and the country and the postal service ought to be very amply satisfied with having got that increase, but I think he rather damaged his case when he went on a little later to inform us that there were 25,600 postal servants.

    1953
    who, at the age of twenty-three, had only succeeded in obtaining a wage of 22s. per week.
    The bare recital of that one bare fact does show after all that however much attention we may have been giving to the grievances of postal servants, and however many Committees may have sat to investigate those grievances and to frame some remedies, that there is still a very large number of State employés in the Post Office who are at the present time only in possession of a wage which is far below the standard which, I believe on all sides of the House, we should admit ought to be the minimum standard for men of twenty-three who do their work satisfactorily in every possible way. It may be that the standard has risen or that we have become more conscientious in these matters; but whatever the cause, I am quite certain that on every side of the House we are at the present time not influenced only by what the hon. Member who has just spoken called the political squeeze, but that we are touched in our hearts and in our minds by the revelations of these wages compared with the increased cost of living which we see all around us, and which has been proved by the inquiry of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. SNOWDENmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who himself has been instrumental, if not, indeed, more instrumental than any other man, in pointing out this grievance in connection with low wages and the high cost of living. I quite agree that I and others were not troubled or sufficiently alarmed by these facts, but they have borne in upon us now as the result of Committees which have inquired into this question. I quite agree with that, but one would be a sorry individual if one were not capable of adjusting oneself to new ideas, but were to stand still and to say that what was good enough for our fathers was good enough for us. What I am going to plead for is that this may be taken out of the party category altogether, and that we might have some new system by which we could come to conclusions more just and fair as regards the wages which are to be paid and the conditions of labour generally in our services. After all, if some of us were remiss in past years, that is no reason
    1954
    why we should not alter that with which we were content in former times, when we are touched by the facts which are borne in upon us by these Committees which have been set up at one time and another. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General does say that we ought to be content with the results and conclusions of this Holt Committee, and the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee, who laboured so long and so patiently in many ways as its Chairman, also seems to be thoroughly well satisfied with the conclusions of that Report. Without following the hon. Member into all the details and all the classes and sections and grades which confront every investigator of this question, which is a most elaborate and complicated question, let me say the conclusion to which I have come I have come to after some careful investigation of this question and meeting more than one deputation, trying to penetrate into this very difficult question, that the Committee did not live up to their conclusions, and that the general results of the Holt Committee are not really consistent with the premises, which they themselves admit. Take one sentence alone—paragraph 17:—
    "Your Committee are of opinion that all the considerations to which reference is made above"—
    That is, increase in cost of living, the desire for a higher standard of living, and the value of work—
    "are relevant in fixing the remuneration which should be given to Post Office servants, and attention has been given to them in the recommendations which your Committee have made."
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Sir Gilbert Parker) argued in respect of that, not sufficient attention has been given; and while these premises were admitted unanimously by the members of the Committee, yet there are thousands of postal servants left absolutely untouched as regards their wages by the Committee, although every one of those three premises applies to them just as it does to those more fortunate members of the service who have obtained some increase in their emoluments. That is what my hon. Friend alluded to as a flagrant injustice. I would prefer, perhaps, to say that the Report erred on the side of parsimony. It certainly did not err on the side of generosity. I expected that the Postmaster-General would be far more elaborate in his defence. In my opinion, his speech was most unsatisfactory. I had hoped that he would take these demands one by one, and say,

    1955
    for instance, on the question of classification or the question of area that to have the postal servants on one grade in an area of twelve miles from Charing Cross would cost so much, and therefore he could not give it. But he did not give a single figure. We are entitled to have these figures, and until we have them we shall not be really in the best position to form a judgment as to the different claims which remain unsatisfied at the present moment. There is the demand that the increases should be annual, and not triennial, until the maximum is reached. I should like to know what that would cost. I should like to know what the demands, of each of these sections, classes, categories, or grades would cost. That is information which can only be obtained from the Post Office, and we have a right to ask that that information should be given by those who are responsible for this great Department. After all. I was Secretary to the Treasury for a time, and to a certain extent I still take the Treasury view. I was too long connected with the Treasury not to do so. I say that neither I nor anybody else would be wise in giving adhesion to certain claims unless we knew approximately what would be the cost of each claim. I hope before this Debate concludes we shall have some figures from the Post Office, particularly in regard to the claim of the lowest paid classes, whose income is more affected than that of any other class from increased cost of living.
    The Chairman of the Committee said that there must be some classification. I admit that; and whatever classification you make, I quite agree that there will always be cases just outside the boundary which will always be represented as hard cases. There are always hard cases in life; but the fact that there are hard cases ought not to prevent you from making the very best rules possible, and from getting as many people inside those rules as you possibly can. What I say about the classification is that it is anomalous and an anachronism as regards London. In London there are practically seven scales of payment in an area where the rent, the cost of food, and matters of that kind are very much the same. These scales might have been justified when they were made, but I very much doubt whether they can be justified to-day. Different scales of wages are given to postmen according to the office in which
    1956
    they serve and the area in which that office is placed. There was a time when, postmen had to live very close to the office owing to lack of means of locomotion, and things of that sort. But now all that is changed. Postmen can live in different parts of London. They can choose their own place of habitation, and there-is not the same reason for having different grades according to rent and cost of living. I believe that if the Postmaster-General will look into this matter he will-see that, while these different scales may have been perfectly justified when they were originally fixed, they are no longer justified, in view of the great changes in the means of locomotion, which enable men to live further from their work, and that the time has come to reconsider the whole of this classification. I will give one instance of what the Holt Committee recommends as regards London—that the only offices outside district offices which can come into-Division I. are those situated in boroughs where the rent unit is 110 or more. That has resulted in Maida Hill, Netting Hill, Highbury, West Brompton, and West Kensington being actually reduced to Division II. I do not believe that that can possibly be justified. We want to know what all these things cost.
    That brings me to the general principle which ought to govern the fixing of the wages of postal servants. We have had some very strange doctrines enunciated by the Chairman of the Committee. One of the strangest doctrines I ever heard was that if you raised the wages of postal servants because the cost of living has gone up, you must raise the wages of all other State employés, consequently you would have to raise wages all round, and, therefore, they would not be any better off, in fact, they would be worse off than they were before. That is a most extraordinary economic theory. Why should not the hon. Member argue the contrary of that, and say that to do the men good you will decrease their wages, you will then decrease wages all round, and the men will be better off. When I heard the hon. Gentleman enunciating that extraordinary economic doctrine or theory I began to wonder whether he was quite the proper man to have been Chairman of a Committee of this kind. The Postmaster-General suggested that we ought to accept the Report of this Committee, because the Committee was appointed by the whole House, and was drawn from all quarters of the House. Really, I must beg leave

    1957
    to differ. I have been a Member of the House for twenty-four years, and I am not at all prepared to give my adhesion to the doctrine that because a Committee is chosen by the House therefore I have no choice in the matter; but that if the Committee is unanimous I am bound to accept its report. I do not. I am very grateful to it for putting many facts and figures before me, but I intend to exercise my own discretion and judgment as to how far I accept its conclusions. Without any desire whatever to disparage the members who gave much time to the consideration of this Report. I must confess that when the Committee was appointed I was a little surprised that it should have consisted of only nine members, not one of whom I believe came into the House before 1906, and quite one-half entered the House in 1910. I think half of them only came into the House in 1910. It was rather an inexperienced Committee, I think, for so very big a question.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: The old Members would not have the work, that is the reason.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I could not say. The hon. Member may be in possession of information as to his own side of the House.
    Mr. WILES: Your Whips appointed your representatives.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Really, I think, I know that. I was a Whip myself.
    Mr. WILES: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had, perhaps, forgotten for the moment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is rather, I think, an ignorant interruption. I think, I repeat, that it was rather an inexperienced Committee in view of the very great and grave matters to be looked into. At all events, we in this House have always the liberty to exercise our own judgment on all matters that are reported upon by a Committee of the House. As to the attitude of the Holt Committee to the cost of living as well as the rates of wages, I do not think anybody would say that you must keep on continually adjusting wages up and down to the cost of living. I do not say that; I do not think it. For my own part I do not believe that you would ever reduce wages because there has been a reduction in the cost of living. Therefore, because I do not believe that, and because I do not think it would be a wise
    1958
    thing to do, I think that you, perhaps, might fairly say, "We cannot increase wages up to the full extent of the cost of living, we will have to compromise: we certainly shall not reduce your wages if the cost of living should come down, so you cannot expect us to take the entire cost of living into account, and then add the difference between the increased cost of living and your present wages. While you do not have the whole benefit on the one hand, on the other hand you shall never be subject to a reduction." I believe that would be a sensible system.
    How far, again, should profits be taken into account? If the Post (Mice were a commercial concern entirely, the profits would have a good deal to do, I think, with the wages that are paid. In some businesses in which I am very intimately connected before any dividend is declared all the wages and salaries are reviewed every year automatically. So I think here. When the Post Office is making £6,000,000 profit, wages and salaries may be reviewed partly from that point of view. Profits must have something to say in these matters. But, at all events, this may be laid down—I am sure this doctrine will be followed by everybody—that the Government should be in the very first rank of good employers. I have often thought the Government should be a little bit in front of every other employer, partly because we do well to relieve ourselves of any political pressure. If we knew that we were doing justice, then we should not be subject to this political pressure, at all events to the extent that we now are; and if we knew we were doing justice and were subject to political pressure, one could always feel that one could reply better to that political pressure.
    That brings me to make a suggestion which I made ten years ago, and which was then received with some favour. I think the whole of this present system of dealing with, or trying to do justice to the employés in the Post Office, is a most unfortunate system. Just look at the history of it. We have to-day heard of two Committees within the last eight years. There was another Committee before these. There was a very powerful Departmental Committee, presided over by Sir Edward Bradford. That Committee was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Postmaster-General and who afterwards became Chancellor of the Exchequer—and who may possibly become Chancellor of the Exchequer again. That Committee

    1959
    recommended increases of wages to Post Office servants to the extent of £1,500,000 per annum. Those recommendations were not adopted by the Post Office, except, I think, to the extent of something like £500,000 per year, or just a little under. We have thus had three Committees in eleven years. We have had the Departmental Committee, the Hobhouse Committee, and the Holt Committee. After all that there is great dissatisfaction, great unrest, great disturbances. Those of us who go into these matters—and I am quite sure we are not influenced only—I do not say to a certain extent—by political considerations—have become alive to the fact that we were wrong before. These Committees all recommended increases of wages which were resisted for some time, then given—not the whole of them—and they were adopted with the consent of all parties in the House. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that we were hardly right before in resisting those demands. Are we quite sure that we are quite right now in resisting these demands?
    My hon. Friend below me (Sir G. Parker) made a suggestion to-day that we should adopt a method which has been adopted in the Commonwealth of Australia, that we should set up a Statutory Commission, outside this House altogether, to deal with the wages and condition of labour in this great Government Department. With great respect to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge is great on this subject, I very much doubt whether this country would ever consent to part with its control of this great Department, and whether this House of Commons would ever give up its control or its power to fix the wages and the conditions of labour relating to the Department which employs something like 230,000 persons. At the same time, I think that the present system is perfectly detestable. I believe it is demoralising to the men. It is demoralising to us to a certain extent. I do not believe that they like it. We certainly do not like it. My suggestion for what it is worth is this: As I said, it was considered once before and met with a certain amount of favour. It is that at the beginning of every Parliament, and every Session of Parliament, a large and strong Committee should be formed from all sides of the House, from all parties and sections in the House, to deal automatically with these questions of the wages and conditions of labour, not to wait until there is agitation or until some claim is put forward, not to wait
    1960
    until we are pressed in this direction or the other, but that this Committee should be set up just as the Public Accounts Committee or the Selection Committee is set up now. It would have to be a large Committee, must be a large Committee, because it would be a very important Committee. In all probability the same process that is adopted now of choosing a chairman from the Opposition would be the best process to be adopted.
    What advantages would this Committee give? I believe there would be enormous advantages. I believe that a Committee of from twenty-one to thirty members, chosen from amongst some of the older Members of this House, and from all sections of the House, reporting on matters of this kind, would carry enormous weight with the House. From the point of view of the postal servants themselves—I have never asked them and have never put it before them—I cannot help thinking that they would be pleased to know that there was a strong Committee before which their grievances could be put. They would be more likely to have justice done to them by a Committee of that kind than in any other way. If a Committee of that kind were to refuse their claim, they would probably recognise themselves that the claims which they had put forward were claims that they ought not to have made, or not made in the form in which they had made them, or to the extent to which they had made them. I believe that would be much the best way of settling this question of wages and other matters in our great postal service. The thing would be be taken out of party hands altogether. Matters would come as a recommendation from that very powerful Committee, and would, of course, have great weight with the House, and also, I hope, have very great weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. What would be the position of the Postmaster-General and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They would still have the discretion to take part of that Committee's Report or the whole of that Report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would still ultimately decide the amount of money that must be raised for the taxation of the country. He would still ultimately decide what amount of the profits of the Post Office ought to be given back to the men, because he might have to place new taxes on other sections of the community. But I cannot help thinking that if he had his hands forced, his hands would be

    1961
    forced by the House itself. That Committee would be responsible to the House itself, and, being composed of Members of Parliament having to seek re-election, would have to justify their conduct before the electors. I think, at all events, some scheme of this sort is worth while thinking about, and worth while discussing. I am confident of this: there is no Member of the House who does not believe that the present method of settling these controversies between ourselves and this great body of employés is thoroughly unsatisfactory and thoroughly unwholesome, has led to bad results in the past, and is not likely in the future to produce justice or contentment in a great public service.
    Mr. WILES: I think the hon. Gentleman on the other side rather misunderstood me when I interrupted him a while ago. I thought he was complaining of the way in which the Committee was formed. I believe it was formed in the usual way, and I thought he criticised it for having so many young Members on it. It seems to me that that was rather an advantage than otherwise. I think some of the ways of the House of Commons in dealing with these matters want reforming, and I am very glad he suggested that younger men who come into this House with fresh ideas should be put on those Committees. I want to join with the hon. Member for Gravesend and with the hon. Member for Sheffield in making an appeal for another day, because I quite agree that the two things open for discussion to-day are quite different. Many of us are in business and want to criticise the management of the Post Office and the telephones, and we want to know about the deplorable loss on telegrams. That is a very serious thing, and I shall ask very shortly what is the cost of sending these long Press telegrams so frequently over the State wires. I think it is a very important thing that we should find out the cost of Press messages and estimate whether the amount received by the Government is sufficient, but it is understood that we should have a Debate only on the Holt Committee's Report today, and I join with other Members in asking for another day in which we could discuss Post Office matters.
    I have taken part in every Debate since I have been in the House for the past seven or eight years on Post Office matters, and during my short experience it is quite new to me to see such a living interest taken in the conditions of Post Office servants. Two or three of us for many years
    1962
    have voiced this question with very little assistance from the powers that be. But I think we have made a great step forward to-day when we get so many Members upon all sides of the House pressing the Government to become model employers. I am sure I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has had his heart touched, because I feel now we shall have hearts touched in every part of the House, and that we shall soon have a response from the Postmaster-General in the way that we all desire. I am sorry the hon. Member for Gravesend is not in the House, because at the commencement of his speech he spoke of the very serious threats that were abroad of a strike, and I am afraid I do not quite agree with him in that, because my feeling is that the patience which the Post Office staff have shown has been very great. They have been very patient, and they have taken no extreme measures at all, but have put their case forward in the most constitutional way, and they have put forward such a case that I think those who are not versed in Post Office matters and those who are not experts in those matters, can easily understand. Half a million or so, which is going to be given in increases of wages seems a very large sum. We have often seen it boasted that a whole half-million is going to be given in extra wages, but when you come to look at the enormous staff and the enormous business done, and the enormous responsibilities which are every day increasing, I think you will find that it is a very small sum.
    There is another point which the hon. Member spoke about, and that is that he would like to know what the profits of the Post Office really are in comparison with a private business or a limited company, I suppose. I think it would be a great advantage to us if we knew the amount of capital invested in the Post Office, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham, who has had some experience of the Treasury—and I am sorry he did not reform it when he was there—must know that it would be easy for business people to understand Post Office accounts if they were presented in a modern reasonable form. Then we could see some relation between profits and outlay and establishment charges, and the amount which is paid to that excellent body, the experts, who work the whole thing from top to bottom; and I believe a great many of the difficulties of these Debates would be got over if the Post Office—and I hope the hon. and gallant

    1963
    Gentleman the Assistant Postmaster-General will take this very seriously into consideration—presented their accounts in a more businesslike way, and if we knew the accounts were kept in a way that we might see the amount of capital involved, and judge to some extent whether they really do pay the same rates of wages or salary in proportion to the great profit made that an ordinary businesslike insurance company or cable company or business of that kind pays.
    These four paragraphs of the Holt Report—paragraphs 14 to 17—are those which give rise to all this dissatisfaction among the different classes in the Post Office, and not only the Reports of the Committee, but the carrying out of that Report, ought to be criticised. There is the figure of 11.3. and nobody has disputed it, which shows the rise in the cost of living; and I think it is generally admitted that the rise given by the Post Office only amounts to something like 4 per cent. over the whole of the staff, which in the course of some years will rise to 7 per cent. Several speakers have agreed, and I think it is agreed on all sides of the House, that the returns of the cost of living did not cover the whole of the expenditure of the individual. There are many other things which have also gone up besides. We have the question of clothing and rates and coal and other things. The whole cost of living has gone up to a most tremendous extent. The Chairman of the Committee complained that comparisons were not given to him with other businesses. It has been pointed out time after time that it is very difficult to get these comparisons, but we could get these comparisons provided that the Post Office would give us their accounts in a more businesslike way and more like an ordinary business, and then it would be much easier to get the comparisons. The cable companies pay much higher for experts in telegraphy than the Post Office. I am informed that the recruits for the cable companies mostly come from His Majesty's Telegraph Service, and it seems to me that we are training men to go into the cable companies' offices because they pay better salaries. I do not see why the Post Office should pay lower salaries than the cable companies. I am informed that out of the 70,000,000 telegrams only 11,000,000 are foreign, and a large number probably come in code, so that the work is very synonomous with that of the cable companies. The staff complain not only of the increase in the cost of
    1964
    living, but they also ask to have a question considered which seems to me not to have been sufficiently considered by the Holt Committee. That Committee does not seem to me to have considered sufficiently the standard of living. To-day the Post Office staff is educated in a very different manner—and they must be in order to carry out postal work—from what was the case ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. Not only that, but the ideals of the men in the Post Office are higher. We have a man in the London Post Office service who has got a picture in the Royal Academy. He has spent his evenings in painting; and there are also very many clever musicians amongst them. The men have much higher ideals, and they want to lead a higher life altogether.
    Not only is there this question of education and these higher ideals, but the men desire a better life for their children. This is so through all ranks of employés like the Post Office, or as similar as we can get it; and why should not postal servants be allowed to spend the same kind of life which other men spend in a similar position? There is another point which I do not think has been touched upon very much, and that is the value of the work done. The work needs far greater intelligence now. The educational test is far higher and so is the standard of efficiency. With the machinery, and with all the improvements which are made in the telegraph, telephone, and postal services, the complexity is also much greater. Then there is the speeding up of the Post Office work. If you notice the great increase in the number of letters in the telephone work, and the work of the telegraph clerk, you will find that the percentage of work to the men is much higher than in the past few years. I would not like to say that the Post Office is being Americanised, like, I understand, the chairman of the Great Eastern Railway Company is Americanising that system by having an American manager; but in the competition to-day the Post Office must speed up. AH round more is expected, and I believe the staff do a great deal more than they did before. All these are good reasons for showing that the recommendations of the Holt Committee do not satisfy the Committee at the present time. A further complaint is made by the staff, and it is not only as to the interpretation of the Report, but as to the irregularities of that interpretation. In the new scale of pay for the London postmen the triennial increment in wages for the postmen and porters is adopted; while

    1965
    many of them have been getting an increase before at certain times, they get it now only every third year, whereas the bulk of the other classes in the Post Office service get an increment every year. Every good firm should and does, if it wants to keep its staff contented and efficient, consider every year the position of its staff, and every three years is too seldom for a man to have his increment considered. Some of the irregularities are so great that I know two or three cases where men under this new alteration will not reach their maximum until they get their pension. I think it shows a great irregularity where men arrive at their pension before they arrive at the maximum under the new Regulations.
    Although we are very glad that the Government have seen their way to increase the payment to the new entrants, and have raised the minimum wage with which a man starts, I think that the time when a man reaches his maximum should be earlier. At present an ordinary postman does not arrive at his maximum early enough. The time when a man wants most money is between thirty and forty, and it ought to be possible, if he is worth the maximum sooner, for him to arrive at it earlier. A man will probably be most efficient from twenty-eight to thirty-five years of age, and I think that is the time he should receive his highest payment. There is one other example I should like to put before the House, and it is the case of the unestablished men in the Electric and Engineering Departments. That is an extraordinary case. Prior to the Report these men worked 50½ hours at 6½d. per hour, and they earned £1 7s. 4d. per week. It is true the Postmaster - General can say that he has granted forty-eight hours, but at what cost? The present position is that the men work forty-eight hours and only earn £1 6s., and that is a reduction of 1s. 4d. Including the immediate increase promised, that means an actual loss of 4d. It seems to me that the Post Office might employ more established men than it does. Its business is so large and so certain and sound in every way that I would like the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell me if it is not possible to reduce those large numbers of unestablished men. I admit that you must have some unestablished men, and it is impossible to run the Post Office business without a certain number of them, but I think the proportion employed is much too great, and I appeal to the
    1966
    Postmaster-General to give the Committee some promise that in the future an endeavour will be made during the coming year to reduce the: number of unestablished men. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) proposed a Standing Committee. He wanted a Permanent Committee, or something of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) proposed a Standing Committee of twenty-one members to be formed every Session to deal with this question. I cannot understand for the life of me how we should then be in a better position than we are now. I cannot see the advantage of it, because any Committee which the House of Commons thinks it wise to appoint must be responsible to the House, and we should want to keenly criticise that Committee. We should have the same application and complaints from people employed in the Post Office to Members of Parliament. I am anxious for a solution if we can only come to one, but I fail to see that we should be any nearer to the end we have in view. Neither do I think that the Standing Committee of officials foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Gravesend as his ultimate wish would bring us any nearer. I, for one, should be sorry if the power of dealing with these matters were taken away from the House of Commons. The House of Commons has to find the money and is responsible, and it is its duty to see that the servants of the State are treated in a proper and fair way.
    I should be glad, however, having regard to the dissatisfaction and discontent which this Holt Committee's Report has given throughout the postal service, and, I think this Debate has shown, throughout the House of Commons, if the Postmaster-General could consent to a small Advisory Committee. I do not care what it is called. I know that many traditions are cherished in this House, and perhaps such a thing has never been done before; but let us get over that by calling it some name which will not interfere with the ancient traditions of this House. Let us call it an Advisory Committee, or whatever you like. I know that the postal servants have pledged themselves to accept the findings of this small Committee, consisting, I think, of perhaps one member selected by the Board of Trade, possibly two selected by the Postmaster-General, and one selected by the postal servants themselves. I do not see that this House would damage its position in any way if it asked this Committee to go into this question.

