Sitting of 23 February 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
A Petition in favour of financial assistance to municipal authorities carrying out housing schemes was presented by Captain Donelan, from Wicklow.
WILD BIRDS' PROTECTION.
A Petition in favour of the Plumage Bill for the protection of wild bird life in the Dominions, signed by 22,000 visitors to the Bird Section (Australian Exhibition), held in Melbourne last year, was presented by Mr. Page Croft.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Cardiff Railway Bill.
Stourbridge Navigation Bill.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill.
Corn Exchange Company (Mark Lane) Bill.
Cardiff Railway (Compounding of Tonnage Rates) Bill.
Hayward's Heath Gas Bill.
London Electric Railway Bill.
Leyland Gas and Electricity Bill.
Central London Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Lurgan Gas and Electricity Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Northwich Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Corporation Bill (by Order),
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill (by Order),
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
London Electric Supply Bill (by Order),
South Suburban Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Taff Vale Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copies presented, of Seven Orders in Council, dated 9th February, 1914, regulating the Dockyard Ports of Rosyth, Chatham, and Sheerness, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Pembroke, Dover, and Berehaven [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 9th February, 1914, approving a Revised Scheme for the Permanent Establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 9th February, 1914, applying certain sections of The Copyright Act, 1911, to Italy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC SERVICES IN INDIA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copies presented of Appendices to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Public Services in India; Minutes of Evidence relating to the Indian and Provincial Services taken in Madras (Vol. II., Madras Presidency), Rangoon (Vol. IV., Burma), Calcutta (Vol. V., Assam), and Patna (Vol. VIII., Bihar and Orissa), with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 12th February; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 116.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented Of Order made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Preliminary Expenses) Order (Wales), 1914, dated 19th February, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Employment under Local and Public Authorities) Order (Wales), 1914, dated 20th February, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions Amendment) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 117.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Consolidated Regulations (Wales), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 118.]
Copy presented of Regulations of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 119.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations (Wales), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 120.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 27th January, 1914, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Rutherglen [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES, IN DUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES, AND TRADE UNIONS.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Reports of the Chief Registrar for the year ending 31st December, 1913 [by Act]; to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Mexico (Injury to British Interests).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have recently addressed any representations to the Governments of the United States and of Mexico with regard to the continued prejudice to British interests caused by the prolonged disturbances in Mexico; and, if so, when Papers can be laid?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): His Majesty's Government have been in frequent communication with the Government of the United States and with the Government of Mexico respecting protection of British lives and property. The continued fighting in Mexico has, of course, caused very great prejudice to British and all commercial interests, and is a matter of grave concern. The pacification of Mexico is the object that we earnestly desire to see accomplished; but it is impossible to effect it by British intervention, and we do not propose to make an attempt of that character, which would be both futile and impolitic.
  I will lay Papers as soon as it is possible to do so; but the most interesting of the Papers in the Foreign Office consist of communications at various times from the Government of the United States concerning their policy and their views with regard to Mexico. Some of these communications are of a confidential character,

  1373
  and I cannot, in accordance with diplomatic usage, include any of them in a Blue Book without first asking the consent of the Government of the United States. It has also to be borne in mind that it would be undesirable to publish at the present moment anything that might increase the chance of damage to British property at the hands of any of the contending parties in Mexico.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any information he can give the House with regard to the death of a British suject in Mexico as reported, and what the Government propose to do?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will put a question later on.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether it is understood that redress will be sought from the United States in such matters, and not from General Huerta, as he is unable to prevent such occurrences?
  Mr. ACLAND: That question might have arisen out of that which was not allowed to be put, but it does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  Balkan States (Russian Loans).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give any information with regard to the Russian loans to the Balkan States?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware that the Balkan States have contracted loans in Russia, or that any of them contemplate doing so.

  France and Turkey.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked if the French financial boycott of Turkey, inspired by Russia, is preventing the payment of official salaries in that country, is blocking the way to reforms, and is damaging British interests; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information as to the existence of such a state of things as that referred to by the hon. Member, either as regards the cause or the effects attributed to it, but I am not sure that I understand exactly what the hon. Member's question is intended to convey. If
  1374
  by financial boycott he refers to a reluctance to make loans, I would point out that we can hardly complain of French financiers for not making loans, which British or other financiers are not prepared to undertake.

  Hague Conference.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is aware that the last Hague Conference, among its last acts, registered a recommendation to the Powers that a third conference should be held within a time corresponding to that between the first and second, that a programme should be prepared beforehand so as to secure the deliberations being conducted with authority and expedition, and that it would be desirable that some two years before the probable date of the meeting a preparatory committee should be charged by the Governments with the task of collecting the various proposals to be submitted to the Conference and of ascertaining what subjects were ripe for International Regulations as well as preparing a programme upon which the Governments should decide in sufficient time to allow careful examination in each country; will he say if, in accordance with the above, it falls within the province of the British Government, without reference to any other Power, to appoint its National Committee to prepare its own proposals for the preparatory committee; has he now received a communication from the United States Government with regard to the date of the third Hague Conference; has the British Government made any suggestions to, or received any from, any other Powers as to how the International Preparatory Committee should be appointed; if not, will they now make suggestions; and will he assure the House that the Government desires an early meeting of the Conference, and that better preparations will be made than in 1899 and 1907 for the initiation of proposals in which this country is interested?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. From this the hon. Member will see that at the last Hague Conference every step was taken to secure that the next Conference should be prepared for in the best possible way, except that no agreement was come to as to the manner in which the preliminary International Committee should be summoned and composed. This was apparent before the Conference separated, and the representatives of

  1375
  His Majesty's Government at the Conference made several informal suggestions towards the settlement of the question, but their efforts were not successful. It being the wish of His Majesty's Government to avoid any possible controversy with other Powers on these preliminary questions, they think it undesirable that the initiative should be taken by a Power which has already put forward suggestions which did not prove generally acceptable, and which has not been able to ratify some of the agreements come to in 1907. I am glad to say that I have to-day received a communication from the Government of the United States of America, making suggestions for an International Committee. This will at once receive most careful consideration. No suggestions have so far as I am aware been made by any other Powers on this subject.
  With regard to the method which each Government may follow to formulate its views on subjects which may be discussed, this, as I said last Wednesday, is a matter for each Government itself to determine. In connection with the Second Peace Conference, an Interdepartmental Committee was set up, under the chairmanship of the then Attorney-General, to advise as to the programme to be discussed and the views to be put forward on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and similar machinery may be employed with regard to the next Conference at the proper time. I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government have no desire to postpone the Conference, but any attempt to hold it at a date earlier than that which would suit the convenience of the Powers participating would tend to defeat the objects for which these Conferences are held. I cannot accept the suggestion that His Majesty's Government did not adequately prepare for the Conferences of 1899 and 1907. On the contrary, the greatest pains were taken to examine fully every question involving the interests of this country.
  Mr. BARNES: Are we to take it that the Government has not yet taken any steps of its own to set up our own National Committee?
  Mr. ACLAND: No; because up till now we have not been certain at all as to when, or how, or with whom the preliminary International Conference will be held. If the proposal which is made by the United States should prove generally acceptable,
  1376
  we will at once take steps to prepare questions to be discussed.
  Mr. J. A. BAKER: May I ask if the Government is prepared to co-operate heartily with the United States in having this Conference come to?
  Mr. ACLAND: Oh, certainly!

  Commissioners of Woods and Forests (Tenants).
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, on the grant of a new lease of Nos. 32 and 34, Osnaburgh Street, Regent's Park, in the year 1912, not only increased the rent from £10 to £180 after the second year, but in addition insisted on the expenditure of a considerable sum in the erection of new buildings; and what was the amount to be so expended?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis, for Mr. Runciman): Nos. 32 and 34, Osnaburgh Street, comprise a house and a builder's yard with an area of upwards of 12,000 square feet. The premises were held under leases granted in 1834 at £10 per annum, an apportioned part of a rent agreed in 1815 to be paid for a large area of land on part of which these houses were built. A new lease has been agreed to be granted at £180 a year, which the Commissioner of Woods was advised was the fair value of the site, and the lessee has agreed to expend £5,000 in erecting new buildings of which sum £1,400 was received under insurances on old buildings on part of the site that were destroyed by fire.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the strictures passed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on private landlords, the Government can see their way to cease treating their tenants more harshly than any of the private estate owners in St. Pancras treat theirs?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: It is considered they have acted perfectly fairly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What was the percentage of the rise in the rent?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The leases were granted a considerable time ago, and I may say there were special circumstances which made the rent charged even at that distant date a much more reasonable one.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the increase in the rent amounts to 700 per cent?
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask whether the rent paid by these leaseholders of the Crown does not compare very favourably with the terms given by private owners?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I think that is so.

  St. Catherine's Home.
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the St. Catherine's Home and Refuge for Friendless and Fallen Girls were lessees from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of No. 36, Osnaburgh Street, Regent's Park; and whether the Commissioners recently, as a condition for the renewal of the lease expiring in July, 1914, have not only insisted on an increase in the rent of 900 per cent., but an expenditure by this charity on buildings of £3,250, and the payment down of £325 as a cash deposit?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The St. Catherine's Home acquired some years ago a lease of No. 36, Osnaburgh Street, that had been granted under an agreement made in 1815 at £5 a year, an apportioned part of a rent agreed for a large area of land on part of which this house was built. The premises with other adjoining houses require rebuilding, and the sites should be rearranged. The home has been offered a new building lease of the site of the adjoining house, and of about half the site of No. 36, at £50 a year, which the Commissioner of Woods is advised is the fair value of the new site. The arrangement includes an expenditure by the home of £3,250, the amount required for the erection of a new building, and, as is usual, a temporary deposit (£325) has been asked for, but will be repaid on completion of the building.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the severity of the terms imposed upon this charity is owing to the fact that it has been compelled to be removed from the district, and cannot the Government see some way of showing some consideration when dealing with a charity?
  Mr. LEWIS: I shall be glad to convey any representations of that kind to my right hon. Friend. I am informed that the terms are perfectly fair.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Could terms equally favourable not have been granted
  1378
  to this charity as those which were granted to Bedford College, of which the Lord Chancellor is president?
  Mr. BARNES: Has any good cause been shown why this charity should be dealt with differently than any other society?
  Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware of any.
  Mr. CROOKS: Does the unearned increment go to the Crown?

  New Forest (Crown Employés).
  Mr. PERKINSasked the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Commissioner of Woods and Forests, whether servants of the Crown employed in the New Forest are entitled to a pension after long service; and, if so, whether he will explain why John Thorn, who was in the service of the Crown for twenty-four years as a labourer and seventeen years as a keeper, has been granted a pension of only 4s. a week?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: A servant of the Crown employed in the New Forest, who has discharged his duties satisfactorily, is given a compassionate allowance after long service, provided he has either attained the age of sixty, or it is shown by medical certificate to the satisfaction of the Treasury that he is incapable from infirmity of mind or body of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent. John Thorn, who had been employed first as a labourer in the New Forest, and then as an under-keeper for the periods mentioned in the question, gave up his situation by notice in the year 1903, being then in his fifty-fifth year, and applied to be given a compassionate allowance. In support of his application he furnished a medical certificate, in which his doctor stated that he had attended John Thorn for bronchitis, and was then attending him for indigestion, and that he was weak and quite unable to do his work. It appeared to the Commissioners of Woods, after inquiry, that there was a reasonable likelihood that John Thorn might soon be able to do ordinary work. However, in view of his long service, they recommended the Treasury to grant him a compassionate allowance of 4s. a week, which was 1s. a week less than the maximum allowance according to the regulations then in force, and the Treasury did so. The Commissioners are informed that he has worked for other employers with some regularity since he retired from the Crown service.
  Mr. FALLE: Is the pension paid weekly or monthly, and is it paid in advance or in arrears?
  Mr. LEWIS: I shall be glad to obtain information for the hon. Member on that point.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the term "compassionate" means? Does it mean that servants in the New Forest are not regularly entitled to a pension after long service?
  Mr. LEWIS: They were not so entitled before 1903, the date referred to in my reply.