    1967
    It is too great a matter for the House to go into all the details. If one talks to any Member of the Hobhouse or the Holt Committee he says they were swamped with the tremendous details. It is more than an ordinary Member of Parliament can do to study its intricacies. Hon. Members on the other side have been studying it, and they have found the difficulties of this complex question. I feel that something which would get over the difficulty would be acceptable, and I therefore make an appeal to the Government to give us another day for the discussion of this question. It is, I think, the wish of the whole House that we should have another day to continue this discussion; and then I appeal to the Postmaster-General and to the Government to consider whether they could not give us this Committee, which I believe would, without any party feeling, be carried by an enormous majority in this House. I make a most earnest request to them to grant the appointment of this small Committee, because I believe, with those Members who have spoken before me, that it would settle, not permanently, because the question of wages can never be settled permanently, but for a considerable time, the difficulties which have arisen with the servants of His Majesty's Government.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BRADY: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the Holt Committee has not, entirely disappeared. I would also make another admission, which will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and that is that I was one of the inexperienced Members of the Committee who came into the House in 1910. I can, however, claim for myself, and indeed for every Member of the Committee, that what I lacked in experience I brought in the shape of fairness and a desire to get at the very bottom of this question. I recognise that my services on the Committee were not of very great value, but at the same time I look back without regret on the two years which I had the privilege of serving on the Committee, in the earnest hope that with the other Members of the Committee I may have done something at least to have improved the conditions of the postal workers. I may say at once, speaking for myself, that nobody is more pleased than I am that this opportunity has been given to us to-day of discussing what has come to be popu-
    1968
    larly known as the Holt Report. I was the Irish representative on the Committee, and I welcome the opportunity of making my position clear in reference to some matters about which there is not a little misunderstanding. May I remind the Committee that in appraising the justice or otherwise of the Committee's Report one or two main facts must be borne in mind. Of course, I know it is quite unnecessary to remind Members of this Committee that in the case of a Select Committee, such as that of the Holt Committee, a Minority Report could not be submitted, but it is right that public misconception on that point should be removed, because I have reason for believing that in Ireland, at any rate in some circles, there existed the belief that it is possible on a Committee of this kind to make a Minority Report. Let me say at once that had it been possible there might, at least have been one Minority Report. I do not wish for one moment to be taken as suggesting that there were any profound differences between the other Members of the Committee and myself in any of the essential matters, but I think that hon. Members will agree with me that in a vast and immense question of this kind it would have been very difficult, indeed, for nine hon. Members to take exactly the same view and express their minds in exactly the same language in a single Report. There is no Member of the Committee who asserts that the Report is all it ought to be or that it might be, but, as an ardent sympathiser with postal workers, I have no hesitation in declaring that the Report would be substantially different if I alone were responsible for it. I hope, however, hon. Members will not think me presumptuous in saying that. I am giving expressions to my own views from my own standpoint, and I want to do it temperately and justly. So far as the Report goes it-confers many valuable benefits on the rank and file of the Post Office service. Members of the Committee, whose aim it was to improve the condition of postal workers, endeavoured to make recommendations of such a nature as would' secure their being given practical effect, rather than as representing the mere aspirations of the men, aspirations which in the nature of things could not be achieved.
    Acting with that, purpose it was not practicable for us to take a presumed 15 per cent. increase in the cost of living and act upon that. A great deal has been

    1969
    urged this evening in regard to the cost of living. I do not propose to traverse that ground, but it would be very easy to unduly emphasise the importance of that principle in a selected period as the sole basis of a proportionate increase of wages. Any such position would be untenable, and it would have been unwise to assume it in the best interests of the workers themselves, because it would have involved a reduction of wages in the event of any reduction in the cost of living, and it would have infallibly disturbed that security of settled income which is one of the main attractions of Government service. It would, in fact, be open to an unfriendly Government to set up a comparison between the cost of living in times of hardship with an existing lower cost of living and upon it justify a reduction in wages. The representatives of the postal workers recognised this danger, because they did not like to be pinned down to the question of the cost of living as the sole determining factor in ascertaining wages. As a friend of the workers I see great danger in the universal application of this principle of the cost of living. I am convinced that the strength of the case of the postal workers rests on a much more solid foundation. It rests, in fact, on the increasing complexity and arduous nature' of the work which they perform so well. There is another disadvantage under which postal workers labour in that regard, and it is the want of growth of superior posts proportionate to the huge expansion of the rank and file. During the existence of the Committee I was privileged, like the other members, to see the postal service in active operation, not alone in this country and in my own country, but both on land and on sea, and I was struck on every occasion by, I will not say the universal complexity of the work, but, at any rate, by the character of the work, which undoubtedly calls for the exercise of great vigilance and constant attention to duty. My experience naturally quickened my desire to work for the improvement of the condition of these men. Lawyers will agree with me it is sometimes dangerous to get a too friendly jury, whose sweeping verdict often defeats the end in view. I think I may say that the one consideration which the Members of the Committee had before them in determining these questions was the anxiety not to prevent too drastic and too sweeping a Report, which could only defeat their object, which was to remedy certain grievances.
    1970
    Having stated these general principles. I want very briefly to refer to one or two matters of very great importance to the Irish staff, and that is the principal reason why I have intervened in this Debate. One fact impressed itself on my mind during the lengthy progress of this Committee, and that was the real and honest difficulty of persons not personally conversant with Irish affairs in appraising at their true value Irish grievances in postal matters. I recognise, however, that the Chairman and every member of the Committee had a genuine desire to give the most patient and sympathetic consideration to the claims of Ireland. But however well-intentioned they were in this respect there were questions necessarily of deep interest to the Irish postal service which from time to time it was found impossible to consider under the terms of our reference. For some time past a burning question in Ireland has been one in connection with the Stores Department at Dublin and the difficulties we had in the Committee in dealing with that arose purely from the nature of our terms of reference. Until comparatively recent years the Secretary of the Post Office in Ireland was, in substance as well as in name, the chief administrative officer in Ireland under the Post Office system. All the correspondence with the public in Ireland passed through his hands, and it was an axiom of the service that he should be consulted on all matters affecting Post Office policy in Ireland. Owing to the centralisation of the work in Dublin all recommendations from subordinate officers passed before him for review before being forwarded to headquarters in London. In 1906 the first blow at the influence of the General Post Office in Dublin was struck, and the control I have indicated as being vested in the Irish Secretary was transferred from him to the Comptroller of Stores in London, and from 1906 recommendations respecting Post Office printing and such questions as uniform, and so on, could reach the Secretary's office in London without the Secretary in Dublin being aware of their purport. This was bound to have an adverse effect on the interests-of Ireland, because the views of the subordinate officer, of whom I wish to speak with the greatest respect—I mean the officer in charge of the Dublin stores—could not carry anything like the same weight as a recommendation coming from the Irish Secretary. In 1907 the Hobhouse Committee issued its Report, and, with, the permission of the Committee, I pro-

    1971
    pose to read a passage from that Report in reference to the point I am making as to the difficulty of bringing certain matters within our terms of reference. By the way, no officer from the Irish Department gave evidence before that Committee, but facts were disclosed which amazed that Committee, and they expressed their opinion in the following terms. I am very glad to see the Postmaster-General is in his place, and I have no doubt he will bear me out in this. The Report said:—
    "Your committee have considered with care the relations which exist between the headquarters of administration in London and the superior provincial officials, as well as those which prevail between the higher grade of the latter. Your Committee are convinced that some considerable decentralisation of authority is required, in order to prevent waste of power and loss of efficiency."
    They conclude with very significant words:
    "In the same way the Secretary of the Post Office in Scotland or Ireland has extremely limited powers. These officers are obliged to refer to London many questions touching the countries under their nominal control, which are never referred to the Postmaster-General or to the Secretary to the Post Office, but are settled by assistant secretaries of no higher rank or pay than the referer. The position of the Department is that this is done, not because local secretaries are meapable of dealing themselves with the questions referred, but in order to maintain administrative uniformity."
    The Committee refused to accept the view that any administrative uniformity was secured by that. The point to which, perhaps, I am somewhat laboriously coining as this: I tried to raise the point before the Select Committee, and I was lucky enough, perhaps in a moment of absent-mindedness on the part of the chairman, to elicit one or two replies from Sir Alexander King, the Secretary to the Post Office. What happened? On the very next morning, when the evidence appeared, I was somewhat surprised to find that my questions and Sir Alexander King's answers were not there. The chairman ruled, and very properly ruled, if I may respectfully say so, that those were matters outside the scope of our reference, and that we could not go into them. That is one instance of the difficulties under which we laboured in bringing before the 'Committee admitted Irish grievances. If I had been a little less inexperienced than I was when the Committee was first set up, and if I had any voice in the settlement of the terms of reference again, I should certainly be very vigilant to see that they were wider in scope and admitted, from the Irish standpoint, many other considerations which we were debarred from bringing before the Committee.
    1972
    I want to bring to the notice of the Committee another Irish grievance on which we feel so deeply, and on which, unfortunately, I found myself rather in disagreement with my colleagues on the Committee—the question of promotion. I quite recognise that it is a very delicate question, and I do not wish to press the point an iota further than justice and fairplay entitle me to do. I am satisfied that the Irish sorting clerks and the telegraphist staff in Dublin have a genuine grievance in the matter of promotion. I am not going to trouble the Committee by quoting the evidence, which went a long way to show that a largo number of these men were frequently passed over for promotion when a higher post became vacant, apparently without good reason. In some cases as many as 100 men were passed over when a vacancy came to be filled. I want to be perfectly fair to the Department in this matter. The Departmental answer was that all of these men, or many of them were men who had come into the service under the old system of nomination, as distinguished from those who had come in later on under the system of competitive examination. When we come to analyse the cases, as I did with a great deal of patience and care, as it was my duty to do, I satisfied myself that many men were passed over who had entered by competitive examination. Here again, to be perfectly fair to the Department, the official answer was, "Oh, yes, but we selected the best man. We may have passed over a 100 or 120 men, but we selected the best man." In this matter I think too high a standard of efficiency has been set up. I tried to persuade my colleagues on the Committee that the case was somewhat similar to that of the ecclesiastical authorities who, being anxious to secure a good parish priest, insisted on appointing a man who was brilliant enough to be a bishop or an arch-bishop. That principle has obtained un-duly in the selection of telegraphists und sorting clerks. They look for too brilliant men, and good men are passed over— who would be able to adequately discharge the onerous duties of sorting clerks and telegraphists.
    I am sorry the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) is not in his place, because I was speaking to him yesterday on this point, and he quite agreed that my memory does not serve me wrong. I actually wanted to press an amendment to the Report whereby greater importance would

    1973
    be attached to seniority than at present obtains. I am far from saying that a man should be chosen merely because he happens to be the senior officer, but I said then, and I am still convinced, that greater attention might be paid, without any disadvantage to the service, to the question of seniority, coupled with efficiency. The hon. Member for Hexham pointed out to me, and I could not challenge his argument, that the Committee was against me on that point, and that I should only be wasting time by formally moving the amendment. In deference to that view, I did not formally move the amendment, but I regret I did not do so, because, at any rate, if I had not secured one supporter for my amendment, I should have placed on record my conviction that the Dublin men had not been treated fairly in this matter. I wish to refer to the question of auxiliary labour. Let me tell the Committee that the question of auxiliary labour presses with exceptional severity on Ireland. I am on very strong ground in making that statement, because I can refer to the Hobhouse Committee's Report, and the very words I have used are to be found almost verbatim in the Hobhouse Report, on this question. I recognise that auxiliary labour in the Post Office cannot be done away with entirely, but I say that much less of it could be employed in the Post Office than is employed to-day, and that that is especially the case in Ireland. I am glad to think that this question has been dealt with in our Report, and we are very hopeful—and I hope I may succeed in impressing this upon the right hon. Gentleman—that while auxiliary labour cannot be dispensed with entirely, it will be very largely reduced in the future.
    That remark also applies to the question of overtime. What I have in my mind is the case of Belfast. A very remarkable state of things is found to exist as regards overtime in the postal service in Belfast. In the case of Belfast, the need for an additional staff existed in the opinion of the Belfast postmaster nine months before the full supply of the established staff was granted. That was justified by the figures which were then available and which were supplied to the Committee. The Committee was strongly of opinion that the Postmaster-General had not got a sufficiently free hand in increasing the number of the established staff. I recognise that here again the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor had to get
    1974
    over the Treasury difficulty, but when such an unanswerable case as this has been made out by the Post Office to the Treasury, it is the bounden duty of the Treasury to see that overtime on such an enormous scale has not been resorted to in a great public Department.
    I wish to make a very brief reference to one point. A short time before the Select Committee was set up, much interest was created in the minds of Irish women clerks employed in London by a report that it was contemplated to make a large reduction in the number of women clerks, and to set up an entirely new and inferior grade, to be known as women assistant clerks. This would have been a very serious matter for the large number of Irish women employed in London in the postal service. These women have been patiently waiting for vacancies in Dublin and throughout Ireland, and if the report was true that this inferior class was to be set up, there was little or no prospect for many years of their returning to their native land. I can quite recognise that the Post Office is an Imperial service, and that if a person selects to enter that service, he must serve wherever he is sent; but in the Post Office service we apply common-sense rules, and we know that as far as possible the authorities facilitate the return of these women to Ireland as soon as opportunity occurs. The point I am making is that if this subordinate class were set up, the chances of these people returning to Ireland would be greatly decreased.
    There is another important reason, and here, happily, it is not merely an Irish grievance, but one common to all parts of the United Kingdom. The previous Committees found that the minimum salary for women clerks should be from £55 to £65 a year, and one of the chief reasons why they found that these people were entitled to the salary which I have named is the fact that it was impossible for them to support themselves in London with lower pay in a manner befitting their position. I do not want to exaggerate their position, but the Hobhouse Committee were unanimously of opinion that it was essential, if these people were to live in a condition befitting their position in life, that they should get a salary of £55 to £65 a year, and, as a matter of fact, in many such cases, certainly in the case of Irish women living here, away from their friends, their salary had to be supplemented by grants from

    1975
    home. It was urged, truly, that if this new class was created it would follow that no woman who was not residing with parents or friends in London, at a minimum of expense, could afford to seek one of the new posts, and that grievance would not alone press on Ireland, but on provincial England, and, of course, on Scotland, and the result would be that there will be a ring-fence round London, and that these positions will be reserved for people living in London or in the vicinity. I am happy to think that the Committee, of which I was a member, made a very distinct finding on this question, and they did not consider that there was any need for the intermediate class, and the intention of setting up this new class has been abandoned. I wish to say this, as an expression of my own personal opinion: When the immediate dispute has passed away, whatever be the shortcomings of the Holt Committee—and I suppose we were not infallible— I believe the work and efforts of the Select Committee will have met, at any rate, with some gratitude, and that it will be regarded as the work of men who did their best under very difficult circumstances. When these increases come into operation, as they have already begun to operate, many hundreds of thousands of pounds will be added to the Post Office wages bill, a well-deserved benefit to a body of servants loyal to the State, and devoted to the convenience of its people.
    Captain GILMOUR: I should not have intruded in this Debate but for the fact that I was one of the Members of the Holt Committee. A good many hard things have been said of the Holt Committee, and I am well aware that, with my colleagues, we had a problem to face, the magnitude of which I think must have already become apparent to hon. Members who have listened to the Debate. I do not pretend to claim that the Committee in exercising their judgment have always solved problems, or even gone the length that they would desire to have gone, but at the same time, while I am speaking only for myself, I may speak also in the name of two other hon. Members on this side of the House who were associated with me on the Committee, that we take full responsibility for this Report, that we felt that no body of Members of this House, composed as we were of very divergent political views, could have been more amicable in the discussions which took place, nor could we, I believe, have
    1976
    expected under any circumstances to be more unanimous than we were. It has been said, among other things, that the result of this Report means that there is a greater bitterness existing among the employés of the Post Office than existed before it was brought about. I should be indeed sorry to think that that was so. We had not only to make ourselves conversant with the conditions of work, and the conditions of employment, but we honestly, I believe, took into our consideration not only the cost of living, but the circumstances under which the employés in the Post Office might reasonably expect to live, and we had, in forming our conclusion, to take such opportunity as we could of comparison with outside employment, and while we have admitted that it is difficult, and I think hon. Members who have studied the question will admit the great difficulty, we did our best, and we hope that the Post Office employés will recognise that they have got a great deal which strengthens their position, which gives them substantial advantages, and which, I hope, would add to the efficiency of the Post Office itself.
    There were one or two particular points in which as an individual I took a peculiar interest. Criticism has been directed against the system of classification. I think the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) has placed our view as a Committee on that point very clearly before this Committee, and, for myself, I am in agreement with the view which he expressed. It is inevitable in any case of this kind that there will be individual hardships, and that there will be cases where the hard and fast lines which are bound to be drawn will necessitate difficult and hard cases. In regard to this classification, there was one point which dealt more particularly with the Scottish interests, and which now under a recommendation will bring the question of living in England and Scotland on to a common basis. That, I think, will be an advantage which the postal servants in Scotland have long desired, and I hope that in the working of this scheme it will be found that the general advantages of the new departure will outweigh any small disadvantages which may go with it. I wish to say a word with regard to the question of K Company. I feel very strongly upon this point, and I would press it upon the Postmaster-General, because I do think, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me,

    1977
    that, so far as his Department is concerned, there is a just and proper claim upon the Treasury to meet this particular case. Having been associated to some ex-tout with the Service, I have gone so far as to say that I thought the time had even come when the larger question which was outside the purview of our particular Committee ought to receive the consideration of the Government of the day, and that some steps should be taken whereby a man who has served his country in one Department of the State might, when transferring to another, be able to count the years he has served.
    There is only one other point to which I wish to refer in connection with the investigation which we had to make as a Committee. It was our duty—and I confess one of the most interesting of the duties which we had to perform—to investigate the housing conditions under which the men work when carrying out their daily duties in the service of the State, and I am bound to say that I think there is distinct room for improvement in the matter of inspection. I would press upon the attention of the Postmaster-General those parts of the recommendations of the Committee which deal with that matter. I believe that, with the best intentions, the Department has failed on more than one occasion to look sufficiently far ahead in making provision for expansion in certain districts, and have been too niggardly in making those alterations and improvements which are desirable, not only from the point of view of the staff, but from the point of view of carrying out the work of the public service to the best advantage. Let me say that there is no member of the Committee, and indeed I believe no Member of this House, who, in judging of these questions, and in settling any matter in connection with the service of the State, would not desire to give as fully and freely to those servants as lay in his power. While the Committee were earnestly desirous to meet, so far as they could, the just and fair demands of the servants of the State, they had at the same time the duty, in my opinion, laid upon them to keep in view their duty to the general taxpayer, and their responsibility to this House. I do not think that there is any hon. Member who has served on such a Committee as we have had the honour of serving upon, and who has had to face the difficulties and criticism we have had to face, but will believe me when I say that it is very desirable that no body of men should have their hand forced, so
    1978
    to speak, by pressure from outside. I would only say for myself that, while having every sympathy with the staff, and every honest desire to meet them in a fair and proper manner, I yet felt it to be my duty to resist what I may call extravagant demands, because I believe that in the long run any Committee which has to deal with this subject will find that it will pay them, as it will pay the country, and, indeed, best serve the interests of the staff, if they place these things on business principles, and not be led away by feelings of sympathy into committing themselves to a policy which would be disastrous, not only to the finances of the country, but to the interests of the public service. I thought it my duty to express from this side of the House our complete agreement with the Committee, and particularly with the manner in which the Chairman (Mr. Holt) conducted the business of that Committee, and also to express our appreciation of his services and at the same time to say what a pleasure it was to serve on the Committee.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: No one who has studied at all the very difficult and complicated question which occupied the attention of the Committee, for which the Chairman spoke in such an interesting way this afternoon, will doubt for a single moment that their task was a difficult and invidious one. There is nothing more difficult than to arrive at what is a reasonable basis of fixing wages. That difficulty is certainly enhanced when dealing with a special business in which there is no comparative standard such as the Post Office, but I must confess that after the defence made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham I am not convinced that the Committee went as far in considering the matter as the terms of reference permitted them to go. Nor do I consider that they adopted the right method of approaching the subject. What I should have considered the right principle for approaching this subject is that the State as an employer ought to set an example to other employers, and give better conditions than those given by the private employer. We sometimes advocate a minimum wage, and say what other people ought to pay, and I think that as a State organisation we ought; at any rate, to say that we are paying a good living wage to our employés. The argument at page 2 of the Report is that they could get men to do the work at even lower wages. That argument has always