  Small Landowners' Societies.
  Mr. LEACHasked how many small landowners' societies and other co-operative land clubs have made use of, and had the assistance of, the joint stock banks on the list of such banks named to this House some time ago?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Twelve co-operative cerdit societies have obtained advances from joint stock banks, and two other societies have been promised advances, but the negotiations are not yet completed. In addition, five societies have obtained advances from the Central Agricultural Co-operative Bank. The total number of credit societies in England and Wales is forty-six.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. LEACHasked how many persons have applied for land under the Small Holdings Act; how many of these applicants have received allotments; and how many, if any, have been deemed unsuitable?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Up to the end of 1913 applications for small holdings had been received from 43,245 persons, of whom 25,567 were provisionally approved as suitable. Of these, approximately 17,000 have been provided with holdings.
  Mr. LEACHasked how many acres of land have been applied for under the Small Holdings Act; and how many acres have been granted?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Up to the end of 1913, the total quantity of land applied for was 723,497 acres, and the quantity acquired was 182,020 acres. In addition over 44,000 acres have been let to applicants by private landowners direct.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it has been clearly ascertained that foot-and-mouth disease, with which many animals from various parts of Ireland were found last week on their arrival at Birkenhead to be affected, originated not in Ireland, but at Birkenhead; if so, whether he has traced the cause of the outbreak; and what steps he has taken at this and other English ports to prevent a repetition of so unusual an occurrence?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I regret that up to the present careful investigation and inquiry have not revealed the origin of the infection which caused the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Birkenhead lairages. A joint conference between the veterinary officers of the Board and of the Irish Department will take place at Birkenhead as early as possible this week, and in the meantime no definite announcement can be made.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not only fair to the Irish Department and the Irish stock owners that this method should be cleared up as soon as possible?
  Mr. LEWIS: The Board of Agriculture are fully impressed with the necessity of clearing the matter up as soon as possible.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if the right hon. Gentleman will give full particulars of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among cattle at Low Fell, near Gateshead; in the county of Durham; how many animals have been found to be affected with the disease; what precautions have been taken to prevent its spread and what is deemed by the Board to be the origin of this outbreak?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The existence of foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed at Greenwell House Farm, Law Fell, Birtley, on the 19th inst. On the infected farm there were twenty-nine animals, namely, one bull, twenty-three bullocks, two heifers, and three calves. At the time of the investigations of the Board's veterinary inspector two animals were found to be affected with the disease, and prior to the completion two more animals were found to be affected. The slaughter of all the animals, with the exception of three was completed

  1381
  by the evening of the 20th, and the remaining animals were slaughtered early on the morning of the 21st inst. The disease amongst all the infected animals was found to be in the very early stage. No cattle had been moved on to Greenwell House Farm since August last. Certain animals had recently been moved from the premises, namely, one calf, on the 29th January, since slaughtered, and two heifers, moved on 16th inst., which have been traced, and when examined on the 20th inst., were found to be free from the disease. The Board have deemed it desirable, however, in the circumstances, to order these two heifers to be slaughtered, and eight cows which had been in contact with them are being traced, and when found will be kept under observation. An Order prohibiting the movement of animals along, over, or across a highway within a radius of approximately fifteen miles from the disease centre was made on the 19th inst., and communicated to the local authorities by telegram. No probable clue to the origin of the outbreak has been discovered.
  Mr. BATHURST: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he proposes now or later in the day to make any announcement to the House on the subject of the more recent outbreak announced in this morning's papers?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to ask the Junior Lord of the Treasury if he can give the House any particulars of the reported outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Worcestershire?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: A telegram was received on Saturday afternoon that foot-and-mouth disease was suspected at Brook Farm, Bradley Green, near Redditch, Worcestershire, amongst twelve cattle which had arrived on licence from Birkenhead lairages on 10th February. A veterinary inspector of the Board at once proceeded to investigate this report, and visited the premises, accompanied by the district inspector. A telegram was received from the veterinary inspector on Sunday morning that he was satisfied that foot-and-mouth disease existed on the premises, and at 11.10 a.m. he reported by telephone that two animals out of a consignment of twelve Irish two-year-old cattle were affected. These animals had been moved to the premises from Birkenhead lairages on 10th February, and arrived at Droitwich station by train, whence they were
  1382
  driven a distance of about six miles to the premises on which they now are. On arrival at the premises they were well isolated from the remainder of the stock on the farm. On 20th February one of the animals was noticed by its owner to be ill, and on the 21st a report was made to the police. The lesions in the affected animals are described as acute and typical in the mouth and feet of one animal, and as not so advanced in the other animal. The veterinary inspector at Birkenhead, who was apprised of this report on Saturday afternoon, telegraphed that the twelve store cattle, above referred to, were landed from the s.s. "Carlow," ex Dublin, on 31st January, were isolated at Birkenhead, and licensed out to the above premises on 9th February. Upon arrival at Birkenhead they were mouthed, and thereafter inspected daily. They were also mouthed immediately prior to movement by licence. This information, together with the name of the consignor and consignee of the animals, was also telegraphed by the inspector direct to the Irish Department, who were also notified on Sunday that the existence of disease has been confirmed. An Order was issued on Sunday prohibiting the movement of animals along, over, or across a highway in an area of approximately fifteen miles' radius from the infected premises.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that these cattle were detained for nine days at Birkenhead, and that they had left Birkenhead and had been on the farm for some days before the outbreak was discovered? Is the period of ten days that which is generally considered to be the period of incubation? I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman's Department was not satisfied that when these cattle left Ireland they were perfectly immune from disease, and must have contracted it either at Birkenhead or elsewhere in England?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: In this case undoubtedly the period of incubation of ten days, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, has been exceeded.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that it was clearly ascertained from what places in Ireland these cattle came?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I believe that information has been obtained.

  Bovine Animals (Compensation).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the fact that out of a total Grant from the Treasury of £60,000 per annum, payable by way of compensation to stock owners for the slaughter of bovine animals deemed to be tuberculous, and slaughtered in the interests of public health, a sum of less than £5,000 has been expended during the last nine months; and, in view of the increasing charges thrown upon ratepayers in connection with the administration of the Tuberculosis Order, 1913, he will represent to the Treasury the advisability and fairness of applying a small portion of the unexpended balance of the Treasury Grant towards defraying such administrative expenses?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: In the absence of trustworthy data as to the prevalence of tuberculosis in cattle the estimate of £60,000 per annum was necessarily quite conjectural, and, as events have proved, was excessive; but the expenses incurred by local authorities in the administration of the Tuberculosis Order during the current financial year have correspondingly been much lower than was anticipated. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not consider himself justified in adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Statutes (Revised Edition).
  Mr. RADFORDasked whether, since the publication in 1900 of the last of the sixteen volumes of the revised edition of the Statutes bringing the revision down to the end of 1886, Statutes and parts of Statutes covering more than 1,700 pages in such edition have been repealed, and many enactments have been applied, restricted or extended, or otherwise dealt with, and more than 1,200 short titles have been given to existing Statutes; and whether it is intended forthwith to publish a new edition omitting the repealed enactments, adding the short titles to the existing Statutes, and otherwise bringing the revision up to the present date?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): This subject has for some time engaged the attention of the Statute Law Committees. In view of a new edition of the Statutes revised, a Statute Law Revision Bill is now being prepared under instructions from the Committee. The existing (second) edition was, some years ago, brought down to the end of the year 1900, and consists of twenty volumes.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the statistics and clinical information regarding the administration of sanatorium benefit from 12th July, 1912, to 14th January, 1914, which insurance committees were requested to supply to the Commissioners by 26th January, will be laid before this House; and, if so, when?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for South Norfolk on the 12th instant, a return on the subject of the administration of sanatorium benefit is in course of preparation, and will shortly be laid before this House; but the precise manner in which the information recently obtained for the purpose from insurance committees can most conveniently be presented is still under consideration.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in paragraph 11, page 171, of the report of a sub-committee of the West Ham Insurance Committee that, out of ninety-five tuberculous persons receiving domiciliary treatment in their area at the end of 1913, no less than thirty-seven were sleeping in the same rooms as other persons; and what the Government propose to do in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the Report; but on its receipt he will consider any statement of the character referred to.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether a number of insured consumptives, especially patients with advanced disease, are being treated in workhouse infirmaries; and whether it is proposed to make any payment to the guardians for their maintenance in such cases?
    Mr. BENN: It is not open to insurance committees under the Act to make arrangements with, or payments to, Poor Law authorities for the treatment of tuberculous insured persons in Poor Law institutions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that "workhouse infirmaries" and "first-class hotels" are relative terms in the opinion of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. Member must draw his own conclusions.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the Government in these cases of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis who are sent to workhouse infirmaries recoup the guardians the expense?
    Mr. BENN: I have pointed out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is forbidden by the Act. It is open to insurance committees to make what provisions they consider necessary for the insured persons in their area.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the Government introduce legislation to enable payment to be made?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. and learned Member must give notice of that question.

    ACTUARIAL BASIS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed at the Labour Conference at Glasgow on 30th January last expressing the opinion that the actuarial basis of the National Insurance Act is unsound so far as women are concerned; whether his attention has also been drawn to the statement of Mr. Cross, the secretary of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association Approved Society, a society with over 65,000 women members, who, speaking in support of that resolution, said that his society had over-spent the allowance per the actuaries' estimate of 2s. 2d. per female per quarter by £10,500 for the half-year ending 13th July, 1913, and had not found themselves in a much better position for the half-year ending 13th January, 1913; whether these facts are admitted by the Government; and, if so, what they propose to do in this state of affairs which adversely affects many thousands of compulsorily insured persons?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been called to the statements mentioned by the hon. Member. I may observe generally that it is impossible to say, in the case of women members of approved societies, whether the actuarial expectation has been exceeded, until the age distribution and the condition of the members as to marriage has been ascertained, and also until the accounts of the societies have been made
    1386
    up so as to show their actual experience for at least the first year of benefits.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would the hon. Member say whether the Government will pay a Grant to those members whose benefits were reduced owing to no fault of their own, but on account of deficiencies in their societies?
    Mr. BENN: I think that no statement on that subject can be made until we have ascertained whether the facts as stated by the hon. Member or any such statements are correct.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether, under the official Table G, issued by the Insurance Commissioners, an alien, with dependants, aged nineteen next birthday, at entry into insurance, is entitled to sickness benefit at the rate of 10s. per week and disablement benefit at the rate of 5s. per week, whereas, under the official Table D, a British subject now entering into insurance at the same age and under the same conditions is entitled to only 9s. per week sickness benefit and 5s. per week disablement benefit?
    Mr. BENN: The answer is in the affirmative. In neither of the cases taken by the hon. Member is any reserve value provided, and in both cases the benefits are equivalent in value to the contributions paid. The maternity benefit payable from the alien's insurance is, however, at a reduced rate, whereas maternity benefits payable from British subjects' insurance are required under the Acts to be at the full rate of 30s. This results, in the particular case selected by the hon. Member, in a corresponding reduction in the latter's sickness benefit.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Cannot the hon. Member do something so that a British subject shall not receive less sick pay for the same contribution than an alien?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir; both persons pay the same contribution, and both get equal advantages.

    PANEL DOCTORS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Form 110/I.C., which was recently issued by the Insurance Commissioners for England, and which under their advice or direction was circulated

    1387
    by the various approved societies amongst their members; whether such form contained an intimation or direction to each insured person that if he had not already selected a doctor or institution on the panel list for the district where he lived, he should apply for a medical card to the clerk to the insurance committee on a form which he could get at any post office, and that when he received his medical card he should give it to the doctor on the panel or the institution he wished to select; whether such form conveyed to the insured person the intimation that, if he had not already selected a doctor or institution on the panel, he had a right to select a doctor or institution on the panel and obtain a medical card accordingly; whether there is any ground for the suggestion that such right does not exist in the case of an insured person who did not select a doctor last year and who was provisionally placed by the then local insurance committee on the list of some doctor on the panel; and whether there is anything in the above-mentioned form to give colour to such a suggestion?
    Mr. BENN: Under the Regulations insured persons who had selected or been assigned to a doctor in the course of last year are deemed to have selected that doctor for the current year unless they gave the notice required of their intention to make a fresh selection. The advice in question only refers, therefore, to insured persons who are not already on the list of a doctor or approved institution, and who have not been allowed or required to make their own arrangements.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there anything in the circular indicating that the right purported to be given is not extended to persons who have not selected their doctor, and that the right is taken away from persons who have been allocated doctors?
    Mr. BENN: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there anything at all in the circular about allocating doctors to insured persons?
    Mr. BENN: I have the circular in my hands. "If you have already chosen a doctor or an institution you will in due course receive a card."
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there anything in the circular referring to allocation?
    Mr. BENN: The circular refers to persons who are not on the list of any doctor, and gives them instructions as to what they are to do.

    DRUG FUND (MANCHESTER DISTRICT).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether there is a deficiency in the insurance drug fund in the Manchester district to the extent of about £16,000; and, if so, whether, in consequence, chemists on the panel have only been paid 50 per cent. of their accounts during the three latter months of 1913, and only about 27 per cent. for December, although it was one of their heaviest months; and what the Government propose to do in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed that the total sums already paid, or in course of being paid, by way of advances, amount to approximately 60 per cent. of the total amount of the accounts presented for the year. It is not, however, possible to estimate what further sums will be payable until those accounts have been scrutinised in accordance with the Regulations and the total sums available to the insurance committee for the purpose have been finally ascertained.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the hon. Member mean that if the accounts do not balance the chemist will lose the money due to him?
    Mr. BENN: Whatever happens will be in accordance with the provisions of the Act; but there is no evidence at present that the figures given by the hon. Member are correct.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that these chemists are going to be paid in full?
    Mr. BENN: I am suggesting to the hon. Member that he should wait until the accounts have been scrutinised.

    INSURED PERSONS (POOR LAW RELIEF).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether there are about 2,000 cases every year of insured persons receiving relief from the guardians; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is not aware what authority the hon. Member has for the figures referred to, nor does he know of any source from which reliable figures of this kind could be obtained, whether for England or for the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the hon. Member aware that a statement to this effect was made at the Central Poor Law Conference?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEETINGS).
    Mr. NEWMAN:asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the feeling of irritation experienced by officers and members of friendly societies at what they consider needless interference with the voluntary work of the societies, and more especially to the proposed Regulation of the Insurance Commissioners relative to the right of members to hold their meetings at such places as they may deem most advantageous for the conduct of their business; and whether an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the proposed Regulation before it becomes effective?
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he intends to withdraw or modify the proposed Regulation of the National Insurance Commissioners, now lying upon the Table of the House, which will deprive members of friendly societies of the right to hold their meetings at such places as the majority of the members may determine to be most convenient to themselves and most advantageous to the business of the societies?
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the opposition among friendly societies to the Regulation now lying upon the Table prohibiting friendly societies from holding their meetings in public-houses, and in consideration of the inconvenience and less which will occur to societies in carrying out the Regulation, the Government will withdraw it?
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the National Insurance Commission have passed a Resolution which, if carried into effect, would deprive the friendly societies of the right to hold their meetings at such places as the majority of the members consider most convenient; whether he is aware that Parliament refused to embody such a Resolution in the National Insurance Act; that the proposed Regulation relates only to the State section of the societies; whether he is aware that it would be impossible for a society to meet at one place
    1390
    for its State work and at another place for its voluntary work; and, seeing that the friendly societies consider that the Regulation is an interference with the administrative functions of the societies on their voluntary side and a distinct breach of the promise repeatedly made by him that no such interference would be exercised, whether he will assure the House that the proposed Regulation shall not be put into force until he has ascertained the views of the friendly societies upon the question?
    Mr. BENN: I propose to take questions 29, 30, 53, and 106 together. As I have previously stated in answer to similar questions, no Regulation has yet been laid before the House, and I have therefore nothing to add to my former replies.

    INSURANCE STAMPS (POST OFFICE SCALES OF REMUNERATION).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General the average rate of remuneration per pound sterling worth of national health insurance and unemployed stamps sold at scale-payment sub-post offices, payment to be stated in terms of cash; what are the average hours of scale-payment sub-postmistresses and sub-masters; what are they allowed opposite rent, light, fixtures, coal, and insurance of post office premises; are any of them paid pensions; and, if so, at what age?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): With regard to the rate of remuneration for national insurance work, I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Member the information he requires. I will communicate with him when the information is available. Scale-payment sub-offices are generally open to the public for about twelve hours, but at small offices often not for more than eight hours. The scale payment covers remuneration for all necessary accomodation, staff, etc., for Post Office work, and no particular portion of the remuneration is set against rent, light, fixtures, coal, or insurance. Scale-payment sub-postmasters are not established officers, and are therefor not eligible for pensions on retirement. There are, however, a few cases of scale-payment sub-postmasters who held Civil Service certificates granted many years ago, and who may be eligible for pensions on their retirement at the age of sixty, or earlier if their superannuation is due to ill-health.

    Death Duties.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked under what head in the National accounts the land acquired by the State in substitution for cash payment of Death Duties under Section 56 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, are shown; what is the total acreage and value of the land so acquired; and how the valuation is arrived at?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No lands have been acquired by the State in substitution for cash payment of Death Duties under Section 56 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. As indicated in reply to questions asked in this House on the 22nd and 30th October, 1912, and on the 16th July, 1913, land is not actually accepted in payment of Death Duties, although the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as representing the Crown, are willing to act as intermediaries for the transfer of land offered under the Section quoted to any public department or authority who may desire to purchase it. The land referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply of the 17th instant to the hon. Member for Blackburn, consists of 4 acres, 2 roods, 2 poles, and was transferred to the Somerset County Council. The valuation was agreed by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, the purchase-money was applied in payment of, and entered in the National accounts under the head of Death Duties.

    Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. CAMPIONasked on behalf of what Departments and under what heads Supplementary Estimates will be presented?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Paper 107, which was circulated last Thursday.

    Supply Services.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked bow much of the increase of £10,249,000 in the issues from the Exchequer to 14th February last over the same period in the previous year on account of Supply Services is due to Army, Navy, and Civil Services, respectively?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Of the increase in question £200,000 is under the head of Army, £5,850,000, is under the head of Navy, the remainder, namely, £4,199,000, is under the heads of Civil Services and Revenue Departments.

    Persian Loan.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked by what authority and on what dates the sum of £50,000 in 1911–12 and of £120,000 in 1912–13 was paid out of the Treasury Chest on account of a loan to the Persian Government; and when a Vote for these-payments will be taken?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The sums in question were issued from the Treasury Chest Fund under the authority of the Treasury Chest Fund Act, 1877, as follows:—9th February, 1912, £50,000; 30th April, 1912, £25,000; 27th February, 1913, £95,000. A further sum of £50,000 was issued on 15th April, 1913. Provision for the repayment of these sums to the Treasury Chest Fund has been included in the Civil Service Estimates for 1914–15 about to be presented.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will a Vote be taken for these amounts?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Treasury Fund will have to be replenished when these Estimates are considered in 1914.
    Sir J. D. REES: What was the security for the repayment of these sums?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that is a question which ought to be addressed to me.

    Valuation Office, Dublin.
    Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Dublin, Harbour)asked whether the initial salaries paid to temporary surveyors employed on revaluation in the Valuation Office, Dublin, has recently been reduced from £12 10s. to £8 a month;. and, if so, will he say if the Chief Commissioner considered the old remuneration excessive, although these surveyors get no subsistence allowance and. are changed from place to place, or on what grounds was the remuneration reduced, and what increase in salary does a, temporary surveyor get at present after six months' service?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The surveyors employed at an initial salary of £12 10s. per month were engaged for a higher class of work, and were to be trained as valuers. The increase a temporary surveyor will receive at the end of six months' service will depend on the class of work on which he has been employed, and the manner in which he has carried it out.

    Dundonald (County Down) Postal Arrangements.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any representations with regard to the lack of adequate postal facilities at Dundonald, county Down; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the provision of improved facilities?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have received such representations, and I hope shortly to be in a position to communicate my decision to the hon. Member.

    American Mails (Queenstown).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Postmaster-General whether Mr. A. W. Booth, chairman of the Cunard Company, in his letter to the Post Office, dated 19th June, 1913, putting forward two reasons for breaking his contract with the Department, alleged that one of them was that the "Lusitania" touched ground in Queenstown Harbour on the 29th December, 1907, despite the precautions which were exercised by the pilot and captain; whether he is aware that this incident was investigated by the Cork Harbour Board at the time and shown to have been due to a serious error of judgment on the part of the company's pilot on board the vessel; whether this decision was reported to the Cunard Company, who replied to the Board saying that it seemed clear that the pilot had committed an error of judgment and that he would be severely reprimanded; and whether the chairman of the company has since apologised for or explained the gross inaccuracy which misled the Postmaster-General in reference to the contract with the company?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member has quoted correctly the part of the letter of the 19th of June, 1913, sent to the Post Office by the chairman of the Cunard Company which is given in his question. I understand that the result of the investigation into the circumstances of the grounding of the "Lusitania," on 29th December, 1907, which was undertaken by the Cork Harbour Board, was substantially as stated in the question, but I am informed that the pilot of the "Lusitania" on that occasion was employed under the local pilotage authority, who had assigned his services to the Cunard Company, and that he was reprimanded, not by the company, but by the Cork
    1394
    Harbour Commissioners. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative. I should like to take this opportunity of correcting a statement made by me, without having any papers by me on Thursday night, regarding the omission of the call at Queenstown by the outward bound Cunard packets. I find that the times of posting for these packets under the new arrangements will be advanced: in Dublin, from 1.30 a.m. on Sunday to 8 p.m. on Friday; and in Belfast, from 4.55 p.m. on Saturday to 8.30 p.m. on Friday. I hope, however, to be able to arrange for a supplementary mail to be despatched by the Anchor Line steamers, which call at Moville on Saturday evenings. This would, of course, afford a later opportunity of posting, especially in the North of Ireland.
    Mr. MULDOON: Will this arrangement cost any additional sum, and, if so, how will it be provided?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Postmaster-General whether he knows anything about, or has any statement to make to the House about, the failure of the Hamburg-Amerika line to make Queenstown a port of call on the voyages between Europe and the United States?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no information whatever on this matter.