    1979
    been employed by all those who pay low wages. It has been introduced against all our minimum wage legislation. After all, we are dealing with a state monopoly and not with a competitive business. We are dealing with a State monopoly which makes a large amount of money for the taxpayer. Surely in the first instance the Post Office exists to provide postal facilities for the community, and it ought to pay good wages to its employés, who are contributors to the taxation.
    I think that it is rather the opposite view, which is so often being taken, that these sums are so large that therefore the amount which the taxpayer will receive will be diminished. That vitiates the standpoint from which this question has been approached so often. It is no part of the business of the Post Office to relieve the general taxpayer, and certainly not at the expense of these working men. How far has this Report, or the conclusion of this Report, gone to meet the purpose for which the Committee was appointed? On the 7th December, 1911, the Prime Minister stated that the Committee was appointed because of the recent increase in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living was the fundamental basis from which to approach the work. It was admitted on all sides that the Board of Trade figures—I might say in passing that whenever I have had an opportunity of investigating those figures I certainly think they are rather on the low side than on the high side—show that the increase in the cost of living has been 11.3 per cent. The hon. Member for Hexham argued at considerable length that the rise in wages in 1897 and 1898 had been considerable and that if you went back a considerable number of years you would find that there had been a large fall in prices since 1884. We know those figures. But, after all, no private employer in the country has been able to deal recently with wages on that basis. No private firm of employers who have had to increase their wages within the last three years on the ground of increased cost of living would have been able to argue that, because wages in 1884 were low and prices were high; therefore, the present rise in prices is not to be taken into consideration.
    Mr. HOLTmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not suppose that any private employer would bind himself
    1980
    not to reduce wages subsequently. My own experience is that the reduction of wages, when they are once raised, is a very doubtful proposition. Besides that, the hon. Member stated that a number of witnesses were not ready to agree to anything in the nature of a sliding scale, but he cannot get away from the fact that Mr. Stewart, who, after all, represents the largest number of men involved in the postal service, or a very large percentage, was ready to accept some condition of the kind. But that does not seem to me to-be a justification for raising wages about 4 per cent. where the cost of living has gone up 11.3 per cent., nor does it seem to me a justification for leaving maximum rates entirely where they are. After all, what is the grievance of the people with maximum rates I They are actually receiving to-day 11 per cent. less effectual wages than they received before the rise took place. Although they are doing the same or perhaps more work they are receiving less money than it was thought to be worth before the rise in prices took place. I cannot say that that seems to me to be a very happy conclusion to arrive at. I cannot see that it is fair to leave these people with no increase whatsoever in their wages because they happen to be at the maximum.
    It would take too long to go over a great deal of this now familiar ground, but there is a certain number of points which have been put before me by those engaged in the postal service in my district about which I would like to say a few words. One was the question of classification. The Member for Hexham said that the present system of classification was not perfect, but that it was probably as good a system as they could obtain. I beg respectfully to differ from him. The present system of classification is grossly unfair. Take the case of my own Constituents and their position on this index number. London is 100, Swansea is 95, Cardiff 93, Manchester 88, and Birmingham is 87. That is the index number of the cost of living. Cardiff, Manchester, and Birmingham are in the first class. Swansea is in the second class. Therefore, a man in Swansea is receiving pay on a much lower scale, though the cost of living is considerably higher. That results from the curious idea of units of work. A postman in Swansea who is occupied for eight hours a day carrying letters does as much work as the postman occupied for eight hours a day carrying

    1981
    letters in Birmingham and Liverpool. If there was more work in one place than the other there would have to be more postmen.
    Mr. HOLTmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' gallery.
    Sir A. MOND: He may do different kind of work, but he is doing the same number of hours of work. That was my point. After all, you have the men doing the same number of hours work, and the point that indoor work is more difficult is one as to which some doubt was expressed by the people themselves, because some of them are prepared to do more indoor work. But you fully employ the man, and the cost of living is higher, and it seems to me quite unfair to say that he is treated fairly by paying him the same wage as a man whose work is just the same, and the character of whose work is very similar, though not exactly similar, but who lives in a place where the cost of living is lower. It seems to me that a much fairer method of arriving at a result would be to take a combination of the cost of living and the average rate of wages paid in that district; because there, again, the hon. Member for Hexham said that he thought the Committee had come to the conclusion that the rate of wages which were paid were about the same as were being paid for a similar class of work in the district. I can assure him that, as far as Wales is concerned, that is not the case. I can assure him that the unskilled labourer at the age of twenty-two, doing anything like the same amount of work as a postman, would certainly be obtaining more money than 22s. 6d.; and if you go a little out to towns which I know very well you will find postmen aged twenty-two obtaining 20s. a week when I know that the lowest for which a private employer can get unskilled labour is 25s. a week, in my own experience.
    My criticism of the whole scale of pay laid down is that it is much too low in the earlier years. The rate of growth is too slow to deal with the present acceleration. It is too little to give a man of twenty-one in Class II. 21s. a week. A man cannot marry and feed a family on 21s. a week in these commercial centres. When a man is young and creates a family he wants a reasonably high wage, and it is no use asking him to wait until he is middle-aged before you put him to a really comfortable higher wage which he would not consider unreasonable. I think that this scale ought to be revived in the opposite
    1982
    sense, making it higher when people are young and bringing the maximum into-operation at an earlier date. Though something has been done, as the hon. Member said, in that direction, it seems to me that the maximum is still a long way off, and the people who have already reached the maximum are in a very poor condition indeed. I must confess that I am not at all impressed by the hon. Gentleman's defence in regard to women telegraphists, whose wages have not been increased at all. Apparently the fact was that the wages were compared with the wages of the women in the telephone service, and that, consequently, it was thought that they were getting enough in comparison. That, after all, is very inconclusive. The women telegraphists are working at a certain salary which is not comparable to the salaries that men telegraphists receive, and I submit that women telegraphists, in view of the work they do, are entitled to-be paid pro rata with other employés in the Post Office, having regard to the work they do. It is not a very large class of whom I speak, and I hope the Postmaster-General will see his way to remedy what-is a very grave injustice to women who-are working in the telegraph service. I was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) that the-Committee over which he presided do not desire that the man who works forty-eight hours should have a reduction-in his wages. But that is what is actually taking place. Instances have arisen in-which men whose hours have been reduced have been informed that they may work overtime in order that they may get back the money they had before. A more topsy-turvy idea I have never heard of than that a man whose hours are reduced is to have his wages decreased, and that he may work overtime to get back those wages. As I understand the Committee intended that a decrease of hours should not involve a decrease of wages, and I hope, that intention being quite clear, that the Postmaster-General will give attention to what is a serious grievance among the engineering staff and other men employed under those conditions.
    10.0 P.M.
    In regard to the telephone staff, I have received a complaint from a man who says that he is receiving to-day a much lower salary than he received when he was under the National Telephone Company, and that he is now receiving 27s., whereas formerly he was receivig 33s. Though we know what was the general intention, one

    1983
    can imagine that there are cases in which that intention has not been carried out in a manner in which that intention was stated in the House of Commons. I can only hope that the case of the telephone staff, particularly the non-established staff, will receive the consideration of the Postmaster-General. It is, of course, a most difficult and responsible task to deal with these very complicated and very difficult questions. Giving the subject the best attention I can, I do feel that there is still a considerable upward movement possible from the point at which the Holt Committee left it. I certainly think that the Post Office servants have still grievances which require to be remedied, and I would like to support the suggestion which has been made that a small Committee should be appointed which would arbitrate on those points and those grievances which still remain. I am sure that the Post Office servants are, on the whole, very loyal both to the public and to the State. I am sure the last thing they desire is to inconvenience the public or the service to which they belong by coming out on strike; but there is no use disguising the fact that there is a good deal of general discontent among men who have been long in the service, men who are reputable and respectable, and who feel that their case has not been met as fully as it ought to have been met. I trust, therefore, that the Postmaster-General will be able to see his way to appointing a small Committee to arbitrate upon and deal with a number of questions which still await investigation. No Member of Parliament can possibly enter into all those points, and it would certainly relieve the minds of hon. Members if the Postmaster-General appointed such a Committee; otherwise, I am afraid, many of us will find some difficulty in supporting the Report of the Committee, and the recommendations that have been based upon it.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Like other Members of the House who have preceded me, I feel considerable regret that only one day has been allocated to the discussion of this Report. Judging by the interest displayed in the Debate, and by the large number of Members who wish to speak on the subject, I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Government to give us another day for the discussion of the Report. I am informed that a definite promise has been
    1984
    given. May I ask the Postmaster-General whether the Government have decided to give us another day for this discussion?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: So far as I can gather, my hon. Friends behind me and hon. Gentlemen opposite generally desire that a second day should be allocated to the Post Office discussion. We have had a very full Debate, if not entirely, almost entirely, on the Holt Report, and a number of very interesting speeches have been made on both sides of the House, both of attack and defence. If another day is given for some further discussion of the Holt Report and for any criticisms or remarks Members may desire to offer on the Estimates pure and simple, I think that ought to satisfy the reasonable wishes and desires of the House. If that is the desire of hon. Members, on behalf of the Government I shall be very willing to give a second day.
    Mr. GOULDING: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a very large number of Members desire to take part in this discussion? They have been sitting here the whole day, and only a few speakers have addressed the Committee on the subject of the Report. Very few private Members have had an opportunity of speaking.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is precisely for that that I am giving a second day, though not exclusively for the discussion of the Holt Report, but also for the discussion of the Post Office Estimates. I think that quite recently there was a similar discussion upon the Report of the Committee of which I was the chairman, and on that occasion only one day was given.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that something like fifty Members want to speak upon the Report. The right hon. Gentleman and a few other Members have occupied four hours of the time, and very little has been left to Members of the Back Benches.
    Mr. FIELD: I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General that a great number of new subjects have arisen since the issue of the Hobhouse Report, and on this occasion there is scarcely a Member of the House who is not interested in asking him that another full day should be given for the discussion of the Report. I have had numerous letters, deputations, telegrams, and all that kind of thing, but we are absolutely dummies in this House.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give another day for the discussion of the Report, because a large number of Members desire to speak.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can assist the Committee in this matter. If another day is given for the Vote now under discussion, clearly hon. Members who catch the Chairman's eye, can speak on any subject in connection with the Vote, and there cannot be restriction of subjects as long as there are matters that appertain to the Vote.
    Mr. REMNANT: It is some years since we had any chance of taking part in a discussion on these questions of the Holt Committee and the Hobhouse Committee, and I do appeal to the Government to give us another day to deal with this matter exclusively. A large number of Members are anxious to speak on it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Government have no power in this matter. The fact is that it rests with hon. Members themselves as to what subjects upon which they may address the Committee, and there is no limitation in that respect except what hon. Members like themselves.
    Mr. POLLOCK: There are two important subjects, one the Holt Committee, and the other the question of the telephone. Both of those might well occupy debate for a day each. We claim that we should have the opportunity of a lull discussion of the Holt Report, and we say that the Government cannot shelter themselves from escape from criticism on the question of the telephone. They are both very important matters from the public point of view, and I hope that the Government will give us a full day for the Holt Committee, and also an opportunity of discussing the question of the telephone.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is it not the fact that the Government never settle what Supply goes down on Thursday, and it is an exceedingly bad precedent for this Committee to appeal for any Supply day. Supply is always arranged through what is commonly known as the usual channels, and if we desire two or three days for the Post Office Vote, that depends on the usual channels of arrangement.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: May I say that my Noble Friend has just asked for a day.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I am exceedingly sorry that the interruptions have not resulted in a more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman, and that adds one more to the thousand grievances that exist in connection with the telephone and Post Office service. I am sure the House sympathises with the disappointment that the Chairman of the Holt Committee must feel, that the conclusions his Committee arrived at have not met with the general acceptance either of the postal servants as a whole or of the large body of opinion in the House of Commons. I think it will be some satisfaction to him to know that there is not one Member in this House who does not view with sympathy, and who does not acknowledge the great complexity of the problem with which the Committee was faced, and those who have given the subject some attention, and who have studied the grievances and the aspirations of the Post Office servants, will, I am sure, give unfeigned admiration to the care and the consideration which the Committee have given to those grievances. I do not wish to make a general attack upon the conclusions of the Holt Committee, although I and some of my Friends do feel that in its incidence justice has not been done to many classes of the Post Office servants. I submit that whatever basis you may adopt as the foundation of the revision of your scale of increase, that that basis should operate equally and fairly among all classes of postal servants. I do not wish to argue that the conclusions are just, or that they are not just, but I do feel that in a number of cases in their operation, and in their incidence, they discriminate unfairly as against certain classes of the Post Office servants.
    Let me take an instance, the case of the indoor supervising staff. They number approximately 3,950 men. They are drawn from the rank and file of the Post Office servants. They have rendered faithful service to the country and are chosen from the fact of their exceptional capacity for their work. You have among this class postmasters and supervising superintendents, who are receiving and enjoying some of the plums of the profession and are holding important posts with very substantial salaries; but, on the other hand, you have got this great body of men, 2,494, who are only eligible for salaries varying, according to the office in which they work, from £140 to £190, and in the case of the supervising assistants, Class II., from £180 to a maximum of £260.

    1987
    There are therefore only 469 officers out of the total of 2,963 who can ever hope to arrive at a scale above £260. It is, of course, true that promotion takes place from the lower levels, but I would like to point out that those posts are exceedingly few in number, and the tendency is to decrease them while there is an increasing number of candidates for those posts. The result is a decrease in the rate of promotion. In the case of the overseers, and the assistant superintendents Class II., there is a steady decrease in their promotion. Between 1892 and 1896 the average number of years an overseer had to wait in order to get his promotion was only fifteen years, and now it is nearly twenty-two years, while the time an assistant superintendent Class II. had to wait at the same period has increased from twenty-two years to twenty-five years; the prospects have thus steadily decreased before their eyes, and they are feeling a bitter and continual disappointment of their hopes. Five-sixths of these overseers have already reached their maximum, and as far as I can judge, they are never likely to reach a higher level. It is obvious that those people want a mitigation, an immediate, mitigation, of the disadvantage they are suffering from rather than an increase in the remuneration of the position to which they are never likely to attain. The Holt Committee seem to have adopted the more unpopular Biblical maximum, to him that hath shall be given. Four assistant postmasters who were receiving from £520 to £600 are to receive from £550 to £650, and three who were receiving from £410 to £500 are to receive from £450 to £550, and four who were receiving from £360 to £450 are now to receive from £380 to £450. I have nothing to say against those gentlemen, and no doubt they have rendered very useful service. But the contrast between the generosity shown to these higher grades and the treatment of the overseers is very great. Of these officers, 1,135 will receive no advantage whatever from the increases under the scheme, and a great majority of the others will receive only infinitesimal amounts. Take the case of overseers: the only increase given to them is £5 on their minimum; and, so far as numbers are concerned, only twenty-two will receive any benefit under this heading. With regard to assistant superintendents, Class II., the minimum is raised by only £10. This will mean only a sum of about £100 a year in
    1988
    respect of these men. I make an appeal that this particular case should be reconsidered. In a number of cases these overseers and supervisors, who are exercising authority over the rank and file, are actually in receipt of salaries less than the maximum of those who are in lower grades than themselves. The cases of Bournemouth and Grimsby have been referred to, and the Postmaster-General has admitted that there are a large number of others where those in authority are receiving smaller salaries than those below them. The very fact that they are in positions of authority necessitates a higher standard of living, which is not compensated for by the salary they are receiving. Reference has been made to the transferred staff of the telephone service. I was sorry to hear that the chairman of the Committee did not see that there was any justice in the case of grievance which they have tried to establish. The Postmaster-General was under a pledge that they should not suffer through the transfer.
    Mr. HOLT: Nor have they.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I do not say that they have suffered in the matter of their immediate salary; they are receiving the salaries that they had when they were transferred; but their prospects have been materially interfered with in consequence 6f the classification under which they are being incorporated. They are placed in post offices where the units are graded by the amount of general post office work, and not by the standard of the telephone work. You may have men who have been receiving a high salary relegated to-offices where they have a small amount of general post office work and an accumulation of telephone work, and in these cases they get a small salary as compared with the post offices, where there is a large amount of general post office work and very little telephone work. I would give as illustrations Barrow and Carlisle. At Barrow you have comparatively little post office work and a great concentration of telephone work. It is on the lower grade, and the operator gets 24s. for his work. In Carlisle, where there is a great deal of post office work and very little telephone work, the operator gets 25s. The classification affects the prospects of advancement of these telephone men, because if they are graded to a lower office than that to which their salaries entitle them their promotion is I slower than it would otherwise be.

    1989
    It operates unfairly in the way of classification and grading. A man may be receiving 45s. He is brought from a much lower grade. Over 2,000 men are affected by this who are relegated to a much lower grade, where the men are getting only 25s., 26s., or 30s. a week. If these men of the lower grade get promotion it does not affect them at all, because they are only to get an increase if their maximum of 45s. has been reached. If there is promotion and they are promoted to a higher grade, and that higher grade maximum is under the 45s. which they are receiving, they still come in for no benefit, although their responsibilities are very largely increased. That system in itself is ample justification for the suggestion to do away with the classification between postmen, telephone people, and telegraphists by separate offices for post office, telephone, and telegraphic work.
    Finally, I should like to make reference, and briefly, to the case of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. I was, indeed, very sorry to hear from the Chairman of the Holt Committee that he could feel no sympathy whatever with this class, which represent 22,000 men and women in the country. I admit that a large number of them are, or have been, in a fair way of business, and that they have only taken the Post Office work as an auxiliary. We are told, however, by many of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses that the now services that have been imposed upon them by the Post Office are accumulating vastly, so much so, that their appoinments are really full-time work, and that at present they are working eight hours a day for the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. I could give him many illustrations. I do not suggest for a moment that the Committee have dealt unjustly with this class. On the contrary, they have suggested that between £140,000 and £150,000 per year should be given to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. If they get that amount, it would be an average of £7 10s., which in itself would be satisfactory. But as the hon. Member for Sheffield has pointed out, there are considerable reductions to be made which cannot be taken into consideration at all. Sounding instruments have been, and are rapidly being, done away with, and are being replaced by the telephone, and that will amount to £45,000 out of the £140,000. References have also been made to the National Insurance work. Twenty-three thousand
    1990
    pounds is alloted for that. As has been pointed out, that is not an increase, that is for services rendered. In fact, there is this great complaint, that they are not receiving per unit sufficient for the work in connection with the Insurance Act.
    It is admitted, as the hon. Member mentioned, that on the unit scale it takes much more time to sell a pound's worth of stamps for insurance purposes than for ordinary purposes, and these men will tell you that the work for insurance purposes is much more intricate, because they are accustomed to people buying a shilling's-worth or sixpence worth of ordinary postage stamps. But that is not the way they have to deal with insurance stamps. Halfpennies come into the calculation, and there are 4½d. and 6½d. stamps, and the business is more intricate and they are more liable to losses than when dealing with ordinary postage stamps. That is brought to our notice frequently. When these people get a sheet of insurance stamps the postmaster is immediately debited with the full amount, and he has to account for that amount. In many cases the difficulty of accounting for the sale of insurance stamps accurately is so great that in one London post office the postmaster sold over £6,000 worth of these stamps and for that the emoluments allowed him was £5, but he actually lost on account of the sale of these stamps £4 so that for the whole of his hard work he had only £1.
    There is this feature in connection with these sub-postmasters which I should like to refer to: Sixty per cent. of the sub-postmasters in this country only receive £1 a week—£50 a year. I might mention the case of a man in my own Constituency, a sub-postmaster who only receives £60 a year, though he has been in the service of the country for forty years. He carries on no other business than that of sub-postmaster. He has had to find suitable premises to satisfy the Post Office authorities; he has bad to pay for the whole of the furniture; he has had to pay rent, lighting, and heating of the shop. He has had to pay for pens, paper, blotting paper. He gets no sick allowance, no pension, and if he is ill he has to pay a substitute. And if he cannot find a substitute and applies to the Post Office, and they send down a man, he has to receive payment at the rate of his ordinary pay. These men have to find their own clerks to carry out their own telegrams. In my own case I live up a hill,

    1991
    and I have had considerable sympathy when I saw that man, especially before the election and after the election, having to bring telegrams and deliver them himself. I do not wish to emphasise the case further, except to say I do believe there are legitimate grievances in the case of these people which ought to be redressed. I think that in deciding how we should deal with these cases no better suggestion could have been made than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, when he suggested that a small Arbitration Board, composed of a Member of the Government, a representative Post official, with possibly the Industrial Commissioner as Chairman, should be appointed to inquire and decide whether the standard which the Holt Committee set up for arriving are adequate or not to the conditions laid down. I hope the suggestion of my hon. Friend will receive general acceptance both by the House and the Government.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Not infrequently hon. Members rise in all parts of the House and claim the indulgence of the House, but I think I may do so with very good reason, because I am placed in a somewhat exceptional position. Many years ago I was an advocate in this House of the grievances of Post Office servants, and through my endeavours the Committee known as the Hobhouse Committee was appointed. At that time I was given to understand by the employés' officials that they would be perfectly satisfied if they could have an appeal to their employers, and that in the event of the House of Commons being allowed to deal with their case that would, in all probability, settle the question. That was what I was authorised to say at that time. After about five years had elapsed a demand was made for another Committee. Let me say that the postal officials were at the time very well satisfied with the result of the Hobhouse Committee, but nevertheless they approached the late Postmaster-General and asked for another Committee. I used my influence with my right hon. Friend in favour of granting that Committee, and it was appointed by the Members of this House, but now hon. Members wish to throw over the recommendations of that Committee. The case made here to-day is not against the Department or against my right hon. Friend, but it is against the Committee of
    1992
    the House of Commons appointed by the House. In face of that we are asked by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) to form an outside Committee of a certain character. Is there any probability that a Committee outside would give greater satisfaction than a Committee inside the House. On this point my right hon. Friend has already quoted the spokesman of the officials, who stated distinctly that they wished to have a Committee of this House. Therefore I cannot see that any of the suggested Committees would have a better result. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) suggested that in every Parliament at the beginning of every Session a Committee of twenty-one should be appointed to deal automatically with this question. Again I fail to see that a Committee of twenty-one would have a greater chance of success than the Committee of nine which has been formed.
    Sir G. PARKER: Really the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be fair. Not a single hon. Member of this House has suggested that the Holt Committee's Report should not be accepted. What we have stated is that there are certain omissions which ought to be put right, and that there are certain inequalities in their awards which ought to be adjusted. No one has suggested that the Committee's Report should be repudiated, because many of the awards are perfectly satisfactory.
    Captain NORTON: I rather took it that hon. Members opposite were severely criticising the Holt Report, and were not satisfied with it, and that practically amounts to a rejection of the Report. The Report must either be accepted or rejected. The hon. Member for Gravesend spoke of Post Office profits, and on this point I should like to read a statement made by my right hon. Friend to the postal officials. He said:—
    "The Post Office is not like a private business. Parliament has established a monopoly and fixed certain rates of postage. If Parliament chooses to relax that monopoly or reduce those rates, the profit would disappear. It does not do so because it desires to retain for the Exchequer the profit so made."
    Precisely so. If we were to act in a converse manner, seeing that there is a great deficit for telegrams in consequence of sixpenny telegrams having been introduced, the converse would be the case, and we should have to reduce the wages of the men and women employed in the tele-

    1993
    graph service. I scarcely think the House of Commons would approve of that. Then the hon. Member for Gravesend also spoke of the question of areas, and mentioned Colchester and Ipswich. I find, as a matter of fact, that at both places the maximum is increased by 2s. Then I come to the question of classification. That question of classification was acknowledged by the Holt Committee not to be perfect. It is based, as was explained, upon the unit system, that is to say, the volume of work in conjunction with the cost of living and the general standard of living. The Holt Committee recognised that there must be some system of classification, and my right hon. Friend has now the matter in hand, and is reorganising or recasting the whole of the outdoor classification. That will make a very great deal of difference practically throughout the country. That will be done within two years of the Holt Committee's Report. My right hon. Friend is now engaged on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pointer) went at great length into the cost of living. We in the Post Office do not deny, nor do the Holt Committee, nor would anyone in this House deny the fact that the cost of living and the standard of living have gone up all over the country. It is true that the cost of living, as taken from the Board of Trade, has gone up a little over eleven, and that the amount granted by the Committee is four and a decimal, but the cost of living may be taken out in various ways. We in the Post Office take it out on a slightly different scale, but everybody in dealing with his own individual town, or his own individual constituency, if he were permitted to draw his own conclusions, would bring up the cost of living to whatever figure he might fancy. Therefore, we must go upon something definite, and in order to do that we had to fix upon a certain standard, and we must seek the co-operation of the Board of Trade. Therefore, this system of classification cannot be introduced as rapidly as hon. Members might think. My hon. Friend also compared our telegraphists with the telegraphists in cable companies. They do quite a different class of work, and they work at very high pressure. Let me point out that our telegraphists occupy an excellent position. Their maximum goes up to 60s. per week, and those who have certain technical qualifications, and linguistic qualifications, go up to 70s. per week. Those cannot be said to be poor wages.
    Mr. POINTER: May I ask how the hon. Gentleman proves that the cable work is altogether different, since practically the whole of the cable telegrams are either handed in at the Post Office, or end there.
    Captain NORTON: There is a great difference between serving a private company and serving the Post Office. The Post Office officials have certain statutory rights. They have a great number of privileges which are not given to these men who serve private companies. Moreover, and the most important feature of all, they have continuity and certainty of employment.
    Mr. POINTER: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I understood him to say the type of work performed by telegraphists in the postal service was totally different from that done in the Cable Companies' service. I asked him how he proved that, seeing that the cables dealt with by the Cable Companies' servants usually originated in or came through the Post Office,
    Captain NORTON: They work in the Cable Companies at a slightly higher pressure, and in consequence they get the very best men. The question of auxiliary postmen was raised by my hon. Friend, who also complained that certain established postmen only got 22s. a week at the age of twenty-three. We contend that the men getting these wages are men who work in rural districts and out-of-the-way places, where 22s. is considered a fair wage and compares very favourably with the current wage in the locality. There are large numbers of men employed, not only as agricultural labourers, but as gardeners, and in other fairly important employments within a hundred miles of London who are very glad to get wages of 22s. a week. Then as regards the engineering staff. I need not go into details with reference to these matters, as the Chairman of the Holt Committee (Mr. Holt) has already done so, but I may point out that whereas formerly we employed a large number of unskilled men who were unestablished and some skilled men also who were unestablished, we have now diminished the number of unestablished men by no fewer than 2,500. We are, in fact, gradually doing away with the unestablished man as far as possible, and bringing him on to the establishment where, of course, his position is far better. He gets all the advantages of

    1995
    being on the establishment, and also slightly increased wages, and therefore we are bettering the whole class.
    Mr. WILES: Do the Post Office propose to continue this policy of increasing the number on the establishment?
    Captain NORTON: How much further we can go is a matter for consideration. I am only pointing out that as a result of the Holt Report we have quite recently reduced the number of unestablished men by some 2,500. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) drew attention to the difference between the scale of pay for Liverpool and Birkenhead. That was dealt with by my hon. Frend the Chairman of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the disparity between Wimbledon and Carshalton. I would point out with reference to the London area that it would be an extremely difficult thing to put the entire postal staff within the 12-mile radius on one basis. I recollect that many years ago the pressure for house room in London was very great indeed, in consequence of the growth of London and the absence of the rapid communication which we now have by means of tramways and motor omnibuses. As an advocate in this House of Government employés generally, and knowing' the difficulty the London police had in finding house room sufficiently near their stations, I succeeded in obtaining for the police what was known as a "rent aid." That rent aid was fixed upon a double basis; the men who lived in the central portion of the metropolis had a rent aid of 2s. 6d., and those who lived in the outer ring received a rent aid of 1s. 6d. Shortly afterwards the extension of the London tramways enabled a large number of the men to go into the outer districts, but almost immediately the authorities were confronted with a new demand. Men who had formerly been my own Constituents, and who had moved into the outer circle, complained most bitterly that they were very much worse off in the outer circle than in the inner circle. They said, "When we were your constituents we could walk into the Walworth Road and buy everything we wanted at the cheapest possible figure, whereas now we are in the position that we, or our wives, or some member of our families are obliged, in order to do our housekeeping on Saturday, to pay a tram
    1996
    way fare into the centre of London and a tramway fare out, otherwise we are obliged to buy our provisions on the spot and to pay ever so much more." Therefore, it will be seen that the difficulty of drawing any line that will give complete satisfaction to employés in this respect is immensely difficult, and the most we can do is to form more or less arbitrary boundaries.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Why is it not possible to have one uniform scale for the different areas in the county of London and round it?
    Captain NORTON: For the very good reason that if we had a uniform scale it would not give satisfaction. Again, the line of demarcation would be extremely difficult. You would alter the character of the work, you would increase the difficulty of the allocation of duties, it would involve a complicated variety in the scales of pay, and you would not get rid of the borderline anomalies.
    Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: It would be less complicated than at present.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Why not take the Metropolitan Police area?
    Captain NORTON: Whether you take the London police area, the four-mile radius, the twelve-mile radius, the London Metropolitan radius or the London telephone radius, any one of those radii would involve the same difficulties. That must be apparent to the hon. Gentleman, who knows London so well. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) asked what would be the cost for all the claims which were laid before us by the employés if we acceded to them. As nearly as we can calculate it would come to about £10,000,000 sterling annually.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: What I asked for was that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should supply figures of what it would cost to meet each of these claims individually, because we recognise that some of these claims are much more just, and that much more can be said for them than others.
    Captain NORTON: I quite understand. I think that can be done, and that we shall be able to supply them. I was only pointing out that in the aggregate they would amount, I think, immediately to the large sum of £10,000,000 a year,

    1997
    which would swallow up the whole of our surplus and leave us with a deficit of £5,000,000 or therabout. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wiles) asked that we should have another day. My right hon. Friend has already conceded that demand.
    Mr. WILES: Will that be a reasonably close date?
    Captain NORTON: I am afraid my right hon. Friend could not promise that. That must be left to be arranged through the usual channels. He also asked with reference to Press messages in connection with telegraphs. It is true that the Press has a very great advantage, and that Press telegrams do not yield much to the postal exchequer. I may add that quite recently the late Postmaster-General received a deputation from Press representatives pressing for still greater facilities, but it must be remembered, in justice to the Press, that they serve the public. This is for the public convenience, and it is only just and right that they should have greater consideration shown to them.
    Mr. WILES: I was not complaining of the Press using the Post Office. All I asked for was an amount showing whether Press messages were sent at a great loss.
    Captain NORTON: I am afraid that is so.
    Sir R. ESSEX: Does the Postmaster-General propose to increase these charges?
    Mr. WILES: Could we have a statement of that?
    Captain NORTON: I think that would be possible. My hon. Friend also asked what was the Post Office capital and what was the rate of interest. I have consulted the Treasury authorities, and they tell me that they have never been able accurately to fix what the Post Office capital is, and as a consequence they have been unable to fix the rate of interest. The hon. Member (Mr. Brady) spoke on the question of decentralisation in Ireland. The Postmaster-General entirely agrees with him and is most anxious to decentralise as far as possible. Then he touched upon the question of promotion. This is a most difficult and delicate question, and the Postmaster-General and the officials at the General Post Office who have to deal with those matters gave the most careful attention to it. We did our very best, but it is almost impossible to give satisfaction in the matter of promotion. You cannot deal with promotion
    1998
    altogether by seniority. You cannot deal with it altogether by merit. It must be dealt with on the basis on seniority tempered by selection. That is the only true method of promotion, and we endeavour to do that, so far as in our power lies.
    With reference to the question of auxiliary labour which was raised by the hon. Member for Stephen's Green, I may say that we are doing all we can to diminish gradually auxiliary labour and to form what we call full-time posts, but that necessarily takes a certain amount of time, because we are unwilling to do injustice to any individual postal servant. It is also very hard to take away a man who has been doing his duty successfully and to remove him from duty through no fault of his own. There are many cases, where we hesitate to make full time duty, because if we did we should be obliged to put on an established man and do an injustice to a man who has served for many years. The hon. Member also referred to the question of overtime. I may say that it is our duty to reduce overtime everywhere as much as possible. But let me put this point: In many instances it not only suits the working of the Post Office to have a little overtime, but it is a great boon to many of the postal officials, and they would be very sorry to lose this overtime. There are cases of men who, practically in the prime of life, with large families, and being full of energy, desire to work; and it is a great boon to them—perhaps having no great desire for leisure—to be able to take this work in order that they may get the wages at a time of life when they need the money most.
    Mr. FIELD: Does that apply to the Belfast case?
    Captain NORTON: No; I think that was an exceptional case. My hon. Friend also asked about female assistant clerks. The class to which he referred is not at present going to be established in Ireland. Therefore, the grievance he feared does not arise. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Captain Gilmour) drew attention to the question of K company. My views are entirely his. It is extremely hard that these men, who are practically doing Post Office work, though as soldiers, when they automatically come into the Post Office should cease to get credit for the work they have done for the Post Office. I was very much delighted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke also of the larger question. When I was

    1999
    at the Treasury, prior to holding my present appointment, I had previously taken a special interest in the case of men who had served as soldiers and passed on into the Customs or the Post Office. I endeavoured to see if something could not be done for them when I went to the Treasury. It is a matter that can only be dealt with by legislation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to bring forward legislation. I think it is a scandal—if I may use so strong a word—that the larger question is not dealt with. It is not dealt with
    2000
    for this reason. When I went to the Treasury they were quite willing and thought it quite fair—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 4th May.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Customs Watchers.
  Customs Watchers.
ROYAL NAVY.
  LIEUTENANT-COMMANDER.
  LIEUTENANT-COMMANDER.
BRITISH ARMY.
  GENEVA CROSS.
  GENEVA CROSS.
  Securities (Depreciation).
  Securities (Depreciation).
  Speed Limit (Sidney Butler, Conviction).
  Speed Limit (Sidney Butler, Conviction).
  Shipbuilding Yards (Factory and Workshops Act Regulations).
  Shipbuilding Yards (Factory and Workshops Act Regulations).
  Stipendiary Magistrates' Courts.
  Stipendiary Magistrates' Courts.
  Ministers (Police Protection).
  Ministers (Police Protection).
  Anthrax (Fatal Cases).
  Anthrax (Fatal Cases).
  Criminal Investigation Department.
  Criminal Investigation Department.
  Inebriate Reformatory, Perth.
  Inebriate Reformatory, Perth.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Lunatics, Ireland (Capitation Grant).
  Lunatics, Ireland (Capitation Grant).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
POST OFFICE.
  CLASSES OF EMPLOYÉS (ANNUAL COST).
  CLASSES OF EMPLOYÉS (ANNUAL COST).
  BOLTON WORK.
  BOLTON WORK.
  Preserved Cream (Boracic Acid).
  Preserved Cream (Boracic Acid).
TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  LONDON AND PROVINCIAL EXTENSIONS.
  LONDON AND PROVINCIAL EXTENSIONS.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—
Army (Annual).
Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund) Order Confirmation.
Alexander Scott's Hospital and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation.
East Ham Corporation.
South Metropolitan Cemetery Company.
Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation.
British Gas Light Company (Hull Station).
Crystal Palace.

BARONIES OF FERRERS, BOURCHIER AND COMPTON.
Petition of Charles Vere Townshend Mainwaring-Ellerker-Onslow praying that he may be allowed to refer in his printed case and in any proceedings which may follow in this House to the proceedings in the Kinloss Peerage case; read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BRISTOL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.

    RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL.
    HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

CHELMSFORD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 24th of February last and the 31st of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
STOURBRIDGE NAVIGATION BILL.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
DEE CONSERVANCY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
SWINDON CORPORATION (WILTS AND BERKS CANAL ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  PORTHCAWL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]

    WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WIMBLEDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Digby be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Hambleden; read, and agreed to.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL. [H.L.]
Petitions in favour of;—of the Lutterworth Temperance Society;—the Cardiff Women's Liberal Association;—the Lyme Regis Temperance Society;—the Stoke-on-Trent Central National British Women's Temperance Association.
GREY SEALS (PROTECTION) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday the 12th of May (The Lord Charnwood).
COAL MINES (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Monday the 18 th of May next.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE.
The Lord Barnard added to the Select Committee.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PRESERVATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, all these Amendments are purely drafting. I propose to ask the House to re-commit the Bill for this day week, the object being, if the House agrees to-day to pass the Bill through Committee without amendment, to put in the Amendments on Report and have the Bill reprinted as amended.
Bill reported without amendment.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 11 to 18 inclusive, and insert ("From the Royal Maternity Hospital of Edinburgh, the Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, the Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen, the Maternity Hospital, Dundee, the Obstetrical Society of London, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the Coombe Lying-in Hospital, and Guinness's Dispensary, the Rotunda Hospital for the Relief of Poor Lying-in Women of Dublin, the Central Midwives Board for England, or such other certificate as may be approved by the Central Midwives Board of Scotland; or produces evidence satisfactory to that Board, that at the passing ").
Clause 5, page 4, line 36, after ("a") insert ("registered")
Clause 5, page 4, line 38, leave out (" deciding ") and insert (" defining ")
Clause 5, page 4, page 5, line 2, leave out (" thirteen ") and insert (" eighteen ").
Clause 6, page 5, line 27, leave out (" deciding ") and insert (" defining ")
Clause 6, page 5, line 29, leave out (" including ") and insert (" shall include")
Clause 6, page 5, line 32, leave out ("striking her name off") and insert (" removing her name from ").
Clause 7, page 6, line 20, leave out ("authority ") and insert (" local supervising authority ").
Clause 12, page 7, line 18, after (" to ") insert (" either division of ").
Clause 15, page 8, line 22, leave out (" to ") and insert ("of").
Clause 18, page 10, line 18, after (" do ") insert (" and of the address at which she resides ").
Clause 22, page 11, line 18, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" five ")
Clause 22, page 11, line 21, after (" fee ") insert (" with due allowance for mileage ")
Clause 22, page 11, line 23, leave out (" with due allowance for mileage ")
Clause 22, page 11, line 30, after (" a ") insert (" registered ")
Clause 22, page 11, page 12, lines 12 to 16, leave out Clause 26.
Clause 29, page 12, line 24, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" five ").
Clause 30, page 12, leave out lines 28 to 33 inclusive.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 68.)

PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

SOMALILAND.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in rising to call attention to recent affairs in Somali-land, I make no apology for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the Protectorate has been so vacillating during the past few years that it needs considerable elucidation. On the other hand; I cannot claim the advantage possessed by several of your Lordships of a personal acquaintance with the country, and I desire to say quite frankly at the outset that my information has been derived from a study of the two Blue-books and of the debates in this House and in another place, and from those who have recently visited the country or have had long acquaintance with it in former years. In the last debate on this subject which took place in your Lordships' House a little more than four years ago, Lord Curzon stated that the Blue-book of 1910 was a "record of a rather painful and discreditable tale," and that it "left a distinctly unpleasant taste in the mouth." I do not know how he would describe that tale to-day, but I suspect that he will not strongly disagree with me when I say that it is by far the most discreditable tale that the recent history of this Empire can produce. We have sacrificed many lives; we have sacrificed prestige; we have abandoned our obligations; we have allowed a Protectorate of the British Crown to fall into a state that would be a disgrace to any possession belonging to a third-class Power.
I ask your Lordships to bear with me while I briefly sketch the events which led up to the present state of affairs. We took over Somaliland from the Egyptian Government in 1884 and declared a Protectorate over it, chiefly, I think, with a view to prevent any other great Power from taking possession over a country so close to Aden, which is only about 160 miles away. Treaties were made by Mr. Gladstone's Government with about two-thirds of the population of 300,000. The country is a large one. It has an area of 68,000 square miles, considerably larger

1145
than England and Wales, and it is inhabited by tribes of nomads who move about from place to place in search of water for their flocks and herds. The text of our treaties with the so-called friendly tribes is as follows—
"The British Government is desirous of maintaining and strengthening relations of peace and friendship with the tribes, and in compliance with their wish undertakes to extend to them and to the territories under their authority and jurisdiction the gracious favour and protection of Her Majesty the Queen-Empress."
Your Lordships will observe that we extended to them the protection of the British Crown. Those treaties have never been rescinded, and, so far as we are aware, the protection which was then guaranteed to the friendly tribes of Somali-land should still be in force.
Let us see how we have carried out our obligations. When the present Government came into power Somaliland, like Ireland, was comparatively quiet and prosperous. As in Ireland, cattle-driving was not unknown, but raids were neither frequent nor serious, and the Mullah was causing little trouble. In 1908, however, the Mullah wrote an impertinent letter to the British Commissioner, Captain Cordeaux, one of the ablest of the many able men who have served the Crown in Somaliland, demanding our evacuation of the Ain Valley, the most important valley in Somaliland, where there is always pasture for flocks, and also the evacuation of our post at Bohotleh. As a result of this letter the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, approved of Captain Cordeaux's proposal to blockade the Warsangeli coast, and sent a reinforcement of 1,500 men from Aden, Uganda, Nyasaland, and the East African Protectorate. It is only fair to Captain Cordeaux to say that he pointed out at the time, and it was also pointed out by Colonel Gough, the Inspector-General of the King's African Rifles, that these measures could not offer any degree of finality; and events subsequently proved that they were perfectly right.
Although we knew that the Mullah had received a letter from the head of his sect at Mecca denouncing him as a religious impostor, and although many of his followers were deserting him, our Government in November, 1909, decided to evacuate the interior and to retire to the
1146
coast. Just before that, Sir Reginald Wingate and Sir Rudolph Slatin were sent out there by the Government to make a report as to the future policy regarding Somaliland, but we have never been permitted to see that report; and I do not think the noble Marquess will deny that not a single expert was in favour of evacuation, unless, perhaps, I include in that category Mr. Winston Churchill, who spent twenty-four hours in the country two years before. The last debate in this House occurred just after this evacuation had taken place. Lord Curzon, in the course of the speech which be then delivered and which I can only call prophetic, used these words—
" Experience teaches us that evacuation is often of a precarious and delusive character. It is ignominious at the time and not effective in the future."
And he went on to say that—
"He would be a bold man who would say that by this act of evacuation we had said the last of Somaliland."
Both the noble Earl and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, deplored this evacuation, not only for its effect in Somaliland but throughout the whole of North-East Africa. Although Lord Crewe, in direct opposition to the advice of every one of the men on the spot with the possible exception of Sir William Manning, believed that in a short space of time the friendlies would combine and be able to resist the Mullah, the very opposite has happened. For a considerable time the friendlies, not unnaturally, could not believe that we had broken our word. They have learned it now by bitter experience. In two years one-third of the male population of the friendly tribes had been exterminated either by Dervish raids or inter-tribal fighting. So does the Government preserve the pax Britannica!
The effect on other parts of Africa was no less disastrous. It spread, as my noble friend Lord Hindlip will presently show, to the Merehan and other tribes in British East Africa, and its effect was felt even as far off as Uganda, more than 1,000 miles away. A friend of mine was travelling in that country at the time the evacuation was taking place, and he was treated by a tribe in a way in which he had never been treated before during several years sojourn in that country. He inquired why this tribe had taken such a hostile attitude,