    London Postal Service (Wages).
    Mr. CASSELasked how many adult male employés of the Post Office in the London District are in receipt of wages of 25s. a week or less?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The number of full-time male employés of the Post Office, over 21 years of age, employed in the London District and at present in receipt of wages of 25s. a week or less is 1,376, of whom 993 are on scale of pay the maximum of which is above that sum.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. W. Brisley, who for sixteen years was in the employment of the National Telephone Company, and from 1900 till 1912 was the housekeeper at Telephone House; whether he is aware that by the transfer of the telephone service to the State Mr. Brisley's employ-

    1395
    ment ceased on 1st March last; and whether, under the circumstances, he is entitled to a pension or to compensation for loss of employment?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The case of Mr. Brisley received full consideration from my predecessor. Mr. Brisley was over seventy years of age at the time of the transfer, and was unfitted, by reason of his age, to supervise the staff of cleaners employed in Telephone House. There was no other work which could be given to him, and he retired from the service in March last. Mr. Brisley was not on the company's pension fund, and as an un-established officer he was not entitled to pension from the Post Office, but he was granted a gratuity on his retirement, in accordance with Section 7 of the Telephone Transfer Act, 1911. This gratuity was necessarily small, as he had performed little more than one year's service in the Post Office.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked when, approximately, the Postmaster-General proposes to announce the revised scale of telephone rates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am giving close attention to the draft scheme for the revision of telephone rates prepared under the instructions of my predecessor and hope to be able to announce the proposed new rates before Easter.

    Herring Trawling (Inter-departmental Commission).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked when the Report of the Interdepartmental Commission on Herring Trawling and other fishery matters will be promulgated?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Government Departments concerned in the question of trawling for herring have been engaged in extensive scientific and practical investigation, and the Inter-departmental Committee on Fisheries is now waiting the result of these investigations, which have necessitated the careful tabulation of the results. I am, therefore, unable to inform the hon. and gallant Member at present as to the date of the promulgation of the Report.

    Chapeltown Sub-postmastership.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked if an appointment has yet been made to the vacant sub-postmastership at Chapel-
    1396
    town, Turton, Lancashire; and, if not, the reason why no appointment has been made?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: An appointment has not been made. The sub-postmistress of Chapeltown, Turton, recently resigned her appointment, and, as it has not been possible to obtain another applicant for the vacancy, it has been necessary to close the office.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are several persons willing to take the office?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I shall be glad if they will come forward.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman increase the remuneration of the office?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ULSTER LETTERS.
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether letters passing through the post to well-known persons in Ulster have been opened, and whether there has been any system of espionage?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to both questions is in the negative. So far as I am aware or can ascertain, there is no foundation for the suggestion made by Lord Crawford in another place. I should be much obliged if any person who has any impression to the contrary would furnish me with the covers of any letters which, in his opinion, have been opened in the post.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it possible for letters to be tampered with in Ireland without the right hon. Gentleman or anybody on this side knowing anything about it?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Of course, it is conceivable that a letter might be tampered with without the Postmaster-General or his staff knowing, but I am anxious to repudiate the suggestion which has been made that the Post Office has had anything to do with the opening of letters.

    AMENDED PROPOSALS.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether he will circulate his amended proposals for the government of Ireland in the form of a White Paper?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This may ultimately prove to be a convenient mode of circulating the proposals of the Government, but they will, in the

    1397
    first instance, be stated and explained to the House, in accordance with Parliamentary usage, by a Minister of the Crown.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: What interference will result to the financial business necessary to be transacted before the end of March by the issue of a piece of white paper?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I prefer to follow the ordinary Parliamentary usage.
    Captain CRAIG: How long shall we have to wait for this information?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe we are going to have a discussion on this subject to-morrow night.
    Mr. MOORE: Shall we get an answer?

    South Wexford Postal Service.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the postal arrangements at several villages in South Wexford, in the neighbourhood of the Great Southern and Western Railway, is unsatisfactory; will he look into the matter with a view to giving a second delivery; and is he aware that by utilising the railway a second delivery would incur little or no increased cost?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As the hon. Member is aware, a scheme was prepared in 1908 for giving a second delivery at these villages, but it was abandoned on account of the general opposition of the residents, as expressed by the local authorities. The second delivery cannot be given without substantial increase of expenditure, but I will consider the application again if it were supported by the local authorities?
    Mr. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities feel very differently, now?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I hope they will express their different feeling in terms.

    Petitions to King.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether every Petition to His Majesty ought to be presented through the medium of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; whether, since the prorogation of the 15th August, 1913, a Petition, signed by 188 Members of the House of Lords, praying His Majesty forthwith to dissolve this Parliament, has been presented through some other
    1398
    medium; and, if so, whether he will state when and by whom such Petition was presented; and will he give the full text of that Petition along with a complete list of the names inscribed thereon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All Petitions to the King must, by constitutional usage, be presented through a Secretary of State; and, if they relate to the affairs of the United Kingdom through the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I have no knowledge of the existence of any such Petition as is described in the question.

    Moneylenders.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the growing practice on the part of moneylenders of incorporating their businesses as limited companies with a view to evading the provisions of the Moneylenders Acts; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent the continuance of such practices?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to answer this question. If the hon. Member will be so good as to furnish me with information showing in what way the provisions of the Moneylenders Acts are, in his opinion, being evaded by moneylenders incorporating their businesses as limited companies, the matter shall be carefully considered.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evil exists in the way of the preliminary fees demanded by these moneylenders? Will he bring in legislation?
    Mr. BURNS: I cannot promise legislation; but if my hon. Friend will give me any instances, I shall be pleased to inquire into them.

    Imperial Naturalisation Bill.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to proceed with the Imperial Naturalisation Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet name a date.
    Captain CRAIG: Is there any reasonable hope it will come on early in the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

    House of Commons (Payment of Members).
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give a day for the Motion whereby it may be made clear how many Members of the House are prepared to vote for the discontinuance of their own salaries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that this Vote by ourselves to ourselves will come on one day under circumstances which will ensure it shall be discussed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am prepared to take the feeling of the House as to that.
    Mr. WATT: Is it a fact that Members who do not wish to take salaries can bring it about by not presenting the warrant to the Treasury?

    Plural Voting Bill.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the undertaking given last Session by the Minister for Education that, in the event of the lifetime of the Government being prolonged to its normal limit, the final passage of the Plural Voting Bill would be accompanied by a measure of redistribution still holds good; and whether it is intended to deal with the question of three-cornered contests by means of the alternative vote in single-Member constituencies or of the transferable vote in grouped constituencies returning several Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand my right hon. Friend intimated that if we had the opportunity it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure to deal with redistribution, and, in reply to the first part of the question, I may say there is no alteration of the intentions of the Government. As regards the second part, I must ask the hon. Member to await the proposals of the Government on the subject.
    Mr. NEWMAN: What does the word "opportunity" mean?
    The PRIME MINISTER: "Opportunity" means opportunity.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister if he will submit the petition signed by 15,321 adult Nonconformists resident in the diocese of St. Asaph against the Disendowment of the
    1400
    Church in Wales, and which has been forwarded to him, to the impartial scrutiny of a small Committee of Members of this House or of any other Committee that he thinks well to appoint; and whether, in view of the fact that a similar petition is being organised independently by certain Nonconformists in South Wales, he will request the Committee to investigate this petition also when completed, in order that the honour and integrity of the petitioners may be upheld if the investigation so recommends?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated the other day, the protest is not in a form in which it can be presented to the House of Commons for submission to the Public Petitions Committee. I am not prepared to set up a special Committee for the purpose suggested. Petitions of this nature should be addressed to the House of Commons so that they can be subjected to, proper scrutiny.

    Development Commission.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if the vacancy on the Development Commission, caused by the resignation last summer of Sir Sainthill Eardley Wilmot, has yet been filled; if so, by whom; and, if not, when is it proposed to fill the vacancy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Eardley Wilmot vacated his appointment on the completion of the term for which he was appointed. The vacancy has not yet been filled, but I hope it will be shortly.

    Postal Servants' Grievances.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state if a day will be granted, or an early opportunity offered, to discuss the grievances of the postal servants and the Report of the Holt Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to say.
    Sir G. PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as too whether he will be able to say so at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It depends upon the exigencies of Parliamentary business.

    Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware of an attempt to revive the project

    1401
    of a Channel Tunnel; whether the present proposal differs in any material respect from that which was condemned by military opinion many years ago and was consequently vetoed by the Government; whether he has any information showing that military opinion regarding the project has changed; and if he will undertake that the Government will give no sanction to the construction of a Channel Tunnel until the subject has been again considered by a committee of naval and military experts, and until this House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The investigation which was promised on 5th August, 1913, in reply to a deputation representing the Committee of Members of the House of Commons in favour of the construction of a Channel Tunnel is not yet completed. It is not considered desirable to give a detailed reply to the questions formulated until the conclusion of the inquiry.
    Mr. LEE: Is the question being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

    Loss of Ketch "Mirror."
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the loss of the Boy Scouts' ketch "Mirror," when a scoutmaster and three scouts were drown off Gravesend last October; and whether any steps have been taken by the Board for the better protection of life and property at sea by insisting that in all future engagements ships' officers should be certificated?
    Mr. BURNS: The attention of the Board of Trade was called to this casualty, and a formal investigation was held in London on 26th and 27th January and on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th February. The official report of the Court of Inquiry has now been received, and it will receive my careful consideration. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts as regards certificated officers do not at present require ships employed in the home trade, other than passenger steamships, to carry certificated officers, and I doubt if it would be practicable to require small home-trade sailing vessels, such as the "Mirror," to have them. I may add that the master of the steamship "Hogarth," which was in collision with the "Mirror," holds a certificate of competency, and the master of
    1402
    "Mirror," who was uncertificated, was not considered by the Court to have been to blame for the collision.