1147
and the reply was that it was owing to the fact that the Mullah had driven us into the sea in Somaliland, and, of course, he would do the same elsewhere. My friend had not heard of the evacuation in Somali-land at that time, and that was the way in which it came to his knowledge. Mr. Byatt, the Commissioner in 1912, reported exactly this day two years ago that " the policy of coastal concentration had been given a full and complete trial and had failed"; that the position was going from bad to worse; that the spirit of disorder was even spreading to the coast, and that a state of general anarchy prevailed. He foretold trouble in the towns, and once again the man on the spot was right. Within four months of the writing of that report a raid had taken place within seven miles of B3rbera, and this year we read of shots having been fired into Berbera itself by a party of Dervishes.
The present Secretary of State then d3cided that something had to be done. He resolved to raise a Camel Corps 150 strong, and the Somalis were encouraged to believe that the Government " intended to revive the status quo and to reoccupy the former posts in the interior." Once again native subjects of the King were deliberately deceived as to the policy of His Majesty's Government. Although the Somalis were encouraged to believe that the Government intended to revive the status quo and to occupy former posts in the interior, the Camelry were at first limited to a radius of action of fifty miles from Berbera. It is quite obvious that that was a very different policy from reoccupying the posts in the interior. It is hardly necessary to add that the policy of taking an area of that character was found to be absolutely impossible. Lord Crewe, four years ago, himself said that "the only two possible policies are those of a great military reoccupation of the country or of the withdrawal to the coast." It is hardly necessary to point out to your Lordships that it is impossible to make it clear to the native mind that this country will be responsible only up to a certain point from the coast and no further. Either we have to exercise our control over the whole of the British Protectorate, or we must decide to sit upon the coast or even to evacuate the country altogether. Of course, the fifty miles limit was at once broken. Naturally when a raid took place 51, or 52, or 60 miles away something had to be done.
1148
Within a very few weeks of the raising of the Camelry, and with the knowledge and consent of the Colonial Secretary, the Camelry were sent to Hargeisa, 95 miles south-west of Berbera, and thence, also with the Colonial Secretary's knowledge and consent, to Burao, 80 miles southeast from Berbera. And then the inevitable happened. A raid of Dervishes took place. They were engaged by the Camel Corps, and Mr. Corfield unfortunately was killed. But for his death the action of Dul Madoba would have been hailed as a great victory for which the Colonial Office would have taken credit. What happened was this. With a force of 119 partially-trained men over 2,000 Dervishes were repulsed with a loss of probably not less than 400 killed besides the wounded. They were so badly shaken that raids, I believe, ceased for a considerable period. I am not going to deny that Mr. Corfield disobeyed orders in actually attacking the Dervishes, but I am going to say that the orders given him were obviously wrong, and that the position in which he was placed was an impossible one. He was ordered with the whole force to make a strong reconnaissance of the Dervishes. Whoever heard of a strong reconnaissance being made against natives when there was no intention of attacking them afterwards? It is perfectly obvious that word would at once have gone out that the British force had looked at the Dervishes, were frightened, and ran away.
It has been said over and over again that the safety of British officials depends upon the prestige of this country. Where would have been the prestige of this country in that case? What prestige would have been left to them if they had merely made a strong reconnaissance and then, as I have said, been accused of running away? Supposing no strong reconnaissance had been ordered, the Dervishes would have realised that they could make a severe raid within 30 miles of Burao, which was then occupied by the Camelry, and that nothing would be done to them. As has always happened with the Dervishes, they would have become more daring as time went on, and the next thing we should have heard would have been that Burao itself had been attacked. It has been suggested that the proper course would have been in the case of a Dervish raid for the Camelry to retreat. But if your Lordships will picture to yourselves what a

1149
retreat through that sort of country would mean, you will realise how absurd the suggestion was. The force would probably have had to proceed in single file, there being a considerable amount of baggage, and in their retirement from Burao there would have been many friendly natives who would have had to fly and who would have got in their way and made the possibility of any serious resistance quite impossible.
What was the attitude of the Colonial Secretary? Instead of acknowledging that he was responsible for the impossible situation in which the Camelry were placed, he threw the whole blame on Mr. Corfield. He even went so far as to pretend that he did not know why the Camel Corps were so far from Berbera, when he himself had proposed—in a Despatch written, I think, five months before—that they should move in the direction of Ber, 100 miles from the coast and only 15 miles from the scene of the action at Dul Madoba. He has gone one stage further in the policy of washing his hands of the responsibility for his policy. Not very long ago he ordered an officer, with a totally inadequate force, to undertake the extremely dangerous task of disarming some powerful tribes in British East Africa, and he accompanied the order for that disarmament by the further statement that he would hold the officer personally responsible if any outbreak occurred. So does he support the men on the spot!
I pass from the question of Mr. Corfield to the general policy in regard to Somali-land. What is happening there now? On February 25 this year the Colonial Secretary announced in the House of Commons that the Camel Corps would be increased to 400 or 500 and be based on Burao, which is 80 miles from the coast. Let me quote to your Lordships what Colonel Seely, then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, said when announcing the policy of evacuation—
"I will ask any hon. Member who takes an interest in military strategical questions, Is it a wise plan for a country which depends so much upon prestige as we of necessity do, to have 200 or 300 men 140 miles from the sea, all alone in the midst of the people of Somaliland, who at any moment might, though I do not think they will, adopt a hostile attitude."
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, speaking on the same subject—and really I could almo3t quote the speech that the noble
1150
Marquess made in 1910 from beginning to end as a severe criticism of the present policy of His Majesty's Government—said that "the policy of occupation and administration has entirely broken down." And again he said that Sir Reginald Wingate's report had impressed on the Government "the uselessness and impossibility of maintaining the present state of things"—that is, the holding of posts in the interior with a small force. Then why have His Majesty's Government reinstituted that policy?
Your Lordships will observe that the Government have "looped the loop" in their policy. They occupied Burao up to 1910. Then they withdrew to the coast and the country was given over to anarchy. Our prestige suffered a severe rebuff, and the effect was considerable over the whole of the possessions of the British Crown, especially over the whole of North-East Africa. Then we proceeded to go into the interior again, first of all with a force which was absolutely courting defeat, and now we proceed to strengthen that force somewhat, and to leave it, as Colonel Seely said, in a helpless position right up in the middle of Somaliland 80 miles from the coast. I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in the statement he made in 1910, that there are only two possible policies—evacuation or adequate military protection. The present policy is neither the one nor the other. It has been said that Somaliland is a perfectly useless country, and that it is not worth our while to spend a great deal of money to pacify it. I have seen a report lately in the newspapers—I do not know how far it is true—that oil has been found within forty miles of Berbera, which, of course, would considerably change the position. Somaliland, from being at present a more or less useless country, would at once become of enormous value, not only from a material, but, of course, also from a strategical point of view. But even if there is no oil to be found in Somaliland, even if it is a perfectly useless country, surely we have to consider the policy of this great Empire from a rather different point of view. I have always understood that Providence has shown over and over again that it has no use for the man who takes his hand from the plough, and it has also no use for the country that looks back.

1151
This country has undertaken, for better or for worse, a protectorate over Somali-land. If we are going to say that we merely occupy countries because they are of value to us, we are at once giving up the idea of the "white man's burden," and we are giving up that ideal, which I think we should hold most dearly in this country, that wherever the British Flag flies peace and prosperity and liberty are given to the natives under our control as far as it is reasonably possible to do so If you decide to evacuate, then the treaties which have been made by the friendly tribes must be abrogated. You cannot allow these treaties to stand and not fulfil your obligations under them. Further, it is obvious, I think, that we must declare to the world at large that the Protectorate of British Somali-land exists no longer, and that if Abyssinia, or Italy, or France desires to extend its boundaries in that part of the world, we, at any rate, shall make no comment. We must also, of course, be prepared to face again atrocities unspeakable, such as occurred when we took up the policy of coastal concentration, as it was euphemistically called.
If we are to resume adequate military control, the first thing that we have to do, I suggest—and it is a suggestion that has been made to me by several of those who know the country fairly intimately—is to build a light railway of not less than 3 feet gauge from Berbera to Burao, and possibly eventually to Bohotleh. There would be some difficulty about it, because the ground rises very abruptly in places. I am told, however, that the engineering difficulties are by no means insuperable, and that a railway would not be a very expensive thing to construct. Only so can we really see that the friendly tribes are properly protected both from each other and from the Mullah, and only so can we fulfil the obligations we undertook in 1884. I do not want to dwell on the subject further. I trust that your Lordships will forgive me for having occupied so much of your time in view of the extraordinary vacillating policy of the Government, and the fact that we have had no information why the policy which was given up in 1910 should be reverted to at the present time.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to recent affairs in Somaliland.— (Earl Stanhope.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree with the noble Earl opposite that no apology is needed for introducing Somaliland once more as a subject for consideration in your Lordships' House. For many years the question of our policy there has been an extremely difficult one. I must confess that I do not agree with some of the rather extravagant language that the noble Earl has used about the policy of His Majesty's Government. I do not want to treat this matter any more than I can help as a Party question. If I did want so to treat it, I might refer to what was done by the late Government in years gone by. But what I feel very strongly about the question is that as regards Somaliland neither Party is precisely in a position to throw stones at the other. Both Parties have set up policies which they have at any rate altered. I agree entirely that the position is a difficult one to-day, and I shall, before I sit down, explain to your Lordships why His Majesty's Government have altered their policy recently and what they propose to do. The noble Earl stated frankly that he is not himself very fully acquainted with the question of Somaliland, and apparently he does not know that the Italians do not profess to administer their northern portion of Somaliland at all, and I gather from what he has said that he knows pretty well in how disturbed a state Abyssinian Somaliland is. The noble Earl spoke of a criticism made by my right hon. friend Colonel Seely in another place some years ago as to the policy of keeping garrisons at internal situations in Somaliland. But what Colonel Seely was referring to at that time was an immobile garrison of 200 or 300 men. That is not the present policy of His Majesty's Government.
The noble Earl said a great deal about the treaties that have been made with the tribes. Of course, those treaties do not cover the whole of Somaliland. They apply much more to the western portion than to the eastern. There were, as far as I remember, six treaties made altogether, and in four of those treaties the gracious favour and protection of Her Majesty was granted to the tribes. With the exception of the Warsangeli, all the tribes were more or less in the west; and the noble

1153
Earl, I am sure, is sufficiently well acquainted with the past history of Somaliland to know how the Warsangeli have carried out their share of the treaty with us and how we have carried out our share of the treaty with them. But the difficulty in Somaliland does not lie so much owing to the treaties we have made. It lies rather in the moral obligations which rest upon us with reference to tribes like the Dolbahanta, with whom I think I am correct in saying we have no treaty at all.
The noble Earl has referred to two questions that I want to treat separately, and one of them I am afraid I must treat at considerably more length than he did—I refer to the case of the late Mr. Corfield. Mr. Corfield was a man of high courage, of great capacity; he was beloved by his friends; he was certainly adored by the members of his Camel Corps; he did splendid work with that Camel Corps among the Sulagudab and elsewhere. He was cordially praised for that work by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State. His career was a career of great promise, but it was cut short, and he lost his life through one, and only one, sad mistake. I would gladly have left the question of Mr. Corfield alone, but I am again challenged and must say something more about it. Endeavours have been made to throw the blame upon other people. That is natural enough. But I think, in some of the efforts that have been made to divert the blame, it has not quite been realised how serious the imputations that have been made are. Mr. Corfield, alas, is dead. We cannot ask him what made him suddenly, at the last moment, disobey orders of which we know he was fully aware.
My own theory is—and it is the only theory to my mind that fits the facts of the situation—that it was only after he left Mr. Archer on August 8 last and heard from retreating tribesmen the story of the burnt karias and of the looted stock that he decided to act. I believe the facts are that those stories worked so much upon his generous nature that he suddenly made up his mind to undertake the hazardous enterprise, not of being attacked by, but of putting himself right in front of and attacking, this large Dervish force. What are the other theories? One of them is that Mr.
1154
Corfield's instructions from his official superiors were conflicting; that whilst written instructions telling him not to attack the Dervishes, even small parties of the Dervishes, had been given to him, oral instructions of quite a different tenour had been also given. I must point out that this is a very serious charge to make against one or both of two public servants of the Crown, men of unstained honour, who have served His Majesty with great distinction for many years in one of the most difficult situations and in one of the most unattractive spots on God's earth.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Who made the charge?
LORD EMMOTT: I will tell the noble Earl. On October 2 last year there appeared in the Morning Post a letter from Mr. Wilmot Corfield, in which he said—
"As I read the official report on the affair, Mr. Corfield, the man who knew, was distinctly encouraged by superior authority to stretch to the very limit his discretionary powers of advance into the interior, and even to exceed them."
Again in a letter by the same writer, which appeared in the Morning Post on October 10, occurs the following—
"There is nothing in the Blue-book whatever to show that Corfield actually disobeyed the spirit of his instructions, but much to point to the contrary. Only by resort to a quibble can his action stand condemned. Mr. Harcourt should be invited to explain under what circumstances Mr. Archer was recommended for a decoration. There are holders of decorations who have deservedly won them."
And Mr. Prevost Battersby, in the Morning Post of October 9, said—
"His gallant life and the lives of those who fell besides him have been most shamefully sacrificed by the men who, for political purposes, set him a task almost beyond mortal capacity, and who, having doomed him, try to dodge their responsibility by defaming his memory."
Mr. William Rumbold, in the Morning Post on November 13 last, wrote—
"Mr. Corfield was fully justified in keeping his own and England's word to the friendlies even against vague written instructions, but it is evident that he had received verbal instructions giving him a free hand which the Colonial Office now deny."
I have other extracts, but I do not think I need go further into the matter. These prove my point.
I do not think that the people who have made these charges quite realise what

1155
they involve. For what do they mean? The reason of making these charges is to defend the late Mr. Corfield from an accusation of disobedience. But these charges involve not only disobedience but hypocrisy and unspeakable meanness, because they attribute the disobedience which has been charged against Mr. Corfield to Mr. Archer or Mr. Byatt, I do not know which—at any rate, Mr. Archer was in the country at the time and Mr. Byatt was not—and they couple with that a charge so mean and incredible that I can hardly bring myself to utter it. For if the charge against Mr. Archer is true he is certainly made out to be a hypocrite, because he gave written instructions of one tenor and oral instructions of another without informing the Colonial Office, and by so doing sent a brave man to his death. The meanness comes in in this, that having sent a brave man to his death he did not own what he had done but threw the blame on Mr. Corfield. And that is called "reading between the lines." I challenge the men who make such a monstrous charge to produce their proof. We are asked to do justice to the dead. God forbid that we should do otherwise! But it is equally important, surely, to do justice to the living. Are the living, without a shadow of evidence, to be accused of action so contemptible as to put them outside the pale of all decent people? I repel this charge with the scorn it deserves.
I return to the other reason which is given for what is described by these latter-day apologists as a piece of technical disobedience. The other reason given is that the disobedience was long planned by Mr. Corfield. The idea is that he, believing our policy to be a mistake and in order be bring home the pusillanimous character of the Government's policy to the minds of the nation, sacrificed his life for the sake of the Empire. Now, I am perfectly certain that Mr. Corfield was ready to sacrifice his life at any moment in the interests of a good cause. He was what is called in common parlance "white all through," precisely the sort of man one would desire to go tiger shooting with; but it is an insult to his memory to accuse him of having long formed a resolution to disobey a Government which he had agreed to serve, and had, therefore, inferentially promised to obey. If it were true, we should have to modify our view of the
1156
essential straightforwardness of Mr. Corfield's character, which everybody who knew him attests. He was reckless of his own life, we know, but he cannot have been so reckless of the lives of others as to offer them up as a sacrifice also in order to bring home a lesson to the Government. Such an idea is nothing less than an insult. And for the modified idea that the resolution to disobey was not of long standing but was formed after the rebuke, if we may call it a rebuke, which was given to him and which is set out on page 36 of the Blue-book—for that there is no evidence, and I do not think it is any more true than the other. He promised Mr. Archer the day before he died not to attack the Dervishes. He cannot then have meant to attack them, and the only theory that accounts for his disobedience is that on the afternoon of the day when he left Mr. Archer he changed his mind owing to what he heard from the retreating tribesmen. It was a brave act. It was not a wise one. He lost his own life and the lives of at least thirty-two others of the Camel Corps. It was almost a miracle that the Camel Corps was not entirely wiped out.
A grave situation was created; a much graver one would have been created had the corps been entirely wiped out. It was not a complete victory, for the tribes soon recommenced raiding. The Camel Corps has had to be reconstructed. The western tribes, who had been reduced to order largely by Mr. Corfield's action, have been left unprotected and unlooked after, and are, as it is described, calling for " a sahib to take Mr. Corfield's place." I take it that I should only be wasting your Lordships' time if I were now to show that it was a serious act of disobedience on Mr. Corfield's part. I take it that that is not contested, and therefore I will not, by reading extracts from the Blue-book, which otherwise I would have done, occupy your time on this matter. But to sum up the case I may call your Lordships' attention to the instructions that are printed on pages 16 and 17 of the Blue-book; to the query that Mr. Byatt sent, which is mentioned on page 20, and the reply sent by the Secretary of State, which appears on page 21. There is proof on page 44 that that Despatch was communicated to Mr. Corfield. Then follows the warning given to Mr. Corfield on June 23 of last year, mentioned on page 36. Finally, there is the warning on the day that he started—that is not in the Blue-book—

1157
and there is the warning on military grounds given to him by Major Summers, who was with him, which is mentioned on page 49. Mr. Corfield showed great bravery and a reckless disregard of odds which must at all times appeal to Englishmen, but he did show, too, disobedience, and that disobedience has had most unfortunate results.
I feel that I must protest, not as a Party apologist at all but in the interests of public life, against the attacks which have been made on my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to what he did in reference to the affair of Dul Madoba. It is said that he ought not to have published the Despatches that he did. I say he was bound to publish those Despatches for the sake of the living and for the sake of the Colonial Service. There would have been a universal demand on the part of the public to know what happened at Dul Madoba which no Minister could have withstood. Mr. Harcourt did his best to suppress the paragraph in the telegram on page 38—the telegram which came from Mr. Archer, in which he said that Mr. Corfield had attacked the Dervishes against his instructions. He suppressed that passage in the vain hope that he might be able to keep the whole affair of Mr. Corfield's disobedience from the knowledge of the public. And how was his reticence repaid? For six weeks he was accused of having made war on the cheap, of having sent a corporal's guard to conquer a country as large as England, of having sent a little force to fight thousands of men—all monstrously untrue; and he said never a word in reply.
And when the Despatches were published and it was found that this unfortunate affair and Mr. Corfield's own death were due to his having disobeyed his instructions, then there was a loud outcry against my right hon. friend for publishing the information. I say that no other course was open to him. The country had a right to know the facts. There is no case in recent years of facts of such importance having been hushed up. In the second place, if he had not published those Despatches blame which did not belong to him must have fallen upon Mr. Archer. If you are going, for the sake of the memory of the dead, to throw blame on the living and to ruin their careers, if you are really recommending conduct of that kind, then I say you are recommending conduct which
1158
would make it impossible for us in the Colonial Office to get good men to serve us in posts in the Colonies. I appeal to your Lordships who have knowledge of official life as to whether anything could have been done after the affair was over except what my right hon. friend did in publishing these Despatches. No half publication was possible. Either he must say exactly what happened, how it happened, and who was responsible for its having happened, or refuse to say anything at all because some of the disclosures might be painful. And then what an outcry we should have had. I do say that no Minister has a right to suppress information of that kind in regard to an affair like that at Dul Madoba. As it was, my right hon. friend did his best, and although the accusations made against him recently have not been so vile and cruel as those to which I referred earlier as having been incidentally made without proof against Mr. Archer, I do protest against the unfairness of the attacks that have been made upon him. I have done my best to do justice to the great qualities which Mr. Corfield possessed, to his dauntless courage, and to the very valuable services that he had rendered in Somaliland before the affair of Dul Madoba,
I turn with some relief to the other question with which the noble Earl dealt, and that is our position at the present time in Somaliland. There are, of course, as has often been said, two policies of "thorough" which might be pursued. One of them is to completely occupy the country at enormous cost, and, if any opportunity occurred of catching that very elusive gentleman the Mullah, to catch him; but, as far as I know, no responsible Party in this country recommends a policy of that kind. The other policy is to evacuate the country altogether, but I certainly am not going to discuss that policy because it seems to me entirely impossible on Imperial grounds. Those two policies being out of the question, it seems to me that no other policy can possibly be contrived which is not open to objection in detail. Wherever you cease your policy of occupation, be it at the coast, be it at Burao, be it at Bohotleh—wherever you cease, somebody will say there is territory beyond that which you ought to occupy. It is not possible to contrive any policy which is not open to objection in detail unless you adopt one of the complete policies of occupation or of evacuation. And yet some plan must be adopted.

1159
I will explain as clearly as I can why His Majesty's Government have chosen the plan that they are now pursuing. It is, of course, a change of plan. That I admit. It was hoped that the policy of coastal concentration which was carried out in 1910 and the arming of the friendlies would have enabled the friendlies to withstand the attacks of the Dervishes, and would have brought, I will not say complete peace and quiet, but at any rate a possible situation in Somaliland. It was always understood that that policy when carried out was an experimental policy and subject to change, and the Despatch at the beginning of this Blue-book shows in a very convincing way why the coastal concentration and the arming of the friendlies has broken down. In the first place, the friendlies used the arms with which they were supplied to a large extent to fight among themselves and to settle their own tribal quarrels, and by so doing they produced misery, disorder, and economic waste, and greatly weakened their power when they were attacked by the Dervishes And not only that. They did not confine their operations to British Somaliland. They also carried out depredations in Abyssinian Somaliland, in a country with which we were on friendly terms, and we could not allow raids of that kind to be pursued with impunity. Then, again, we found that the disorder was becoming so great that there were a good many refugees at Berbera causing great expense and trouble, and I admit that the effect of these refugees being there was not one to enhance our prestige. In the next place, the Mullah, although he has lost his power as a religious prophet, is still a terror in the land because of the hawklike raids he makes and the horrible mutilations he carries out upon his captives. Undoubtedly if the policy of coastal concentration had been continued there was great fear that little by little the Mullah's power would have gradually increased, and eventually even the occupation of Berbera itself would have become very difficult, if not impossible. Therefore if we were to remain in the country at all, it seemed necessary to adopt some other course.
The noble Earl said a good deal—and I have already referred to the matter— about our obligation to the friendlies. As I said, our obligation to them—we
1160
have, I think, only obligations of the "favour and protection" order to four tribes—are not so serious a matter as the policy of stiffening the backs of the Dolbahanta and other tribes who are a fringe between ourselves and the Mullah. We must keep order in the western portion of Somaliland. For our own sake we must also try to help the friendlies who are living in the direction of the Ain Valley. We cannot see anarchy spreading in the West, as it certainly was spreading before the first Camel Corps was formed, without increasing the possibility of a Dervish advance. As the noble Earl opposite has said, a Camel Corps was formed in 1912. At first it was intended to be 70 in number, but Mr. Byatt suggested its increase to 150, and that number was sanctioned. It was organised during the winter of 1912, and Mr. Corfield was brought from Nigeria in order to take command. It was most successful in its action in the western portion. It settled disputes; it did excellent work in the Hargeisa district and among the Sulagudab; it restored order in the West; it induced the tribes who had looted the Abyssinians to restore the stock; and Mr. Byatt asked for leave for the Camel Corps to move to Burao in the direction of Ber in order to inspire the Dolbahanta to take the initiative or to fight the Dervishes if they were attacked. It did a great deal to stop the spread of anarchy in Burao, and the excellent results that were obtained in Burao are borne testimony to on page 26 of the Blue-book. What effect it had on the Mullah is very doubtful. If the Mullah's letters were not such sinister preludes to something happening, it would be possible to derive amusement from the epistolary style of that extraordinary gentleman.
Then followed Dul Madoba and the retirement from Burao. But nothing that has happened has lessened the belief of the Colonial Office in the possibilities of a mobile Camel Corps in Somaliland for the purpose I have mentioned—to keep order in the West, and to give some measure of assurance to the Eastern friendlies. Acting on the advice of our representatives we have decided to recruit and organise a Camel Corps of 500—we have not yet recruited it up to its full numbers—and to hold Sheikh and Burao. We are at Sheikh at the present time, but not at Burao. We have also decided to increase

1161
the garrison of Indian troops to 400. There are a good many more Indian troops in the country than that just at present. This is the least possible modification of our policy that is likely to effect our purpose of keeping peace in the West and preventing the Dervishes from making raids in the East. A large immobile garrison in the interior is comparatively useless, and a large mobile force is unnecessary except for the purpose of capturing the Mullah, and our experience in 1903 and 1904 is against any such policy.
I am not going to defend His Majesty's Government against the charge of inconsistency. What I am really anxious about is, what is the best policy for the moment. I am fully aware that it is easy to say that our policy is neither the one thing nor the other, neither a policy of evacuation nor of complete occupation. What I do say is that we have adopted our present policy acting on the best advice of those on the spot. I hesitate, after our experiences in Somaliland, to make any prophecy. I can simply say that I have a strong hope that our present dispositions will achieve the two objects we have in view—namely, keeping order in the West and preventing the further advance of the Mullah in the East. The noble Earl asked one or two questions, one of which was whether it was true that oil had been discovered in Somaliland. Signs of oil have been found, and the matter is being investigated. Of course if any large quantity of oil is found there, Somaliland might become a different financial proposition from what it has been in the past.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am afraid that those of your Lordships who have listened to the very clear and, if I may say so, none too long exposition of the case by my noble friend Lord Stanhope, and to the defence which has just been offered by the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, will not be able to avoid the conclusion that the last phase in the Somali muddle— because I agree with the noble Lord that the conduct of all Parties and all Governments has not been free from the same imputation for many years past—has been no more glorious, in fact has been, if anything, rather more inglorious, than those which preceded it, and that these events do not reflect very much credit on the prescience or even on the common sense of His Majesty's Government.
1162
The noble Lord the Under-Secretary has made a speech characterised by his accustomed persuasiveness and candour, and his speech was divided into four parts. He dealt at some length with the case of Mr. Corfield, to which I shall come presently because it is a matter which it is necessary should be dealt with fully on both sides of your Lordships' House. Secondly, he devoted a considerable portion of his time to dealing with charges which have apparently been made, not by my noble friend, not in this House, against different persons—against the Secretary of State for the Colonies, against Mr. Archer, and against Mr. Corfield himself. My Lords, I was even unaware of the existence of those charges. I had not read them. I am not concerned, therefore, either to discuss or to dispute them; and I propose solely to deal with the facts of the case as they are narrated in the Blue-book, possessing no independent sources of information. Thirdly, the noble Lord, if I may say so, skated very lightly over that which was the most difficult subject with which he had to deal—namely, the admitted change in policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. That there has been a change he frankly allowed. The full nature of that change I shall endeavour to make clear. But with the skill of an old Parliamentarian the noble Lord dealt rather tenderly with that aspect of the case. He then concluded by saying something about the future policy of His Majesty's Government, about which I shall have to put to him some very straight questions.
Postponing for the moment the case of Mr. Corfield, I should like to be allowed to begin by saying a word or two about the policy of His Majesty's Government as it existed four years ago when we had our last debate on the subject in this House and as it has been modified in the circumstances recorded in this Blue-book. In the debate to which I refer, which took place in April, 1910, the noble Marquess who leads the House will remember very well stating that the Government—he was their spokesman at the moment—had decided to reject what was then described as the middle policy of Captain Cordeaux, the Commissioner in Somaliland, and the noble Marquess expounded to us the policy of what he described as coastal concentration. The British officers, six or seven in number, and the troops whom they commanded, had been withdrawn from the chain of

1163
posts which they occupied in the interior; the native contingents were disbanded; the entire interior was evacuated, and only the three points on the coast, Berbers, Zeila, and Bulhar were to continue to be occupied by British troops; the friendlies were to be armed, and Somaliland was to be run on the cheap. I think we were told that the cost was to be about £8,000 per annum. The noble Marquess, in the speech in which he answered me on that occasion, said that the prestige of the Mullah was gone. His prestige is always going, but somehow or other it is as often revived; and although we hear that he is old and obese he is still just as great a nightmare and object of fear to our forces and the tribes as he was ten years ago. The noble Marquess also told us that the friendlies wanted to be left alone, and that if they were armed they would be able to hold their own; and in a burst of extremely incautious prophecy he said that there might be occasional tribal fights of a kind with which we had been familiar, but that he did not anticipate more than that. When I expounded the opposite case I was taunted by him with having recommended a forward policy to your Lordships' House.
In the remarks which I made on that occasion I did criticise the repudiation of our treaty obligations to the tribes; I did condemn the evacuation of the interior; and I said that I was confident that sooner or later you would have to go back. I did criticise the policy of abandoning the friendlies and giving them these arms, which I thought would either go into the hands of the Mullah, as many did, or would be used by them for the purpose for which they have employed them. My last words, in replying to the noble Marquess at the end of the debate, were these—
"The impression left on my mind is that there is even less to be said for the case of the Government than I had inferred, and that the policy of evacuation, even if it be a policy of evacuation only of the interior, is likely to be attended with all the unfortunate consequences which I have ventured to anticipate."
I do not want to take the credit to myself of a successful prophecy when the consequences are so deplorable. How deplorable they were is obvious from what is contained in this Blue-Book.
I need not go at great length into this matter, but, the policy having been decided upon in the beginning of 1910
1164
and explained here, by April 1912 we find the Commissioner saying—
"Anarchy is steadily spreading over the country with a prospect of becoming permanent."
He says again—
"The policy has disappointed expectations; it has been given a full and complete trial and has failed."
And, finally, we have the remarkable words, quoted by Lord Stanhope, used by Mr. Archer in which he made the startling disclosure that there had been appalling internecine warfare during the years 1911 and 1912, and in which he added—
"I do not see any good in concealing the fact that during this period it is estimated that about one-third of the male population of the friendly tribes of the Protectorate was exterminated in inter-tribal fighting."
This was the appalling consequence, no doubt the unanticipated consequence but still the appalling consequence, of the policy of coastal concentration and evacuation of the interior which was so confidently undertaken by His Majesty's Government four years ago and so plausibly defended by the noble Marquess in this House. How absolutely it has failed is shown, not only by the extracts from the Blue-books to which I have referred, but by the frank admissions of Lord Emmott in his speech to-night.
In these circumstances it was not surprising that some steps had to be taken, and, as we have been told, the formation of the Camel Corps was the action that was decided upon. I do not desire to say anything about the circumstances of the formation of that Corps. I will only pass these comments upon it. In the first place, from the moment that the Government went in for the policy of a Camel Corps they abandoned the policy of coastal concentration upon which they entered four years ago. Let there be no doubt about that. They went back to the policy which they had condemned, and which I had been called "forward" for having advocated in your Lordships' House. They may not have foreseen the results, and when Mr. Harcourt gave his consent to the formation of the Camel Corps they no doubt adopted it as the best and cheapest way out of the difficulty without thinking of the consequences. But from that moment they were back in the old round again; and it was perfectly certain that having taken

1165
that step ulterior consequences would ensue which they did not see at the time.
A point which I wish to labour a little more closely is this. Lord Emmott disputed that there was ambiguity in the instructions under which Mr. Corfield and our officers were acting. I make that charge, and shall endeavour to substantiate it. All this trouble has arisen from the fact that from the start nobody formed a clear and logical idea of what the Camel Corps was to do. That is quite obvious from what appears in the Blue-book. If you look at the original proposal of Mr. Byatt in 1912 on page 5 of the Blue-book, he there speaks of this Camel Corps being—
"a small mobile striking force, which could be used to maintain order by coercion within a radius of fifty miles or so of Berbera, and to keep the main roads clear."
But in the very next paragraph he contemplates very much more, for he says—
"As the friendly dreads the Dervish "—that is, the Mullah's men—" so the Dervish dreads Camelry, and such a corps would be regarded with a very general respect. Its existence would go far to prevent a descent upon the coast, and in patrolling the immediate hinterland it would make for peace among the coastal tribes. It would, of course, be necessary to take the risk of such a small force meeting preconcerted opposition and suffering a reverse, but the risk would be small in proportion to the good results which might reasonably be looked for."
So that in the beginning, before the corps was formed, the Commissioner was looking forward to conditions under which this force might possibly be engaged in conflict with the Dervishes.
Then if you pass on to his instructions to Mr. Corfield on page 16 of the Blue-book, you find the same contradiction and perplexity manifest again. He says that the fundamental reason for the raising of the corps is the necessity of keeping open the trade routes, and so on. But once again its military character is admitted, when a few paragraphs later he says it is—
"to be regarded as a striking force which may be used to repress disorder, and to insist on compliance with any decision arrived at in Berbera."
Then, again, later on he says—
"It is important to avoid giving the impression that the corps exists for the purpose of making war on the friendlies; they must understand that it exists solely to give them protection and assistance. … When using coercion you will take all possible precautions to avoid bloodshed, but should any armed opposition be offered you will crush it at once, promptly and sternly."
1166
Then come the instructions given to Mr. Corfield and repeated again later on—the rather bewildering and, I think, even humiliating instructions that if he encountered small bodies of Dervishes he was to do nothing, but if he encountered large bodies of Dervishes he was to beat a retreat to the coast.
Is it not clear that from the start the Camel Corps, and, a fortiori, its commandant, was in an absurd and contradictory position? In the first place, we have been told that the Camel Corps was formed to protect and assist the friendlies, but at the same time it was to punish and kill the friendlies if they did not behave in a proper way; and so much was this the case that in the House of Commons Mr. MacCallum Scott, in his speech on the subject, spoke the whole time of the Camel Corps as having been organised against the friendlies. And it is significant in this Blue-book that on the first occasion when they were engaged the party they defeated is described as "the enemy," though the enemy was a body of the very friendlies whom they had been constituted to protect and assist. So that what it comes to is this —the Camel Corps was to protect and assist the friendly friendlies, but it was to punish and kill the unfriendly friendlies. The anomaly was even greater than that, because, as the passages which I have just read out show, the Camel Corps was at liberty to punish friendlies for outrages on each other but it was not at liberty to punish outrages committed by hostile tribes on friendlies. Every word I am saying on this matter is true, and cannot be denied by noble Lords opposite. It really amounts to this—that the Camel Corps was to be a fighting unit so far as the friendlies were concerned, even if they became unfriendly, but the moment the Dervishes were concerned it was to cease to be a fighting unit and to retire from the scene.
How impossible this dilemma was was seen by nobody more clearly than the Acting Commissioner himself, Mr. Archer, because in his final instructions to Mr. Corfield he says—
"On the other hand, I cannot attempt to disguise the difficulty of the situation in which Mr. Corfield will be placed should necessity arise in future to withhold support in the face of a Dervish raid."
—the very contingency which actually arose within a few weeks of the time when

1167
that remark was made. Well, if our Commissioner was in some doubt as to the nature and scope of the functions of the Camel Corps it is not surprising that the natives misunderstood the matter, too. I think Lord Stanhope was quite right in drawing attention to this, because it is abundantly clear from this Blue-book that whatever may have been the intentions of His Majesty's Government or the views of our officers on the spot, the natives took a very different view of the object of the Camel Corps. If you look at page 16 of the Blue-book you will find, again in a Report from Mr. Byatt—
"There is a widespread idea among Somalia that the Government is about to revive the status quo, and to re-occupy the former posts in the interior. No harm is done at the moment by this belief; it will, in fact, tend to simplify the work of the Constabulary while that corps is asserting its influence at the outset."
So that it is quite clear that while the Government meant one thing the natives thought that they meant another, and we were quite willing to profit by the misunderstanding on their part. The same impression is apparent from a remark on page 20, again in a communication from Mr. Byatt, where he says—
"There is a wide belief that the Government, by means of the Camel Corps and of reinforcements yet to arrive in the country, intends to ensure their safety "—that is, the safety of the Dolbahanta—" and even were this idea completely dispelled the tribes would make no effort on their own behalf."
So much for the objects with which the Camel Corps was constituted and the impression which was held about it in the country.
Now we come to the appearance on the scene of Mr. Corfield. I say at once that I listened with respect and with satisfaction to the tribute paid by the noble Lord to that gallant but unfortunate man. It was a tribute conceived in a spirit of generosity and expressed in moving words, and I am sure that it will give some comfort, if comfort can be given, to the friends and relatives of that distinguished man. Mr. Corfield appeared upon the scene, and he at once showed those qualities of courage, of firmness, of tact, and of ability in dealing with the natives to which the noble Lord paid such a handsome tribute. But what was the result of the exhibition of these qualities on his part? So successful was he, and so glad was every one to profit
1168
by his success, that the old idea of the Camel Corps as a body to confine its operations within fifty miles of the coast immediately disappeared, and month by month as Mr. Corfield carried on his successful work we read of the gradual extension of the work and activities of the Camel Corps. First, they were to be confined to within fifty miles of the coast. Then we hear of them proceeding in the direction of Ber, which I think my noble friend said was one hundred miles from the coast. Then Mr. Byatt moves on the corps to Sheikh and Burao, and Burao becomes its headquarters from January. Then it goes to Hargeisa, and the rest of the corps is sent on to Las Dureh. Finally—and no attention has been drawn to this although I think it is important—in August, only a few days before Mr. Corfield lost his life, the whole force was ordered out by Mr. Archer to make a reconnaissance in force to find out whether the Dervishes were making a raid in strength or not. Here was a step taken by the highest officer in the Protectorate, which he admitted not to be covered by his orders and which directly led to the fatal encounter in which Mr. Corfield was killed. I do not blame Mr. Archer. He may have been perfectly right in the circumstances. But when we find how much blame has been thrown on Mr. Corfield for exceeding his orders, the fact remains that he lost his life in a reconnaissance which was ordered by his superior officer.
Now as to the events of the conflict itself. What happened? Mr. Corfield encountered the enemy in great numbers and decided to fight. No more than the noble Lord opposite do I know the reasons which impelled him to that decision. The hypothesis advanced by the noble Lord was one which is honourable to the kindly sentiments of Mr. Corfield, even although the noble Lord thinks that it was ill-advised and unwise. For whatever reason, he decided to fight this body of Dervishes, and he engaged in what I think cannot be described as otherwise than an heroic contest. This small body of men from the early hour of dawn held their own for five hours against a force of, I think, five or six times their number, losing a great many of their own men and killing something like four hundred out of a total of over two thousand of the enemy. The Camel Corps, of course, was only something like 150 men, but they had 300

1169
friendlies, who I admit behaved as friendlies are apt to do—they ran away during the encounter.
I now come to the question of Mr. Corfield's conduct. I do not wish, of course, to condone the infraction of orders by Mr. Corfield or by any officer serving His Majesty's Government in any part of the world; but if noble Lords have followed the narrative I have given from the Blue-book, I think they will be disposed to hold that, if Mr. Corfield blundered, the fault was not altogether, or mainly, his. I prefer rather to recall that if a blunder was made— and I offer no opinion about that; the noble Lord called it "a sad mistake"—Mr. Corfield acted from a high and noble sense of duty. I like to think, apart from the question of official discipline, of the spectacle of this brave Englishman declining to flee or to neglect what he conceived to be his duty when he saw the friendlies who had been committed to his protection in danger of being exterminated by this large force. And when we have the noble Lord putting forward his own hypothesis of the motives that actuated Mr. Corfield, do let us remember that Mr. Archer, who perhaps knew as much about it as any one, had his own theory, which is as follows. He said—
"It is apparent that he considered any other action impossible for the sake of our much shaken prestige in the country."
Surely that confession from Mr. Archer is not a condemnation, it is not a condonation, it almost amounts to a justification, of Mr. Corfield's motives, at any rate, in taking the step that he did.
I pass for a moment to the proceedings of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Lord opposite embarked upon a chivalrous but very proper defence of his official chief against charges which I was not aware had been made, but which, if they were made and unfairly made, as he indicates, ought most certainly to be repelled. But if you look at the Despatch on page 56 of this Blue-book, which I will take the liberty of reading to your Lordships, you will see that Mr. Harcourt thus summed up the case—
"It is evident that the whole responsibility for this ill-advised and disastrous action must rest with the late Mr. Corfield. He has paid the penalty with his life, and I have no desire to dwell on this aspect of the matter. But I
1170
am compelled, if only in justice to the other officers concerned, to record my opinion that the disaster is due to his complete disregard of the instructions issued by His Majesty's Government, by Mr. Byatt, and by yourself."
I say, my Lords, that when one reads that passage one cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he felt called upon to express his censure, might have done it in less cold and ungenerous terms. I know Mr. Harcourt to be a warm-hearted man, and I cannot but think that upon mature reflection, when he might perhaps have been thinking less of the necessity of making a Parliamentary case and more of the desirability of giving rein to his own naturally generous sentiments, he would have expressed himself in a very different way.
After all, on these occasions when a man has sacrificed his life you have to think something of the honour and reputation of the deceased, and also to think something of the feelings of the family and friends he has left behind him. There is another respect in which I think the phrasing of that censure is infelicitous. Mr. Harcourt talks about the event as "this ill-advised and disastrous action." My Lords, was it a disaster? Ill-advised it may or may not have been, according to the point of view from which you regard it; but if it were a disaster it seems to me to have been a disaster to the Dervishes much more than to us. Our men with a very small force comported themselves with the greatest gallantry. It was on the other side that the loss of life, of prestige, and of almost everything, occurred; and if the word "disaster" is to be applied to anything we did, surely it may be applied with much greater reason to the sudden and precipitate retreat of Mr. Archer with the whole of the force after this encounter to the coast, which Mr. Archer himself in his Despatch described as "politically disastrous." That is where I think the real disaster lay.
Only one more word about Mr. Harcourt's censure. Would it not have been well if, at the same time that he felt it his duty to record this judgment, he had uttered some words of generous appreciation for all this man had done, comparable with those which the noble Lord has somewhat tardily given us to-night? After all, it was due exclusively to Mr. Corfield that your policy had any success at all. He was the man who breathed something like