    Building Trade Dispute.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether unemployed men in the building trade registering themselves at London Labour Exchanges are being asked whether they are prepared to sign the circular recently issued by the master builders; and whether these officials have been authorised to put this question and thus associate the Exchanges to some extent with the document?
    Mr. BURNS: Applicants to Labour Exchanges for vacancies notified by London master builders have been carefully informed both of the existence of a dispute and of the conditions of employment offered, including, of course, that to which my hon. Friend refers. The information has been given by way of warning of the condition to be expected, and in no way as an invitation to workmen to comply with it. But for this proper information workmen might have had fruitless journeys to apply for jobs in ignorance of a condition which would cause them to refuse the work on arrival.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: If any of these men who accept employment at a distance from London are not allowed to start work because they were locked out, will they be entitled to unemployment benefit under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. BURNS: I do not think that arises out of the question. It is the duty and object of the superintendents of Labour Exchanges to give truthful information as to the issue and causes of a dispute, but to observe absolute neutrality from the point of view of the dispute itself.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In the event of the men refusing to go to work at any of the works indicated, will they have a black mark placed against them?
    Mr. BURNS: Certainly not.
    Mr. ALDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to check the boycott of trade unionists who cannot get work in the country because they are known to be locked out in London?
    Mr. BURNS: If my hon. Friend will give me information as to that, I will direct my attention to the special case.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Labour Exchange at St. Albans is asking for joiners for a job at Dover; that when men apply they are asked whether they are locked out, because, if so, they are not eligible for the Dover job; and whether this Exchange has received authority to secure workmen for a job where men at present concerned in a dispute are debarred?
    Mr. BURNS: I have made inquiries into the case referred to by my hon. Friend, and find that certain vacancies were notified to the Dover Exchange with regard to which it was stipulated by the employer as a condition of employment that applicants should not have been locked out by the London Master Builders Association. These vacancies were communicated to the St. Albans Exchange, which, in bringing them to the notice of certain applicants for employment, followed the practice prescribed in the Statutory Regulations, namely, to give applicants all the information in their possession as to the conditions of employment, with a view to avoiding disappointment and fruitless journeys.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will the men be allowed to post up in Labour Exchanges a black list containing the names of unfair firms?
    Mr. BURNS: My hon. Friend has not given me any evidence of a black list. I do not believe that one is in existence. If he has any information about it I shall be pleased if he will communicate it to me.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need for a black list as a man's insurance card tells where he comes from?

    Railway Rates (Milk Trade).
    Mr. CAMPIONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the injury that is being inflicted on the milk trade of this country owing to the increase in railway rates; and whether, owing to the urgency of this question, he is prepared to take immediate steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that urgent appeals have been addressed to the railway companies by milk producers in every part of England and Wales for at least two months for the reduction of their increased charges, amounting in some cases to 14 per cent., for the conveyance
    1404
    of milk, and that such increase of charges has rendered precarious the industry of many of the smaller milk producers, he will obtain from the railway companies without further delay an assurance that such charges shall be forthwith substantially reduced?
    Mr. ORDE-POWLETTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether any answer has yet been received from the railway companies in respect of the application for the reduction of the rates in the milk traffic; and, if not, whether he will take steps to obtain an assurance that these rates shall be materially reduced without delay?
    Mr. BURNS: The Railway Clearing House inform me that they have communicated to the Milk Traders' Railway Rates Committee a modified scale of rates for the conveyance of milk which they propose to introduce on 1st March, as the result of the traders' representations, with the object of reducing the charge in certain cases where the calculation of fractions of a penny as a penny was found to operate hardly. I am forwarding to the hon. Members a copy of the letter from the Railway Clearing House to the committee.

    Port of London Authority (Dues).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Port of London Authority have made a practice of allowing rebates on a sliding scale to large payers of dues in spite of Section 15 of the Port of London Act, which lays it down that all dues imposed shall be charged equally in respect of all goods of the same description under the same circumstances in the same dock; and whether, in view of the effect of this practice on small shippers and importers, he will take steps to secure that the intention of Parliament as set out in the Section referred to is carried out?
    Mr. BURNS: I may refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire, on Thursday last, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. HOLTasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will ascertain whether the Port of London Authority assert that it is in their power to grant to any persons preferential dues or allowances on either vessels or goods solely by reason of the amount of dues payable by such persons;

    1405
    and whether, if he finds such a power is claimed, he will forthwith introduce legislation to take it away?
    Mr. BURNS: I have transmitted a copy of this question to the Port Authority for their observations, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have received a reply.

    Wiltshire and Berkshire Canal.
    Mr. PETOhad given notice of the following question: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Swindon Corporation propose to introduce a Bill for the abandonment of the Wiltshire and Berkshire Canal; and whether the Board of Trade intend to take any steps to prevent the further dilapidation and abandonment of such waterways as exist in this country, particularly in view of the extended use of motor traction for conveyance of goods on canals?
    Mr. R. C. LAMBERT: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask whether he is aware that the canal in question is derelict, that it passes through a crowded part of Swindon, and that the public health authority of that district has long endeavoured to get rid of this danger to public health?
    Mr. BURNS: I would ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peto) to postpone this question. I shall be pleased to answer it to-morrow.

    Ford Manufacturing Company (United States).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that the Ford Manufacturing Company of the United States has increased the wages of all the thousands of married workmen employed to a minimum of £1 a day each; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the special causes which enable such wages to be paid by this company and issue a Report on the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I have seen in the newspapers accounts of certain schemes for the distribution of some of the profits of the company referred to by the hon. Member, but as these schemes are of very recent origin I propose to defer making any inquiries until they have been tested by the experience of at least a year.
    Mr. ALDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report in the newspapers is correct?
    Mr. BURNS: It is not for me to make inquiries as to the correctness of the reports of this particular scheme. The best report of it is to be found in an American paper called the "Survey," which I am placing in the Library for hon. Members to see.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it a fact that this company at their English works are paying an equally high minimum wage to, their workmen?
    Mr. BURNS: I believe that is so.

    American Motor Cars.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the 3,619 motor cars exported to this country from the United States, and valued at £744,392, or an average of £204 each car were sold in this country at a price about £25 each cheaper than the price at which, the same cars are sold in the United States; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the cause of this?
    Mr. BURNS: I think the hon. Member is misinformed. I have had inquiry made as to the relative prices in London and New York of each of the leading types of American cars in use in this country, and I find that in every case the price in London exceeds the price in New York by a substantial sum.
    Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry on the subject through Consuls or otherwise?
    Mr. BURNS: This question was only recently put to me. I will see what further information can be got.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that under the new reduced tariff of the United States motor cars of the value of £400 each still pay a duty of 45 per cent. ad ralorem, and that this affects the English motor-car industry unduly, as the average value of the seventy-six motor cars exported from this country to the United States last year was £781 each, so that they all came under the maximum tariff; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to improve the position of British manufacturers?
    Mr. BURNS: The facts as to the duty leviable in the United States, and as to the average value of exports thereto from this country, are as stated in the question. The average value of motor cars imported into the United States from all countries

    1407
    is well above £400, so that imports from the United Kingdom do not appear to be under any special disability as compared with those imported from other sources. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

    Race Suicide.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is an offence to sell appliances favouring what is called race suicide; and, if so, why the police authorities have failed to prosecute in the numerous cases where these appliances are openly advertised and sold in shops in London; whether the sale of these articles is an offence only when associated with the expression of heterodox opinion; and whether he contemplates introducing a Bill to render devout people who sell these articles also liable to penalties?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): There has not been an authoritative decision of the Courts on this question, but I am advised that the sale of such articles is not in itself illegal, though the circumstances in which the goods were sold or offered for sale might be such as to make the proceeding unlawful. The religious beliefs of the seller would, of course, have no bearing on the question.

    Blasphemy Charge (T. W. Stewart).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that in the letter, signed E. Blackwell, from the Home Office, Whitehall, 27th December, 1913, it is asserted that Thomas William Stewart has been punished for holding up to contempt the religious belief of others and making use of language calculated to wound, and in view of the pronouncement of Mr. Justice Coleridge in the case that it is a fact that you may attack any other religion, such as Mahomedanism or Judaism, in the most blasphemous language, and the law will hold you harmless, he will, if this statement of law be correct, introduce a Bill to protect Mahomedan and Jewish subjects of His Majesty from language calculated to wound?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of any necessity having arisen for legislation to protect Jews or Mahomedans in this country from aspersions on their religion of the character of those directed against the Christian religion in the case referred to.
    Mr. LYNCH: Ought the Christian religion to be placed in a position of exceptional advantage?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is the law.
    Mr. HOLT: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to repeal the law?
    Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether on 18th November, 1913, Thomas William Stewart was tried at the Staffordshire Assizes on an indictment for blasphemy, was convicted, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment; whether on the following day he was indicted for indecency and acquitted; whether he is still in prison; and whether the Secretary of State authorised a letter, dated front the Home Office, Whitehall, 27th December, 1913, and signed E. Blackwell, wherein the continued detention of Thomas William Stewart was justified, not on the grounds of blasphemy, but by insinuation of the offence for which he was acquitted?
    Mr. McKENNA: The prisoner, Thomas William Stewart, was tried and convicted as stated in the question on the 17th November last. He was sentenced on the following day to four months' imprisonment, and is still in prison. He was tried on the 18th November on two indictments charged him, firstly, with sending an indecent article by post; and, secondly, with selling an indecent pamphlet. On both these charges he was acquitted. The hon. Member is in error in supposing that the Home Office letter of the 27th December, 1913, gave reasons to justify the continued detention of Stewart. The only and complete justification of Stewart's detention was his conviction and the sentence passed on him by the Court, against which he did not appeal. The Home Office letter contained the reply to a Petition asking for an exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, one of the alleged grounds for mercy being that Stewart was a victim of religious persecution. Had the circumstances attending Stewart's breach of the law been such as to lead me to believe that he was actuated by zeal for the truth as he understood it and was a victim of religious persecution, I should have felt that that was a strong ground for advising a reduction of his sentence; but I found, after examining the evidence on which he was convicted, and consulting the judge, that Stewart's public speeches were delivered, not so much with the object of

    1409
    Spreading his ideas of truth as of facilitating his commercial dealings, and that, notwithstanding the nature of his goods, his wife was employed to advertise his trade by going amongst the miscellaneous?crowd of men, women, and children which his speech collected round him. I was satisfied that the petition for his release was based on a wholly mistaken view of Stewart's character and motives, and in my reply in the letters of 27th December and 6th January, I explained what the actual facts were. Sincerity and purity of motive may be good grounds for advising an exercise of the prerogative; but in Stewart's case these grounds did not exist.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman read that letter, and if so, does he now accept full responsibility for it?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I accept full responsibility for all the letters which are issued from the Home Office.
    Mr. LYNCH: I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is there any truth in the statement in the Press that this man is about to be released?
    Mr. McKENNA: He is about to be released shortly, because of the expiration of the sentence.

    School Plays.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if it is necessary to take out a dramatic licence when school children act a play in public?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am advised that the requirements of the law are not affected by the age of the performers. If a charge is made for admission or the performance is otherwise "for hire" within the meaning of the Theatres Act, 1843, the premises must toe licensed and the play, if a new one, must also be licensed.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In view of the educative value of these plays, and the fact that children do not take enough money to pay for the actual cost of putting them on, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend some change in the law?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the point. Any question as to legislation should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Prime Minister.