1171
substance into this absurd compromise upon which you had embarked. He pacified the interior, and made the Camel Corps a reality. Yet the moment he made what is said to be a mistake you were down on him from Downing-street, and not one word of kindness or generosity was forthcoming. I speak warmly, not because I believe the Secretary of State deliberately erred, but I say that the moments of a supreme crisis are the moments when you want a man to speak from his heart and not confine himself to the etiquette of ordinary official procedure.
The noble Lord concluded his remarks about Mr. Corfield by giving his summary of what passed. My summary, I think, will be somewhat different from that of the noble Lord. I think Mr. Corfield was set an impossible task. He was acting upon instructions which, as I have shown to your Lordships, were really contradictory and perplexing. I do not mean the instructions of not engaging the Dervishes, but the whole policy of the Camel Corps. He fell a victim at last, not to any fit of temerity or any conscious disobedience to orders, but to the impossible nature of the task, as I think, which he was called upon to undertake. The noble Lord said, "Do not let us throw stones at each other over this matter. We have both been to blame in Somaliland in the past." There I think he was quite right. But I do not think it is possible to absolve His Majesty's Government from blame in this series of incidents, and the blame I would attach to them is this. First, they did not adhere to the policy on which they definitely decided four years ago. Secondly, when they decided to depart from it they did not foresee the difficulties by which that departure would inevitably be followed. Thirdly, after laying down this, from their point of view, very salutary rule about operating within fifty miles of the coast, they allowed the Camel Corps to march about the interior, and nothing was more certain than that sooner or later the Camel Corps would find itself entangled in some position from which it would be impossible to extricate itself without loss of honour. Finally, when the whole thing is over they cast the blame on a man who lost his life in attempting to carry out an impossible programme. That is the nature of the charge—if you like to call it a charge— that I venture to bring against His Majesty's Ministers.
1172
I have only one word to say in conclusion, and that is with regard to the present policy which was announced to us at the end of his speech by the noble Lord. I understood him to say that the Camel Corps has been increased to five hundred men, or will be so increased; that the Indian contingent has been increased to four hundred, apart from the other Indian troops in the country; and that Burao, which Colonel Seely laughed at as such an impossible and ridiculous place, is to become the headquarters of the corps. Also I think I saw it had been stated in the House of Commons that, instead of the expenditure of £8,000 which was commended to us four years ago, the cost of these new operations is to amount to nearly £60,000 per annum. May I venture respectfully to suggest to His Majesty's Government that, having made this new departure, they ought now to do what they failed to do before—namely, to be perfectly clear in their own mind as to what are the logical consequences it is going to entail. I do not want to repeat the point that the futile policy of 1910 has been abandoned. It is quite obvious that you have now definitely resumed the policy of interfering with, and making yourselves in the main responsible for, the interior. It is quite clear that you have resumed direct protection of the tribes— in fact, you have adopted the very policy which Captain Cordeaux recommended four years ago, and which I was denounced as "forward" for recommending in your Lordships' House in 1910.
What do you mean by this, and what are you going to do? I listened attentively to the noble Lord on this point. He said the object of the increased Camel Corps would be to keep the peace in the West and prevent the Dervishes from making raids in the East. When the Dervishes make raids in the East, is your new commandant to have the same instructions as Mr. Corfield? When he encounters a small body of Dervishes, is he to disappear; and when he encounters a considerable body of Dervishes, is he to bolt to the coast? What are you going to do with your increased Indian troops if they come across the enemy? Are they to retreat and face shame and disaster? I have seen nothing but what has been published in the Blue-books. But if the noble Marquess is going to say anything after me, I hope he will not evade this

1173
question I am putting. What is your policy going to be? Does this re-occupation of the interior carry with it a definite policy with regard to the Dervishes, or are you only going to protect the friendly friendlies, to massacre the unfriendly friendlies, and, when the Dervishes appear, to retreat to the sea? I think we ought to have those questions answered.
I will not pursue the matter. I will only say that for my own part I hope, for the sake of our common prestige, that this new venture will be more successful than the last has been. The page of Somali history which has just been turned down is, in my view, stained with a good deal of discredit, and I am not certain it is not stained with dishonour. I hope, in the interests of British honour and in the interests of the British Government in that part of the world, that the next page will be happier, although I confess, my Lords, I am extremely apprehensive as to the future.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS of CREWE): My Lords, this debate has involved certain admissions from both sides that the policy of successive Governments in Somaliland cannot be regarded in its results as a supreme success; and though noble Lords opposite have naturally discussed the question from the point of view of an Opposition, yet I am quite willing to admit that, while blaming us in no measured terms, they have not made more purely Patty points than is to be expected in a discussion of this kind. Now, it has been admitted that the plans which were undertaken in 1910, and which the noble Earl opposite has described as having been detailed to the House by me, have undergone a considerable modification in the four years that have passed since then. Unfortunately I have not had the time, as the burden of this debate was to be borne by my noble friend behind me, to look up the debate of which the noble Earl spoke. He stated that at that time I described the prestige of the Mullah as gone, and that I argued therefrom that no further danger was to be apprehended from him. I cannot remember the words I used, but my impression is that I pointed out that the religious prestige of the Mullah had disappeared owing to his having been denounced as a religious force by the Shereef of Mecca; but I do not think I can have stated, because I certainly never believed that the Mullah, looked upon as a brigand, was to be regarded as a spent
1174
force or one who was likely to be deserted by those who had gathered round him.
It is quite true that in one respect our predictions and hopes were to a great extent falsified. We did look forward to a greater cohesion among the friendly tribes, cohesion directed against the Mullah and his Dervishes; and although we could not deny the possibility of inter-tribal quarrels we did not anticipate that they would rise to such a head as we see from the reports published in this last Blue-book that they did rise. But, speaking from memory, my main attempt to contradict the noble Earl was on this point. I cannot remember that he at that time laid great stress on the probability of trouble of a dangerous kind between the friendly tribes themselves. He said, if I remember right, that our withdrawal would leave harmless and comparatively defenceless people at the mercy of the Mullah and his Dervishes, and I endeavoured to point out what I should like to repeat now—that these so-called defenceless people are precisely the same people as the followers of the Mullah themselves. A great many of the friendly tribes, for instance the Dolbahanta and two or three of the others, possess remarkable military reputation; and in times past they have without any help from us inflicted severe defeats on the Mullah and his men. They produced two or three leaders in the past who showed both courage and military capacity; and my protest, I remember, was against the theory which appeared to be advanced by the noble Earl opposite that these friendly tribes were in the position, to make a comparison, of some of the most peaceful inhabitants of Bengal who were going to be placed at the mercy of people of the temper and calibre of the Pathans. I protested against that view, and I still say there is no reason whatever, except for the inter-tribal quarrels which take place, why these tribes should not have held their own absolutely against any force the Mullah and his Dervishes could bring against them; and it is entirely to the fact that they quarrelled amongst themselves and raided each other that the unhappy anarchy of the interior of Somaliland is due. Well, my Lords, that state of things having come about, my right hon. friend the present Secretary of State, my successor at the Colonial Office, decided on the formation of the Camel Corps, and the noble Earl opposite seems to have regarded the inception of that force as showing in itself a sign of weakness and of uncertainly of policy.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I did not say that. I said it was a sign that you had abandoned the policy of evacuation of two years before.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand. I was not attempting to quote the noble Earl's words; but he made merry at the duties which the Camel Corps were to be expected to do. Their duty, as I think he put it, was to protect the friendly friendlies and to punish the unfriendly friendlies when they squabbled among themselves. I do not at all quarrel with that description. That is the duty of every village policeman in this country. It is the duty of all the police in every country in the world to protect and assist, so far as possible, the law-abiding, and to bring to punishment those who break the law. This Camel Corps was designed to be a military police force. The noble Earl knows all about the Aden Troop. Then-duties—I am glad to think in happier circumstances and among a population less disorderly than the Somalis—are of an identical character; but they are not intended to be a military force. Some further analogy, although it is by no means an entirely close one, might be found among the tribal levies on the North-West frontier of India with which the noble Earl is also equally familiar. Therefore I cannot see that the institution of this force of military police brought about by changed circumstances, by the breakdown, which I fully admit, of the hope that the tribes in the interior would protect themselves against the Dervishes with the arms supplied to them, and, even though they squabbled, would not come to the serious degree of inter-tribal conflict to which they did come—I cannot see that the institution of such a force as this was in any way ridiculous or that it ought not reasonably be expected, as we still expect it, to play its part in the pacification of the country.
I pass for a moment to the sad episode of the death of Mr. Corfield. I agree with everything that fell from my noble friend behind me with regard to the heroic figure of Mr. Corfield and of the splendid courage which in his last fight he displayed. But I am obliged to lay stress upon a point to which my noble friend behind me also alluded, namely, that so much of the defence that has been offered on behalf of the particular conduct of Mr. Corfield—and that is true not merely of
1176
what has been said outside, but to some extent of what has been said in this debate —involves a direct imputation upon the other officers who were concerned in their different spheres in the affair in which he became the central figure. There is a saying somewhere in one of George Eliot's books, that we are apt to fall into the way of keeping our sympathy for those who are dead and leave none for those who have to continue their hard journey here. And I would ask the House to consider whether many of the points which have been mentioned on behalf of Mr. Corfield do not involve an imputation on those who are left. Take, for instance, the final determination to engage the Dervishes. My noble friend behind me gave an explanation, not, as I thought, an unlikely one, of how a man of Mr. Corfield's bold and generous temper came to assume that it was a needful thing for him to engage the Dervishes. But, my Lords, Major Summers, a distinguished Indian officer, in whom from his being an Indian soldier I may be supposed to take a special interest, and I have every reason to suppose as courageous a man, and a man with as high a sense of duty, as Mr. Corfield himself—he advised against the engagement. And noble Lords will see that if you simply adopt Mr. Corfield's view that it would be a cowardly thing not to have engaged the Dervishes in that particular way at that particular time, you are thus casting a severe imputation either upon the courage or the sense of duty of Major Summers; and in the same way, as my noble friend behind me pointed out, the explanations which have been given on behalf of Mr. Corfield involve imputations against either Mr. Byatt, or still more harshly, and as I think most unfairly, against Mr. Archer, who showed in fact a personal courage not inferior to that shown by Mr. Corfield himself.
The noble Earl spoke of the danger attaching to a reconnaissance in force. I am disposed to some extent to share in the belief that in a country like Somaliland and against such a foe as the Dervishes such an operation was of a very critical character and one which only ought to be undertaken in very special circumstances. That is an opinion which I should give with great hesitation because it is partly a military question, as to which I have no knowledge, and partly also a question involving a knowledge of the people of the country in which I am equally deficient.

1177
The noble Earl opposite, Lord Stanhope, laid it down as an absolute canon that, against people like the Somalis, to make a reconnaissance and then to retire would only be treated as an avowal either of cowardice or of weakness. I can only assume that those who gave the order know more of the nature of the people and of the circumstances than the noble Earl would at all claim to know himself. Supposing, for instance, that this particular engagement had never taken place, the whole matter would have passed comparatively unnoticed here; and I cannot say there is any reason to believe that our prestige in Somaliland would have suffered thereby.
But one is entitled to ask, in the first place, whether noble Lords opposite contemplate the idea of a complete re-conquest of Somaliland. From the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, I gather that he at any rate does. I will explain what I mean. He spoke of the fact that it is a wrong and perhaps a shameful thing that where the British Flag has once been flying it should not fly still. If that rule were literally kept the noble Earl opposite (Lord Curzon) would have had to add to his many responsibilities in India the government of Afghanistan, and a pleasant job it would have been I have no doubt for the noble Earl. Therefore, although the phrase sounds well it is one which I think has to be taken with some possibilities of qualification. I do not believe myself that the people of this country, whatever Party is in power, would view with equanimity the re-conquest of Somaliland by a great military expedition and the holding by a great military force of the whole country in a vast number of posts, as it would have to be held; and therefore in my view that one of the two logical alternatives must, I think, be dismissed. It is also generally agreed that a complete departure from the country, including the ports, is also out of the question. Therefore it remains which of the numerous illogical courses is the one which we ought to pursue? I certainly do not myself expect that any course of the illogical kind which it is found wisest to pursue by any Government that has to undertake the task will turn Somaliland into an Arcadia, even if oil is discovered there, and those who pursue oil go and settle there, whatever military and administrative steps it may be desired to take. But I do not see that
1178
the further extension of this modified policy of policing need be disastrous although it may not be supremely successful. It is probably right to increase the Camel Corps, and also the force of Indian troops at and close by the coast to a certain extent.
As I am not in charge of the Department I cannot profess to answer the question which the noble Earl has put to us as to, if I may use the phrase, what the precise relation to a Dervish raid of an increased policing force would be. I must leave that to those who represent the Department, and I have no reason to imagine that a precise answer to that question could be given at this moment or without further examination of the various possibilities of the situation. But the total outcome as far as we are concerned is this, that though we cannot profess to regard the condition of Somaliland with satisfaction, and though we have to admit that some of the hopes which we uttered four years ago and before that and upon which we attempted to build have been falsified, yet we are not prepared to admit that we have anything to be ashamed of in the action which we have taken; and we are not by any means without hope that, though we ought not to indulge in any extravagant hope, the future of the country may be made as tolerably peaceful and as suitable for carrying out the conditions of such trade as passes through the country as can be hoped for considering the nature of the country itself and of the people who inhabit it.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to give Papers?
LORD EMMOTT: I must apologise to the noble Earl for forgetting to answer his request for Papers. It is the intention to lay Papers presently. I cannot promise Papers at present, as there is hardly anything to lay; but Papers will be laid, I understand, comparatively shortly.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether he will take steps, if it is found possible, to include an answer to the questions which I put— namely, as to the instructions to be issued to the military force under the altered circumstances of the case.
LORD EMMOTT: I will remember that point. May I point out to the noble Earl that he labours under rather a wrong impression in calling this a military force. The essence of this is that it is a police force. It is not meant, in the first place, to fight the Dervishes, but to do police work amongst the tribes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My remark applies not merely to the Camel Corps but to the Indian contingent. You have an Indian contingent of four or five hundred men in the interior, and it is equally important to know what they will be called upon to do in the event of a Dervish raid as it is to know what the Camel Corps are to do.
LORD EMMOTT: There are not four hundred men in the interior, and the Indian troops are certainly not mobile enough to seek out Dervishes and make them fight. The whole trouble in Somali-land is that with a force sufficient in numbers to induce the Dervishes to fight you cannot be sure of beating them, and with a force sufficient in numbers to defeat them you cannot make them fight. No new instructions have been issued to the new Camel Corps. The corps is not yet fully recruited and fully trained, and there has been no need to issue any different instructions at present.
EARL STANHOPE: The noble Lord stated several times that only four tribes have treaties with this country. If he turns to No. 60 of the Blue-book of 1910 he will find a telegram from the Commissioner to the Secretary of State, in which he telegraphs—
"Total population of tribes with whom we have treaties of protection may be roughly estimated at 200,000, though only about half that number would be immediately affected by withdrawal."
Your Lordships will see that it is a very much larger question than the noble Lord perhaps gave the impression. It is not merely a question of protecting four tribes —at any rate, if they are only four tribes they are two-thirds of the population of Somaliland—and, further, the question is not confined to the tribes that live in the West, but to those also in the South-east where Burao is situated which is now to be the base of the new constabulary. Those who know Somaliland and British East Africa have always wondered what is the object of the military constabulary. As a
1180
soldier once said, "it is certainly not military, and it is certainly not constabulary." They are not suited to take action against the Dervishes, and yet, on the other hand, they are too military to restrict to ordinary police duties.
LORD EMMOTT: I did not say that there were treaties with only four tribes. There are only treaties offering protection with four tribes, but there are treaties with six tribes altogether. I do not know their population.
EARL STANHOPE: The telegram which I quoted says that there are treaties of protection with a population of 200,000. I desire to withdraw the Motion for Papers, as I understand that Papers will be laid at a later date.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ABYSSINIAN FRONTIER RAIDS.
LORD HINDLIProse to call attention to recent events on the British East African and Abyssinian frontier, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question of the frontier between British East Africa and Abyssinia is one which has for some years past caused considerable interest and a certain amount of anxiety among those living in British East Africa. Some of us who are interested in both countries have for some time past urged the occupation of this frontier for several reasons—first for the protection of the tribes living within British territory and for the protection of those who have fled into British territory to escape the cruelty of the raids by the Abyssinians; secondly, for the protection of the trade routes between Abyssinia and East Africa, which are very considerable; and thirdly, of course, for the prevention of the raids by the Abyssinians. I found in a description of a journey by Mr. Archer—the same Mr. Archer who has been already mentioned this evening—that the reasons which the Government had for effectually occupying, as he calls it, this frontier were exactly the same reasons as have always been given for that. We wanted the frontier occupied, and in 1909 or 1910 a Government expedition under the leadership of Mr. Archer was sent from the Juba River to Marsabit near Lake Rudolph. The expedition consisted of Colonel Thesiger

1181
(Inspector-General King's African Rifles), the officer commanding the East African Rifles, and one or two other officers; and I understand that Colonel Thesiger reported very unfavourably on the proposal to establish isolated chains of forts along this frontier. I do not know whether the noble Lord will let us have that report, but if he is going to give any Papers on the subject I think I might ask for that report. These posts however, whether Colonel Thesiger condemned them or not, were established.
Now, raiding by Abyssinians in British territory is an old and a continuous story. If it is not checked you will have endless trouble along your Abyssinian frontiers; you will have endless expense, and you will have very considerable loss of life. Recent events in Somaliland have, of course, done nothing to enhance our prestige, and recent events in British South Africa are hardly calculated to help that either. The first time these posts were attacked I understand you abandoned your exterior lines and occupied lines further south. The present state of Abyssinia makes it much more difficult than it would otherwise be for His Majesty's Government. The present Government of Abyssinia is, I imagine, in a state of chaos, and even if it were as strong as it was in the days when Menelik was well, I very much doubt whether it could or would do very much to assist you. Some of us who have travelled in both countries have from time to time expressed apprehension of what would happen along this frontier, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranworth, who will follow me this evening, will bear me out in that respect.
May I give your Lordships one or two short instances taken at random after one of these raids? When I was travelling in Abyssinia twelve years ago I found that the average price of a slave near the capital was about £3. I could give many instances of cruelty which I saw practised both by the Abyssinian soldiers and by wandering bands. Then there was an article in the Geographical Journal, written by Mr. Montanden in 1910, in which he speaks of having passed a large caravan of slaves in Abyssinia tied in fours by a chain. Then, as you know, there is considerable trouble with these slave raiders on the Sudanese and Abyssinian frontier. It is the same story on all the borders of Abyssinia.
1182
The prospect of tribes living in British territory if these raids are allowed to continue is not a particularly bright one, and I imagine that the white settlers themselves in British East Africa are becoming rather anxious how far the Abyssinians will be allowed to raid down into the country.
I would ask the Government what they intend to do? As I have said, they occupied isolated posts, but at the first sign of trouble apparently they have abandoned them and occupied other isolated posts not quite so far to the North. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether it is correct that they have abandoned the all-important post of Marsabit, on which, I understand, a considerable amount of money was spent, and which was described by an officer as admirably laid out and as a most important post on the trading route? Then, what is going to be given to these posts in the way of communication? I understand that at present the only means of communication are by native runners, a rather slow and unreliable method; and when rivers are in flood delays, I imagine, of a week or a fortnight are not impossible. I should have thought it would have been perfectly simple, when the Government had made up their mind what chain they were going to occupy, to have set up Marconi stations, anyhow in the main posts.
What has happened on this frontier already? Not so many months ago Captain Aylmer was killed by raiders, and I do not think that anything has been done either to avenge his death or to get any compensation or reparation. Then there was another case of an officer coming into contact with the Abyssinians more recently, Mr. Lloyd-Jones, who was very severely wounded, and on this case I would like to dwell for a moment or two. This young officer was shot through both legs and left for dead on the ground at the entrance almost of the zareba which his men carried, and I am glad to say they took reparation on the spot. This young officer, after receiving severe wounds, was carried, I believe, for many weeks before be obtained proper medical attendance. Lockjaw supervened, and, as your Lordships can well imagine, his sufferings for these weeks must have been horrible. In another place, answering a Question on the subject, the Colonial Secretary said that everything had been done that could be