DEATH OF MR. BENTON.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the Foreign Secretary give the House any information with regard to the reported death of a British subject, Mr. Benton, in Mexico?
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): Sir Cecil Spring-Rice telegraphed on the 20th instant to the effect that on the 19th instant he received a telegram from Mrs. Benton, dated El Paso, Texas, 18th February, to the following effect:—"Beg to advise Your Excellency that my husband William Benton, a British subject, yesterday went to Juarez. After heated discussion with Villa, he was thrown into gaol. To friends who visited Villa on his behalf, Villa said: I have not got him prisoner. I saw him this morning. I decline any more talk on the subject. Fear for his life. Request you to use necessary efforts to have my husband returned." We have no means of communicating with Villa direct, but at Sir Cecil Spring-Rice's request the United States Secretary of State at once ordered the United States Consuls at Juarez and Torreon to take immediate action. On the morning of the 20th the Secretary of State showed Sir Cecil Spring-Rice a telegram from the United States Consul stating that, on receiving instructions, he visited Villa at once, who said that Benton was dead, and expressed the wish that both Governments should know the fact that Benton came to his house armed, and attempted to kill him. Villa produced the pistol which he said Benton had brought with him. Sir Cecil Spring-Rice observed to the Secretary of State that public opinion in Europe might be seriously affected by Villa's attitude towards foreigners. Mr. Bryan, while declining responsibility for Villa's doings, said that the United States Consul was inquiring fully into the circumstances, and would report as soon as possible. Subsequently, Mr. Bryan informed Sir Cecil Spring-Rice that Benton was tried by court-martial and shot on 17th or 18th February on account of a plot to assassinate Villa. Sir Cecil Spring-Rice again expressed the hope that details would be communicated to him. Mr. Bryan promised to do so, and expressed his deep regret for the incident. Before this incident occurred, the United States Government had, at our request, impressed upon the leaders of the Constitutionalists the importance of respecting foreign lives and

1411
property. I should like to add that the fact that we are communicating with the Government of the United States does not, of course, imply that they have any responsibility for what has taken place; the communications have been made because the United States alone can, in this in. stance, exercise any influence to discover the truth and to get justice done. Juarez is close to the United States frontier, and we ourselves have no means of exercising influence in this region under present conditions. I am still in communication with Sir Cecil Spring-Rice and the United States Government as to what further steps can be taken.
Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government knows anything of the two other Europeans who were stated to have accompanied Benton, and have not been since heard of?
Sir E. GREY: No; I have not the information, but I have already telegraphed to Sir Cecil Spring-Rice suggesting what steps it may be possible to take in this very disturbed region to ascertain the facts?
Sir F. BANBURY: May we understand that the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can to ascertain the exact facts?
Sir E. GREY: That is the object of my communication both with Sir Cecil Spring-Rice and through him with the United States Government.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  William Baring Du Pre, esquire, for County of Buckingham (Southern or Wycombe Division).
  Major Sir Mathew Richard Henry Wilson, baronet. C.S.I., for Borough of Bethnal Green (South-West Division).
  Alfred William Yeo, esquire, for Borough of Tower Hamlets (Poplar Division).

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
    "To provide for the enfranchisement of leaseholds." Presented by Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Colonel Pryce-Jones, and Mr. Montague Barlow; to be read a second time upon Monday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
    RURAL COTTAGES BILL.
    "To provide for the better housing of the working classes in rural areas." Presented by Mr. STANIER; supported by Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Hamersley, Mr. Jardine, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Barnston, and Captain Morrison-Bell; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
    DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
    " To promote the earlier use of Daylight in certain months yearly; and for other purposes in relation thereto." Presented by Mr. ROBERT PEARCE; supported by Sir Walter Essex, Sir Stephen Collins, Mr. Henry Forster, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Leach, Sir Henry Norman, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Monday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
    CALENDAR REFORM BILL.
    "To reform the Calendar, fix Easter and other and more bank-holidays; and for other purposes in relation thereto." Presented by Mr. ROBERT PEARCE; supported by Sir Albert Spicer; to be read a second time upon Monday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

    ABSENT VOTERS BILL.
    "To facilitate the recording of votes at Parliamentary elections by fishermen, sailors, and other persons liable to habitual absence from their usual resi-
    1438
    dence in pursuit of their calling." Presented by Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON; supported by Captain Waring, Major, Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Peto, Captain Murray, Mr. Robert Harcourt, and Mr. Leicester Harmsworth; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) PENALTIES BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to the penalties for illegal fishing by trawl vessels." Presented by Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON; supported by Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Bryce, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, and) Mr. Godfrey Collins; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
    "To extend the Parliamentary franchise to men and women, and to amend the registration and electoral system." Presented by MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON; supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Parker, Mr. James Thomas, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. George Roberts,. Mr. Hodge, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
    COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFCATION) BILL.
    "To extend the qualification for being elected on County and Borough Councils." Presented by MR. HILLS; supported by Sir Ryland Adkins, Sir William Bull, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Francis M'Laren, and Mr. Walter Rea; to be read a second time upon Monday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1913–14).
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    Class II.—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

    1439
    on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department."
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I think it is only courteous to the Committee, that I should at the commencement, in order to enable hon. Members who follow to take part in this Debate, make a short statement covering all the facts. First, as regards the amount of the Vote; the amount is the nominal sum of £10, but of course that is merely a nominal sum. The total sum required is £8,000, but the Department has been able to save upon the Grant received from the Treasury a large sum in respect of bovine tuberculosis. Then, as regards policy; by the rules of the Committee we are wholly precluded from touching upon questions of policy. That is not allowable on a Supplementary Estimate, and even if it were allowable the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Runciman) would be a sufficient reason for avoiding the question of policy, and also avoiding all questions relating to England, so far as it is possible to do so. I will now give a succinct narrative of what has happened, and will comment upon that narrative as I proceed. From the 7th of November, 1912, when the last of the outbreaks of that year occurred, Ireland remained unvisited by the disease until the end of January of the present year, when the Department was summoned late at night to deal with an outbreak which was said to have occurred at Naas, in the county of Kildare. The chief officer of the Department proceeded to Naas. He confirmed the existence of the disease on a farm owned by John Carroll, the actual site of the outbreak being in the centre of the town. Steps were at once taken to deal with the matter. The farm was isolated at night, and police were brought into action in the two counties of Kildare and Wicklow to prevent the movement of live stock next morning. The Order could not be issued that night, to be effective, as it was too late, but by eight o'clock next morning the police of the three counties, Kildare, Wicklow, and Dublin, were notified that all movement was prohibited and they proceeded at once to execute and
    1440
    enforce the Order. Two days afterwards an outbreak nine miles distant from Naas, at Ballysax, was also reported. The first outbreak was confined to cattle and to milch cows, and the second extended to swine. It is a curious thing that the outbreak at Ballysax was in the same place as the outbreak of 1912–13, and on the same spot. From that day to this nothing has been heard of the disease in the county Kildare; it has been effectively stamped out, and I have been able to-day to lessen the area of prohibition and to reduce the circle from fifteen miles to nine miles, and if the same progress continues, I hope to be able to clear Kildare altogether of any difficulty in the matter. These are the facts concerning the outbreak in Kildare.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: What was the date?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The end of January. I would like to mention another fact connected with this disease in Kildare. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture in England, on learning of the outbreak at once closed the English ports, and he did more. He authorised his inspectors to proceed on a mission to endeavour to find out the cattle that had crossed from Dublin to Birkenhead for a week or ten days before the outbreak had occurred. He informs me that all these cattle have been traced and that no disease has been found.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: On what premises or port at Birkenhead was the disease discovered?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Wallassey was certainly the first, and I think that there was a second. On 31st January, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries made an Order prohibiting the movement out of the Irish landing places of animals landing thereat, and animals landing were to be slaughtered within four days within the landing place, and he prohibited the landing of any animals whatever from the port of Dublin. Owing to the contiguity of the port of Dublin to Kildare all movements were prohibited, and animals were not allowed to land from Dublin either for slaughter or for any other purpose. On the same day the Department, with a view to further safeguard against the spread of infection, made an Order regulating the movement of hay and straw and oats within an area of five miles around the infected places. On the following day an extension of the disease

    1441
    was confirmed at Ballysax, and the same steps were taken there. By the 3rd of February all the stock on the infected farms at Naas and Ballysax had been slaughtered, and between the 4th and the 6th or 7th all the animals who were known or suspected to have been in contact with the animals at Naas were slaughtered. None of these animals were found to be infected. In the Ballysax case there were no in-contacts. Here is the bill of costs for that operation, giving the number and kind of animals slaughtered and the amount paid as compensation, for which this Vote is necessary: There were slaughtered at Naas 65 cattle, 132 sheep, 13 swine, and one goat, and the compensation amounted to £1,400. At Ballysax there were slaughtered 37 cattle, 44 sheep, 18 swine, and compensation amounting to £685 12s. was paid. The total amount of compensation between the two places was £2,085 12s. That finishes what I have to say about Kildare. I do not think, and certainly my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture does not think, that anything was left undone to stamp out the disease, and he has stated so. There has been constant daily communication between the two Boards, and I do not think that anyone, either in Ireland or out of it, has anything to say regarding the steps taken by the Department in stamping out the disease.
    I come now to a much more interesting question, that is in reference to the animals landed at Birkenhead. At this point we Were informed, very much to our surprise, by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out at Birkenhead landing stage. We at once sent an Inspector to be present, and telegrams continued to arrive for over five or six days, giving the results of examinations made. In all fourteen cargoes from different Irish ports were declared to be infected, and the Inspector of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland agreed in the diagnosis of the disease. It was a very astonishing thing for us. I would like to tell the Committee now just exactly what the Department did in view of these alarming facts. From the 7th to the 15th instant inclusive, twenty-six cargoes of live stock, comprising 2,966 cattle, 1,594 sheep, and 2,146 swine, were shipped from the various Irish ports to Birkenhead. According to the statement from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries the disease among the animals in the fourteen cargoes at Birken-
    1442
    head was confined to cattle and swine; sheep were not affected at all. Here is a matter of great importance both to Irish and British Members. During the same period, that is to say, from the 7th to the 15th of the present month, twenty-eight vessels landed from Ireland 1,316 cattle, 343 sheep, and 440 swine at the remaining six British ports. It is remarkable that at no other landing place except Birkenhead was any disease of the kind discovered. Notwithstanding that, Birkenhead cargoes were drawn from almost every port of Ireland. That is a very remarkable fact, and in any inquiry that is about to take place, that fact must be taken into account, and must bulk largely in my opinion. We have the disease at Birkenhead in fourteen cargoes; we have no disease at the other six ports of Great Britain, though the animals came from the same ports as the animals which came to Birkenhead. All the animals shipped from Ireland were carefully examined, and the examination included the mouth: that is to say, the examination of an animal in Ireland now is not a mere perfunctory thing. It is not a look at the animal passing alone. Every head of cattle, every pig and every sheep, has its mouth opened, which is a very difficult operation in many cases, and the animal is strictly examined on the Irish side. In regard to Birkenhead, the animals were inspected as they left the vessel, and were afterwards kept under close observation, without anything in the form of foot-and-mouth disease at all being discovered for forty-eight hours subsequently. We know that the period of incubation is much less. The time was too short in any circumstances to allow of the animals becoming infected at Birkenhead. In the case of at least three consignments in which disease was discovered at Birkenhead there remains the curious fact that among the animals which had been in contact no symptom of the disease was discovered. In a number of other instances where animals had been located in Ireland and had been in contact, notwithstanding the most careful inspection, no disease whatever has been found.
    I wish to refer to one fact of enormous interest, namely, that in these ten days our inspectors examined 37,000 animals in different parts of Ireland. Their examination was of a most critical and close character, and in not a single instance did they find any animal affected with disease of any kind. These were the animals which had been in contact on the farms.

    1443
    There has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease since the Ballysax outbreak of January, and all cattle have been slaughtered in connection with the Kildare outbreak. The heads of both the English and Irish Departments are to meet this week to make a searching and critical examination into the state of matters. I have no business to say anything in regard to the subject of that inquiry, more especially in relation to British officials, but I think the whole question of what kind of cattle have been landed at Birkenhead for some time back requires attention.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not quite act up to the maxim he laid down at the beginning of his observations, that he would not enter upon questions of policy.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am quite aware of the difficulty, and I will not pursue that part of the subject. It is necessary, however, that the inquiry should include the question of the Birkenhead landing-stage; but my business is not to convict Birkenhead, it is to clear Ireland.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: To stop the disease.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have stopped it in Ireland; let him stop it in England. There is no trace of disease in Ireland at the present moment. Let me deal with one or two other points. Take the case mentioned at Question Time. There have been five or six outbreaks in which Irish cattle have been involved—I am endeavouring to keep very close to the line—but there have been five outbreaks in Great Britain during the last four or five months. There were two cases in the South of England of imported Irish cattle on a farm. An inquiry was instituted, and it was found that no cattle had. been moved since August, so that if the Irish cattle had been there they could not have been imported. I wish to impress the Committee with the fact that the real circumstances did not come out in answer to the question put to my hon. Friend last night. Those cattle left Ireland on the 30th January, and they had eight or nine days at Birkenhead. The disease was discovered on Saturday, so that twenty-one days had elapsed from their leaving Dublin—a period which has never been heard of in the history of the disease for incubation. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said it was my business to put disease down in Ireland; I
    1444
    accept the responsibility. We took a very strong step indeed at Dundalk. Six butchers left Birkenhead for Dundalk, where they were inspected, though the facilities for inspection at that place are not so great as they are at Dublin. In Dublin the corporation have the means of dealing with cases of this kind, and they undertake the work at the request of the Department. Forty-one butchers went to that place from Birkenhead, and they were thoroughly disinfected. The corporation have all the necessary resources for that purpose, and the work is thoroughly and efficiently done.
    In the case of the six butchers who landed at Dundalk, they were all inspected and their clothes thoroughly disinfected, but on opening their bags it was found that the implements of their butchering trade were covered with blood and hair, and, never touched, they had been brought to Ireland in that condition. I took a lesson from another part of the world, and I sent those men back to Birkenhead—deported them—and I know if I were brought before a jury in regard to my action what the result would be. We returned those six men to Birkenhead, and I submit that they had no right to be sent to Dundalk with their implements in that condition. Let me deal with the question of hay and straw, a very serious question indeed. We have had great difficulty in Kildare in that matter. The animals had been mouthing the hay and straw, and we had to get it and destroy it. It was hay and straw coming from foreign ports and from England and Scotland. I had no option but to issue an Order prohibiting the entry of hay and straw from any port outside the country. It was a very regrettable thing that one had to do, but one had no other option, if one was to save the country from an outbreak. We have done our best; we-have detached a large staff, badly wanted for other business, to trace and follow up animals throughout the country. We have examined them most carefully; their mouths and teeth have been examined; and yet after all these careful investigations we have not found a single trace of foot-and-mouth disease throughout the whole of Ireland, and those cargoes came from every part of Ireland. In face of that statement, which I make on my responsibility, it is up to us to be able to find out where the disease came from. The Order in regard to ships is perfectly clear, and we see that it is carried out by the inspectors

    1445
    on each side. A ship is thoroughly disinfected, and every precaution is taken in that direction. It will be the bounden duty of the two Departments to leave no stone unturned to find out where the seat of the disease lies and stamp it out.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: I think the statement made by the right hon. Gentlemen will give every satisfaction to everybody concerned in the cattle trade of Ireland, and I think everybody interested in that trade will admit that the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides acted with great promptness and rapidity, and that they left no stone unturned to stamp out the disease before it had got any large hold upon the country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in conjunction with the English Department an endeavour will be made to ascertain what is the cause of the outbreak in Birkenhead. It is, however, of just as great interest to the people of Ireland to ascertain what was the cause of the outbreak in the middle of the town of Naas. We do not know whether the cattle had been imported from this country or not. And we are still in the dark as to what might have been the cause of the outbreak at Ballysax in 1912–whether it was caused by the use of refuse of packing stuff. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at that time they were importing fruit direct from France, and the packing was used as bedding. Offal was used for feeding pigs by the lady who owns the farm at Ballysax. She had a great number of pigs at the time, and they were largely fed on the offal which came from the camp at Curragh. I think the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself at the time that the only outbreak amongst pigs in Ireland was the outbreak in Ballysax, and that that outbreak was due to the fact that the bedding of the pigs was the refuse that came from goods imported from France. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any indication, or whether his inquiries have led him to hold the suspicion, that the outbreak in Naas was due to the use as bedding of any of this foreign packing stuff, and how it comes into the country?
    Mr. RUSSELL: To the Curragh?
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Either the Curragh or any other part of the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the Ballysax outbreak was due to the use as bedding of the packing stuff in the boxes that came from France. Some time
    1446
    ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether representations had been made to him by large stock owners in Ireland, and, as well, by people holding very high Government positions, as to whether he thought it advisable to offer a monetary reward in order to discover the origin and the cause of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying, said that he never harboured those suspicions, and that he did not intend to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that those suspicions are held very largely in Ireland. He knows that one of the best known men engaged in the handling of cattle in Ireland holds those suspicions. He knows that a very prominent Government official, a large stockowner himself, also holds those suspicions, and I think I am not going too far when I say that the Royal Dublin Society holds those suspicions, and the suspicion is that foot-and-mouth disease has been planted in Ireland maliciously, and that it has been planted maliciously by interested persons. We all know who the interested persons are.
    Sir. F. BANBURY: Who are they?
    Mr. KILBRIDE: I will tell you in a minute. For about six months all the beef that comes from Ireland probably is not in many instances so completely finished as a good deal of the meat in this country. It comes into competition not with the real high-class beef produced in England, but comes into competition with the second-class beef produced here, and comes into direct competition with the foreign beef landed in this country. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to know who the interested parties are. The interested parties in this instance are those who import largely foreign beef, and with whom we come into competition, and it is held by the largest men in the cattle trade, by the largest stock owners in Ireland, and by the Royal Dublin Society, and not by small farmers, but by people of responsibility in Ireland, people who do not talk lightly of matters of this kind, that foot-and-mouth disease has been planted in Ireland purely in the trade interest of those with whom we compete—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going into a wider matter than is proper to a Supplementary Estimate. The matter is one which might have been raised on the main Vote for the Department of Agriculture, but it is rather a wide question for a Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: As there is going to be an inquiry into the cause and origin of the outbreak in Birkenhead, perhaps on a future occasion, if that inquiry does not elucidate the matter, we will put some further qestions to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the numbers of pigs that have been detained in Ireland and that had not been shipped, although in the same consignment for Birkenhead, for want of room, and that those pigs so detained have all been found free of disease. In mentioning that matter he forgot to tell the House that amongst those pigs was one in Waterford which had not been shipped, not because of want of room, but because it was so exhausted, through having come from Roscommon, and by Athenry, and by having been driven from the fair to the railway station, by the journey, and, again, by having been driven from the train to the lairages at Waterford. As everybody knows, if there is foot-and-mouth disease about at all, it is an animal such as that exhausted pig in Waterford that would be most susceptible, and if the disease were about in Waterford, in Roscommon, or in Athenry, where those pigs were bought, or in almost any part of the air of Ireland, that exhausted pig that had to be kept back would have undoubtedly contracted the disease. I had a letter to-day to say that although that pig is still under observation in Waterford, it is in a healthy condition. I was glad to find from the right hon. Gentleman that he has made it quite clear that in the case of the outbreak reported yesterday or to-day from Worcestershire those cattle had been detained for several days in Birkenhead before they went to Worcestershire, and that they were there for several days before there was any outbreak, and that an interval of twenty-one days elapsed between the time they left Dublin and the date on which the outbreak was discovered in Worcestershire. That clearly proves that when those animals left Dublin they were in a sound and healthy condition.
    All I have further to say is that, as far as I know, all those ensaged in, or interested in, the Irish cattle trade are very much indebted for the promptness and decision of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department in the action they took in stamping out the disease. Everybody will admit that in dealing with this disease there are only two policies, either the policy of stamping it out or the policy of doing nothing and allowing every beast
    1448
    in the country to become infected, and to let it work itself out by process of exhaustion. The latter is not the policy that is adopted in this country, and that is not the policy that is adopted by the Department in Ireland, and it is a policy that undoubtedly does not appeal to me, and I do not believe it appeals to any intelligent man, either in the cattle trade or in the stock-raising business. I hope that after a short time the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able, as he indicated to-day, to reduce the restricted area in South Kildare. He has already reduced that area from fifteen miles to nine, and I hope he will be able to reduce it further, because I may point out to him that there is no area in Ireland of the same extent that produces the same amount of beef during the six winter months of the year as South Kildare does. It is a purely agricultural district, and the beef produced there is house-fed. At this time of the year the farmers in that district are hardly hit by these restrictions. I am not going to press the right hon. Gentleman to do anything that would jeopardise the safety of the health of the herds and flocks in Ireland, but I hope, now that such a lenghty time has elapsed since the outbreak at Ballysax, and with no indication whatever of any trace of disease either in South Kildare or any other part of Ireland for more than three weeks, that he will see his way to reduce still further the area, if he does not, indeed, find himself able to do away altogether with any restriction in that part of the country, and that in a very short time will be able to tell us that all restrictions are removed.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I do not intend to trespass on your ruling by touching the question of the English Board of Agriculture in any way. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department in Ireland told us that in Ireland he has carried out such strict regulations that practically the disease has been stamped out there. He also told us that he had control of the vessels in which the animals were shipped, and that very careful inspection had been made of those vessels. If the disease did not break out in Ireland and did not start from Ireland, it must have either started on board the vessels or at Birkenhead. Only one point remains as to the vessels, since they have been thoroughly inspected, and that is, the food given to the cattle on board those vessels. The right hon. Gentleman told

    1449
    us that he has prohibited the importation of foreign foodstuffs into Ireland.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Only to-day.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: My point is that the disease may have come on board those vessels from improper food in the shape of foreign hay or straw. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember this point, and go into it for the sake of clearing his Department of any responsibility for the outbreak. It seems rather a small question, but it might be the origin of this very serious outbreak.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I desire to say a few words in criticism of the action and administration of the Board of Agriculture with regard to Ireland, With regard to its work in Ireland in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, I have nothing whatever except words of praise. The right hon. Gentleman administered the law severely, but, in my opinion, it could not be administered too severely. I would like to ask him with regard to the disease of scab in sheep. Several cases have been detected on this side of the channel, and that has been used as an argument by the President of the Board of Agriculture and his officials here in detaining cattle shipped from Ireland. I desire to know, has the right hon. Gentleman the President of the English Board of Agriculture power to enforce the Detention Order? If he has not, then he should seek for the Parliamentary powers. With regard to the action of the Vice-President and that of the nominal head of the Department, the Chief Secretary, I must say their actions have been deplorably weak in connection with this question of the transit of cattle. I am glad the Chief Secretary is here. I consider he is primarily responsible. He is a Cabinet Minister, equal in rank to the President of the English Board of Agriculture, and it is very unfair to blame the Vice-President for what the President ought to look after. There has been no law passed in this House since the year 1878 dealing with the transit of cattle between Great Britain and Ireland, and in those days—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must observe the purpose for which this money is asked. It is solely to deal with the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. The wider debate must be reserved until we come to the main Vote of the Department later on.
    Mr. WHITE: Can I not on this Vote criticise the Irish Board for dereliction of duty?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not, unless it is in regard to the specific instances for which this money is asked, and the way in which this money has been spent. The hon. Member cannot make a general criticism of the policy of the Board. That must be done on another occasion, when the Estimates for the year are before us.
    Mr. WHITE: I wish to criticise the Department for having not taken advantage of the powers at their disposal in regard to the transportation of Irish cattle from Ireland to Great Britain. Am I not at liberty to deal with that question?
    The CHAIRMAN: Only if it arises specifically out of the recent events for which this money is required. So far as the hon. Member has gone, his criticism is clearly not within those limits.
    Mr. WHITE: In my opinion it does arise out of the recent events, because the ports of England are closed against Irish cattle, and those ports are closed in consequence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite not taking full advantage of the powers at their disposal. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are guilty of grave dereliction of duty in allowing English ports to be closed against Irish cattle recently. They are the custodians of the cattle trade between Ireland and Great Britain, and it is their duty to see that Irish cattle have fair play. In my opinion, it was their duty, having regard to recent events, to see that the President of the English Board did not exceed his powers. I will quote the opinion of an eminent legal gentleman in Ireland, whose name will command respect in every quarter of the House. I refer to Serjeant Matheson. The question was submitted to him whether, having regard to recent events, the Board of Agriculture in England acted legally or illegally, and his opinion was as follows:—
    "Sub-sections (17) and (37) are the portions of the Act relied on as justifying the Orders of the Board prohibiting the landing of Irish cattle, and as these Sub-sections do not, in my opinion, support that contention, and there is no other provision of the Act which can be relied on as giving power to make the prohibiting Orders, I am of opinion that the Order of the 28th June, 1912, and all subsequent Orders prohibiting the landing of cattle from Ireland, were ultra vires and void—save as regards animals coming from a port in Ireland which was within an area which had been declared to be an infected or prescribed area by the Irish Board."