1183
done, and that the sub-assistant surgeon, I think an Indian, had proceeded one hundred miles to Mr. Lloyd-Jones's assistance in four days. I am inclined to read this answer of the Colonial Secretary in this way, that nothing more was done because, firstly, there was no surgeon to do it, and, secondly, there was no transport— there was only one camel—and there were either no drugs or a very insufficient quantity. Now I respectfully ask whether this sub-assistant surgeon, whose name I forget, is really a qualified surgeon, or whether, as I am rather inclined to suspect knowing something about the country, he is a "compounder," the sort of medical gentleman often to be found in these out-of-the-way posts? I do not wish for a moment to say anything against this sub-assistant surgeon. I have no doubt he did everything he possibly could, and that he reached Mr. Lloyd-Jones as quickly as possible, but I would like to know whether he was really a qualified surgeon; also why he had not sufficient transport, and why his supply of drugs was so small? It must have been evident to the authorities that a collision between our troops and the Abyssinians must occur on this frontier, and it is to me inconceivable that the whole of the frontier should have been left without a properly qualified surgeon, without sufficient transport, and without sufficient drugs.
Now, I will go for a moment to the other end of this frontier, to Jubaland, which I think was shortly touched upon by Lord Stanhope this evening. Here you have another situation which is full of danger and which is causing, I understand, considerable anxiety. Again I would like to know what policy the Government are going to adopt. You have there a large and powerful tribe of fanatics, a branch of the Somalis called the Merehans. I understand that they are moderately well armed, and that they are warlike and live in a country which is sometimes well watered and sometimes waterless. I believe this tribe has been giving considerable trouble, and that orders have been given to disarm them. We have had trouble in the past on the Juba River in Jubaland on more than one occasion, and I cannot remember that our efforts on any particular occasion have met with very wonderful success. At the present moment I understand that practically every available man in Uganda and British East Africa
1184
has been sent up to the Merehan territory and that these two Protectorates are to all intents and purposes denuded of their troops. Thirdly, I would ask what instructions have been given to the military authorities in charge of this Merehan business? I believe that there was a collision between our troops and the Somalis there only a day or two ago. I saw an account yesterday in an evening paper and would ask the noble Lord about it.
LORD EMMOTT: Where was this?
LORD HINDLIP: I saw an account in an evening paper yesterday, telegraphed, I think, from the African World at Nairobi, that there had been a fight between the King's African Rifles under Major Soames and a section of the Merehan Somalis. The telegram stated that the Somalis had been surprised and lost about 120 men. I would ask the noble Lord whether he will tell us what the Government's policy with regard to these Merehans is. Are they to be disarmed? If they resist disarmament, is there sufficient force to effectually cope with the resistance and to disarm them? And if not, what instructions have been given or will be given to the officers on the spot?
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to recent events on the British East African and Abyssinian Frontier—(Lord Hindlip).
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, in rising to support what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down I crave your Lordships' indulgence for but a few minutes, and I do so upon two grounds. In the first place, two years ago by the courtesy of the Government I was permitted to go through North Abyssinia; and, secondly, having been during a considerable portion of the last nine years in British East Africa I know a large section of the populace in that Protectorate. Those of you who have seen the map of British East Africa will know that between the populous part and the northern boundary there is a blank space, a desert in which there is practically no water, and it is very nearly all uninhabited. If you traverse this you come on the far side to an escarpment which forms the boundary; and going along this boundary I must say I was struck by the fact that

1185
every acre of land that could be cultivated belonged to the Abyssinians and every acre of sand belonged to us. But at the same time it struck me that the boundary was drawn in that way with the object of placing between ourselves and a barbarian neighbour a frontier which had already been made by nature. But that state of affairs does not seem to be so any longer, because in 1911 a series of posts were made along this line—small isolated posts which certainly seem to me to have no other effect than to offer a temptation to our well-armed and well-disciplined neighbours over the border. During the last few months Captain Aylmer has lost his life. I believe he was not killed by the regular forces of the Abyssinians but by one of the parties of bandits whose happy hunting ground this is. The questions I would like to ask are these—What good purpose the death of that gallant officer has served; whether any reparation in the form of money or otherwise was demanded for his death, and if not why not; and whether, if demanded, such indemnity has been paid or such reparation made?
I turn to the other point raised by the noble Lord, the expedition against the bastard tribe of Somalis called the Merehans. When I left East Africa some ten years ago there were left on the highlands the imposing force of 60 troops. These 60 men were there to protect some scattered white population in the middle of four million natives, who at all events were not unused to murder and pillage. I do not wish to press this point because I believe that as a matter of fact this populace is perfectly safe. I was certainly struck on my return home, as I think any one would have been, by the extraordinary contrast between the quietness and peace-fulness of the natives of British East Africa and the unrest and discontent and turbulence here.
Expeditions against the Merehans and these posts on the northern frontier are very expensive luxuries, and the cost falls, I think, directly, but I am certain indirectly, on the Protectorate of British East Africa. These people in the Protectorates have not only no votes but at the present moment have no representation of any sort or kind. I will not go into the question of why they have no representation, because they might
1186
have representation of a sort if they wished it; but the fact remains that they have no representation, and, as your Lordships are aware, voteless people are apt to be suspicious and sometimes also violent. On these grounds I think it does behove His Majesty's Government to give the very fullest information in their power to the people of British East-Africa. There is an old proverb which says that the man who pays the piper should call the tune. I make no suggestion that these people should call the tune, but I do think it is a reasonable suggestion that they should be permitted to know for what they are paying.
It is an undoubted fact, I think admitted by all, that the prestige of the British race during the last ten years has diminished to a very serious extent down the East coast of Africa. It is unnecessary to labour the importance of this diminution in prestige, but I think the reason is obvious. We have had no victories, either in peace or in war during the last ten years, such as would appeal to the native mind; in fact, I can recall but one, the almost unparalleled victory gained by the late Mr. Corfield, and no steps should be taken by which the effect of that victory by that gallant officer could be in any way belittled. I submit that the reasons I have given to your Lordships are sufficient to justify our asking for, and to render it necessary for His Majesty's Government to publish, Papers giving full information on this subject.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I cannot help wishing that we had more time to discuss the large number of important questions raised by the two noble Lords who have just spoken, and to whom your Lordships have listened with so much attention. It is always a pleasure to listen to men who know by actual experience these far-off portions of the British Empire. Lord Hindlip and also Lord Cranworth, particularly Lord Cranworth, have had a long and very intimate acquaintance with a large proportion of the East African Protectorate. I think I am correct in saying that Lord Cranworth has travelled across the desert between Marsabit and Moyale and from Moyale right through Abyssinia, and that that is a journey which very few men in this country have made.

1187
I will, as briefly as I can, reply to some of the questions that have been put to me. I will deal with the question of the Northeastern Frontier very shortly, because I have a statement that I desire to make to the House on the question of the recent operations in the Merehan district. I think no connected account of it has yet been made public. We have not received the Despatches and we have a great deal more information to obtain, but I can give in rough outline what has occurred so far as it has been reported to us by telegram. Lord Hindlip asked whether Mr. Thesiger's Report can be published. I cannot answer a question like that off-hand, but so far as I remember a good deal of it was of a confidential character unsuitable for publication. Then the noble Lord alluded to slave raids, and I was astonished to hear him say what he did. I have heard of no slave raid of any sort or description anywhere in the East African Protectorate since I was at the Colonial Office, and I did not know that anything of the kind was going on. What does happen is that bands of Tigre hunters, who are supposed to be Northern Abyssinians, come across our frontier usually elephant hunting, and the two mishaps which have occurred, the one which caused the death of Captain Aylmer and the other the serious wounding of Mr. Lloyd-Jones, were caused by bands of Abyssinian Tigre hunters.
LORD HINDLIP: I admit that the first and primary object of these bands is no doubt ivory, but I do not know that I would admit that that is all they take back to the North. I remember perfectly well that when I was in Abyssinia twelve years ago my caravan was joined on certainly one occasion by Abyssinians who were taking boys back to sell as slaves, but I do not know whether they came out of British territory.
LORD EMMOTT: Was that on the Abyssinian side of the frontier?
LORD HINDLIP: Yes; it was before the delimitation of the frontier.
LORD EMMOTT: I cannot answer offhand, of course, as to what was happening twelve years ago, but nothing of the kind is happening now, and as far as I know the population on the Lake Rudolf side is extremely sparse. There are not enough
1188
people there to make it worth while to do any slave raiding, even if any one wanted to do it. I think the House may set its mind entirely at rest with regard to slave raiding there. But there are occasional excursions by these bands of Tigre hunters. It was difficult to stop that when Menelik was at the height of his power, and the condition of Abyssinia is much worse now than then and much less control is exercised over these men than was the case formerly.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of communications from the frontier, and he particularly referred to wireless communication. The difficulty of the northern frontier is not so much the question of telegraphic communication as the difficulty of getting supplies there. There are practically only two routes, as the noble Lord knows, one of which involves a journey of 120 miles across the desert. It is one of the most difficult journeys in the world, through a desert where there are only two watering-places, and where the going is very difficult and the heat excessive. I think the noble Lord will bear me out in that.
As to the case of Captain Aylmer, what happened was that three askaris were going with a food safari to Captain Aylmer to a place called Terkale, and as they passed Gudderh one of these askaris saw barley spilt upon the ground, which is generally a sign of a Tigre hunting expedition. He met Captain Aylmer the next morning and told him of this, and he took ten askaris and his syce and dog boy and went to look at the place. When he got there he saw an Abyssinian on the top of the Gudderh Hill, and then sent back word to stop his camels. He halted the askaris and presently took them round the hill, and there he saw the rest of the Abyssinians, who retreated up the hill to join the man on the top. Captain Aylmer and his men fired and got within about thirty yards of this party of Abyssinians. Captain Aylmer was firing at them, resting his rifle on the bough of a tree, when unfortunately he was shot through the breast and killed on the spot. The noble Lord asks if any claims have been sent in. That is a Foreign Office matter, but I know that claims have been sent in by the Foreign Office, though I have not heard that they have been paid, I am sorry to say.
With regard to the case of Lieutenant Lloyd-Jones, in that case a small expedi-

1189
tion was sent out under Mr. Kittermaster the Assistant District Commissioner. He took Mr. Lloyd-Jones and a party of King's African Rifles with him, and his instructions were to travel a distance of not more than 100 miles north of Loyangolani. They met no one on the journey, but saw signs of a considerable safari which was evidently travelling northwards, and which they could not catch up. Turning south they came to the Logandotti Hill and saw a man herding donkeys. They saw there was a boma, and Mr. Lloyd-Jones went forward and called out to these men to submit, but they refused to do so and fired, and some of the Abyssinians with Mr. Lloyd-Jones heard them call out in their own language, "Shoot the white man," which unfortunately they did. As the noble Lord said, Mr. Lloyd-Jones did suffer the most horrible torture before he got medical relief, and even for some time afterwards until he got to Nairobi. But in that particular case it was fully expected that Dr. Chell was at Marsabit. He spends his time between Marsabit and Moyale, but unfortunately he was at Moyale at the time. However I understand that better arrangements have been made, and we hope to have a proper doctor or an assistant surgeon both at Marsabit and Moyale in the future.
Now I come to the question of Jubaland, and there, as I say, I would like to make a statement if the House will allow me, as to what has been occurring there. We have been aware for a considerable time that there is unrest in the North-eastern portion of Jubaland. The tribes, as the noble Lord has said, are nomadic, and they naturally take no notice of the frontier; they cross from our territory to Italian territory, and from our territory to Abyssinian territory, and vice versa. But it is a rather interesting fact that there is on the whole a distinct trend southwards on the part of these men; that is to say, they are coming rather more into our territory. The Merehan country is a convenient undefined term used for the country west of the Juba River between Serenli and Lugh. There are numerous sections of Merehan. the most important perhaps being the Ahmed Wet, the Fara Ugas, and the "holy" Ali Deri, and the more recently arrived Galti Merehan, between whom there is generally rivalry. Besides the Merehan, there are many sections of the Aulihan, such as the Rer Afgab, the Rer Ali, etc. I believe the
1190
Merehans are of different blood from the Aulihan, who are Ogaden Somalis.
When Sir Percy Girouard was Governor the Protectorate Government began to take active steps for occupying some of this territory. Troops were stationed at Serenli for observation purposes, and a Transport Corps of 100 baggage camels was established to meet such duties as this policy entailed, the whole being based on Yonte near the mouth of the Juba. Constant patrolling and contact with the tribes was felt to be the best method of dealing with a difficult situation, and our administrative officers were constantly travelling about with an escort of troops from Serenli settling tribal disputes and extending administrative action as circumstances permitted. The "Merehan patrol" proper did not start until October, 1912, a company of Nyasaland (1st Battalion) King's African Rifles being sent up to Jubaland to reinforce the local garrison. It was expected that the patrol would be over by December, 1912. The general results of the patrol were satisfactory, especially in respect of the Far Ugas; but it was felt that the situation was such that we could not decrease the number of troops there at the time. Shortly afterwards Lolleshid was occupied, some 80 miles north of Serenli, as a convenient "jumping off place" for these patrols; but the lack of mobility of our troops hampered their movements very considerably, and in June, 1913, the military transport facilities were considerably improved.
In July of 1913 the Secretary of State telegraphed to the Governor reporting that he was constantly hearing through private channels disturbing accounts of the military position in the north and north-east of the Protectorate, and inquiring as to the truth of a statement made to him that orders had been issued for the disarming of the Merehan or a section of them. The Secretary of State was informed, in reply to this telegram, that there was no ground for anxiety, but that disarmament had been ordered on May 8 for the recalcitrant sections of the Merehan on the advice of Mr. Mure, who was the officer at Lugh, supported by the officer commanding the troops, Colonel Graham. On August 27, 1913, the Secretary of State was informed by telegraph that the officer commanding the troops

1191
had returned from the Merehan country and recommended disarming the remaining sections of the Merehan, and that for this purpose reinforcements were necessary. One company of the Uganda King's African Rifles was asked for. In a telegram sent a few days later the reasons for this disarmament which had been asked for were given to us. It was stated to be desirable for political reasons, as inaction would be misinterpreted, especially in view of the Dul Madoba fight on August 9. The Ali Deri and Ahmed Wet were to surrender their arms by August 15; they had not complied with that demand, and it was not considered safe to leave this uncomplied with. The chance of combination of the Garre and Aulihan with the Merehan would be increased by delay. In the fourth place, it was thought that disarmament would stop the Merehan gun-running which had been going on for such a long time on that border.
At that time the Secretary of State naturally refused to commit himself to operations of an unknown character and extent, but he authorised the Government of Uganda to lend one company to the East Africa Protectorate. The officer commanding troops at Serenli was to be allowed with this reinforcement to disarm sections of the tribe from time to time peaceably, as opportunity occurred, but he was told to avoid any action likely to involve considerable fighting or to aggravate the existing situation. But at a later date, after careful consideration had been given and reports tendered by the Governor and the Inspector-General of the King's African Rifles, the Secretary of State approved of the commencement of operations on December 22, 1913. The main arguments that were given for the desirability of these operations taking place were that if action were delayed more extensive operations would be necessary later, and that an early move was essential so that the wells could be occupied in advance of the dry season. The Secretary of State was assured that the available force was adequate for the work, and that some of the Merehan were showing signs of active hostilities by attacks on outposts.
The Secretary of State gave consent on December 22. But on February 5, as so often happens in these cases, a telegram
1192
was received by the Secretary of State indicating—and, by the by, these telegrams went by a roundabout course and were not very intelligible; this one was not very clear—indicating that the situation in the Merehan country was unsatisfactory, and that it was giving cause for alarm owing to the under-estimation of the strength and spirit of the enemy, and it was feared at first that the detachment at Garrebehare was entirely cut off owing to the inability of the troops at Serenli to move through lack of transport. We have not yet had full reports of the matter, but it is understood that three more companies of Uganda troops and one more company of Hyasaland troops from Nairobi were hurried to Jubaland, and the Indian Government arranged for the despatch to Kismayu of a transport camel corps of 300 camels with three officers and attendants; and I may say that the quick way in which those camels were sent off from India was a matter calling for very high praise. H.M.S. "Pegasus," later relieved by H.M.S. "Astreea," remained off the coast helping both to transport troops to Kismayu and keeping up communication by wireless between Jubaland and the headquarters of the Government.
Now I will, in conclusion, state the general result of these operations so far as we have heard it by telegram. Several encounters and skirmishes have taken place. I have not the least doubt that the skirmish of which the noble Lord spoke is one of them We have not yet received detailed accounts of the matter, but I imagine that it is rather old history. It is not a thing which occurred during the last few days.
LORD HINDLIP: I should think that very likely that is true.
LORD EMMOTT: I think so. Several encounters and skirmishes have taken place between the Protectorate troops and the recalcitrant sections of the Merehan, but fortunately the Aulihan have been brought over to our side. In one of the earliest of these encounters Lieutenant Bentinck was wounded, but I am glad to say he is reported to be progressing favourably. Colonel Graham has moved through the whole country as far north as Lugh, and as far as our information shows he has carried out his task most successfully. A number of sections have submitted, and

1193
the policy has now been laid down—this deals with the question of disarmament— that future operations should be directed to the early control of the Merehan and the re-establishment of Government prestige in that district rather than to complete disarmament. The latest telegram, which is dated April 20, states that the Ali Dera have come in, and that the Ahmed Wet are believed to be anxious for terms. It is further stated that owing to improvement in the situation the Uganda companies can shortly return; and we now know that H.M.S. "Astraea" has left for the Cape. The situation, therefore, appears to have been greatly improved, and this improvement has been effected I am glad to say with, so far as we know, remarkably little fighting. On the whole, with the information at our disposal we feel that the situation on that frontier, which has been disturbed for a long time, is better now than it has been for a considerable time past.
LORD HINDLIP: Will the noble Lord state whether the Government have abandoned Marsabit as a station permanently or only temporarily?
LORD EMMOTT: The Governor has mentioned to us that the officer in charge of the northern frontier district did recommend the abandonment of the station at Marsabit because it was not central from an administrative point of view; but it did not appear at that time advisable to abandon the station because of unrest in the neighbourhood. It was not abandoned at the end of December, and we have not had any report on the question since. I am sorry I cannot tell the noble Lord at this moment whether it has been abandoned or not. It is one of the things which may have been done under the discretion of the Governor without being immediately reported.
LORD CRANWORTH: May I ask on whom the direct cost for these operations will fall?
LORD EMMOTT: On the East African Protectorate, I am afraid. That reminds me that I did not reply to what the noble Lord said about representation. As he knows, the question of representation is being considered at the present time, and he will remember that the doctrine of taxation and representation carries with it certain inferences.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CATTLE DRIVING IN IRELAND.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government how many cattle-drives have taken place in King's County during the month of April, 1914, the estimated number of cattle driven, and what steps are intended to be taken to put a stop to these cruel proceedings in this hitherto peaceable part of the country.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, in reply to the Question which the noble Lord asks, I have to say that during the month of April there were three cattle drives in King's County, the number of animals driven being estimated at 235 cattle and 59 sheep; and there was a further attempted drive which was frustrated by the action of the Police who were present in anticipation of this occurrence. During the night of April 11, 96 cattle belonging to Mr. J. Dunne were driven off Anna villa grazing farm by unknown persons; the gates were opened but not broken; the cattle were all found during the day in groups within a distance of seven miles of the farm and were uninjured. Mr. Dunne purchased this farm from a Mrs. Guyse and resides in Portarlington. A notice was found attached to a pole in a conspicuous part of the farm bearing the words, "The land for the people and the road for the bullocks." Then there were two subsequent drives which took place in the morning of April 12. At about 3 a.m. 120 cattle and 59 sheep, the property of Messrs. E. Digby, F. Abraham, and S. Kavanagh, were forcibly driven by unknown persons from Ballydowman farm. Nineteen cattle were also driven from Cappyroe farm. Both of these farms, I understand, are on the noble Lord's estate and in the Tullamore district. The gates of the farms were forced by taking them off their hinges and in two cases breaking the locks. All the cattle were recovered uninjured and placed back on the land. The abortive attempt took place on April 19. About thirty persons went on to the lands of Fenter, near Killeigh, and drove the cattle, numbering 107, in the direction of the public road, but just as the people were opening the gate leading to the road two policemen who were in ambush rushed out and put the drivers to flight, arresting two and identifying three others. These five persons have been returned for trial at next Assizes on a charge of unlawful assembly. Those are the only four cases which have occurred,

1195
the last of which, as the House will see, was frustrated by the action of the Police.
With regard to the second part of the Question, as to what steps the Irish Government are taking, I have to say that in order to prevent any further drives of this description a special post of seven police has been formed at Gaeshill, which, I believe, is on the noble Lord's property, and the three adjoining police-stations have also been reinforced by an addition of six police. It is thought that this action will prevent further driving. At any rate, the matter is being carefully watched by the Police. I hope the noble Lord will not think that this cattle-driving has any sort of sympathy or countenance from the Irish Executive. The Irish Government has always strenuously exerted itself to put down this very barbaric and sometimes very cruel form of revenge or inducement, and it is satisfactory to note that there has been a great diminution, taking Ireland as a whole, in this process of cattle-driving. I have some figures here which I think on the whole are very satisfactory in this connection. I find that in the year 1908 there were 681 drives; in 1909 there were 200; in 1910 there were 186; in 1911 there were 114; in 1912 there were 69, and in 1913 there were 55. There has, I regret to say, been a slight increase in the year 1914 up to date, the figure being 62; but it must not be supposed that that
1196
number is likely to be a quarter of the total number of drives in the year, because, as I think the noble Lord knows, these drives are local and spasmodic. They depend very often on local disputes or questions which do not affect Ireland as a whole, and it is not likely that that figure will be greatly exceeded in this year. I would also like to tell the noble Lord with regard to the drives that have occurred recently, that in nine cases 108 persons who have been connected with the driving have been proceeded against, of whom eleven have been discharged, eleven were bound over to keep the peace, and eighty-six were returned for trial at the Assizes and are awaiting trial. I hope this will show the noble Lord that the Government are fully sensible of the serious character of the matter in question, and are doing everything in their power to put an end to it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.