    1451
    That is the opinion of an eminent Irish lawyer. But, lest it should not have sufficient weight with English Members, I will confirm it by reading—
    The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is travelling outside the scope of the Vote now before the Committee. We must confine ourselves simply to the cause of the expenditure of this £8,000. The hon. Member is dealing with a question which, first of all, affects the English rather than the Irish Boards; and which, secondly, is in any case a matter for the main Estimates, and not for a Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. WHITE: But this Vote deals with the stamping out of infection in Ireland. I am not dealing with the English Board; I am dealing with the action of the Irish Board, and of the Irish Board only.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is dealing with the policy of stamping out disease in Ireland. That is quite a proper matter to discuss when the main Vote comes up, but this is not the occasion.
    Mr. WHITE: May I quote the opinion of the Lord Chancellor of England in 1884?
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bathurst.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: This Debate must demonstrate how exceedingly difficult it is to deal with these serious contagious diseases of animals in Ireland and Great Britain respectively in the absence of a unified administration for that purpose. It must also demonstrate how exceedingly difficult it is to carry on a discussion in this House in reference to this subject, owing to the fact that although only one Department is represented two Departments are necessarily concerned in all these questions of foot-and-mouth disease, because the cattle trade is common to the two countries, and both Departments have control over the exportation or importation, as the case may be, of the animals suspected of being infected. I got into some little trouble two years ago at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Irish friends because I took upon myself to criticise, perhaps somewhat severely, the then administration of the Board. I think the position is totally different now. The House will remember that two years ago the right hon. Gentleman had to confess that there had been no outbreak of this disease in Ireland for over twenty-eight years—a considerably longer period than either the Irish or the English
    1452
    Department had been in existence. At that time, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself must admit, there was no precise knowledge of the disease in Ireland, and a good deal had to be learnt by the officials of the Board and their veterinary experts before the disease could be properly and efficiently dealt with. That is not the case to-day. After having carefully studied the Irish administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts during the last twelve months, I am quite prepared to say that the administration of those Acts is at least as good on the other side of St. George's Channel as it is on this side.
    It must appear to this House very unsatisfactory and most unedifying to find the Parliamentary heads of the two Departments at issue one with the other as to which Department is mainly responsible for the present trouble. The matter is rendered more difficult to deal with by the absence, which I am sure we all regret, of the President of the English Board owing to ill-health, because we are bound on this Vote, or on the Vote to be taken subsequently, especially in view of what the Vice-President of the Irish Department has stated, to ask for some very precise explanation from the English Board in answer to the charges—because they amount to charges—
    Mr. RUSSELLdissented.
    Mr. BATHURST: Whether we call them charges, or insinuations, or innuendoes—
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have simply stated the facts. I made no charges or insinuations whatever against the English Board.
    Mr. BATHURST: If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's statements as facts, we are entitled to make the natural deduction that the other authority as open to some criticism. Only to-day at Question Time we had a statement made by a Junior Lord of the Treasury, as representing the President of the English Board, that the somewhat alarming recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Worcestershire is traceable to two animals which came across from Ireland. The Vice-President of the Irish Department has told us that that is not a fair way of stating the case—that the animals had been to Birkenhead, which he clearly regards, I think with some reason, as the source and seat of the infection, and that the disease could not be traced to Ireland at all. It is very important, and it will be deemed very important outside the House by pur-

    1453
    chasers of Irish stock, that this difference of opinion should be cleared up as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the two Departments are now conferring on the matter. It is very unfortunte that the House should be asked to debate this matter while the question is still sub judice as between the two Departments, and before any precise information can be given to the House by either Department. The hon. Member for South Kildare (Mr. Kilbride) expressed the hope that the existing restrictions in that county might foe removed. Whether that is or is not desirable from the Irish standpoint, I would remind my Irish Friends that, from the English standpoint, it would be not merely most inadvisable, but most detrimental to their own trade in live stock, to create any suspicion at the present moment in the minds of potential English purchasers that proper precautions are not being taken in Ireland to prevent the spread of disease. If these recent outbreaks are really traceable to Birkenhead, all I can say is that the gravity of the charge which will come eventually to be made against the head of the English Board is more serious than in any case that has come before this House during the last ten years.
    I should be treading on dangerous ground if I criticised the English Department at the present time, but, if I am allowed, I shall have something to say on the subsequent Vote on this question. Whether in Ireland or in England, it is common knowledge that, in the case of all animals landing at the ports of either country, the first duty resting upon the Department of Agriculture in that country, as represented by their inspectors, is most carefully to examine all the animals, and not allow any of them, either having the appearance of disease or even suspected of being infected, to pass out of their hands and be spread about the country. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, it is clear that in this case these precautions have not been adequately taken.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Is that quite fair to the inspectors at Birkenhead? The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that animals might leave Ireland, land at Birkenhead, and undergo close examination, and yet the disease might break out subsequently. I say that in defence of inspectors who are not hear to speak for themselves.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BATHURST: I should be the last man to attack in this House those who
    1454
    are not properly represented and cannot speak for themselves; but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that he has represented to the House that, in his opinion, Birkenhead, and not Ireland, is the source of these numerous outbreaks of disease. It is not as if we were confined to one case. There have been several cases, and cases, which, according to the statement of the President of the English Board, were traceable to almost every part of Ireland. Surely, if my suggestion is correct, the gravity of the offence is much greater than if a single animal, or even a cargo of animals had passed through the hands of the inspectors. I will not labour that point further. We shall have something more to say on the matter hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to suggest to us what was the source of these original outbreaks in county Kildare, and what, in his opinion—which is a more serious matter—is the source of the outbreaks at the port of Birkenhead. This is a matter largely of speculation; but surely the time has come when the researches, not merely of the English Department, but also of the Irish Department, which, I believe, are being continuously carried on, should result in some more precise knowledge as to what is the origin of this disease. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kildare suggests that in this case packing material from France was the cause. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that that is a possible and likely cause of the disease—and if he thinks that, I, for my part, would be entirely in accord with him—then, surely, it is possible, and it would be wise, to prevent the importation of that kind of packing material from all countries like France, which are known to be infected, and seriously infected. It is more serious in Holland than in any other country. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Belgium!"] Belgium is almost as bad, but from Holland there comes an enormous amount of packing material in which various merchandise is packed, not only to England, but to Ireland also. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will issue an Order similar to what, I believe, has been issued in this country, advising all stock owners to burn all packing material that they may get upon their premises.
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Commander-in-Chief agreed that all such refuse should in future be burned.
    Mr. BATHURST: I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that those precautions have been taken. If the right hon. Gentleman can go further and prevent that material, some of it of a very filthy character, entering the country at all, it would be well. It has often been suggested in this House that the lapse of the period of incubation, which in the case of a live animal does not exceed ten days, is a sufficient indication that if the disease breaks out in any animal after the lapse of that period it cannot be traceable to any source of infection, into contact with which it may have been brought at a greater distance of time. That applies to animals; it does not apply to inanimate material. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as at any rate the British Department knows, that there is no source of infection, and there is nothing which has been suspected as a source of infection to such an extent as the hooves, hides, and other offal of animals; particularly hides, which come into this country not merely for the manfacture of leather, but also for their transference to manure factories for conversion into artificial fertilisers. Many of these articles come to Birkenhead. In those articles the disease may remain latent not for ten days, but conceivably for three or four months. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be worth further research on the part of his Department into materials such as those indicated in which the disease may be latent, and from which it may be transferred to animals at the port of landing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kildare, raised a question which has often been raised before in this House as to whether some malicious person or persons may not be introducing the disease into this country. That particular question was most carefully investigated by the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, on which my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, as well as myself, was a member, and which sat the year before last. We came to the conclusion that there was no basis whatever for such a suggestion.
    I, for my part, venture to hope that if the two Departments, in view of the gravity of this question, which will always, I am afraid, be recurring in the future, cannot, so far as the contagious diseases of animals are concerned, be rolled into one and issue joint Orders—that, at any
    1456
    rate, they will agree upon the statements which will be presented in this House as representing the true condition of affairs in the two countries with reference to this disease. Because, otherwise, it not only is unsatisfactory for this House, but it gives rise to suspicion and alarm amongst stock breeders in the two countries. Surely the right hon. Gentleman may be able, as a result of the conference which is now taking place, to agree with the other Department upon the matter, and to speak with one voice, so that there may not be the suggestion abroad in the country that there is a conflict between the two Departments from which the stock breeders of both countries may suffer! Before the right hon. Gentleman addresses the House, may I ask him why he has taken away money which was intended to be applied for the suppression of bovine tuberculosis, and is applying it in the way suggested in his Supplementary Estimates? In England, and I presume also in Ireland, tuberculosis is not being eliminated at a very rapid rate in consequence of that Treasury Grant. If that is so, surely the Tuberculosis Order as it applies to Irish stock breeders ought to be modified, and the money available to be paid by way of compensation to them under such provisions as will encourage them to report these cases of tuberculosis to the authorities, so that the Department and the stock owners may act in accord and sympathy one with the other, and tuberculosis thereby be eradicated. The mere process of applying the money intended for this purpose to a different purpose is not likely to stamp out tuberculosis, nor afford much satisfaction to those who are being rated in the various Irish counties in order to make good the lack of sufficient funds standing to the credit of the Pleuro-Pneumonia Account.
    Mr. FIELD: I do not propose to go over ground which has already been covered. But I regret the absence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, because I entirely agree with what has been said by the last speaker that the two Departments ought to take a mutual interest in this question. This is a question which ought to interest both sides of the House. As a matter of fact, I have communications from Members on both sides of the House. The House will agree, in view of the practical agreement that has been come to, that the fact that so few Members are in the House at present would make it

    1457
    appear that this is not a serious matter. It really is a most serious matter, because these Orders hold up for the time being the live-stock trade of Ireland. No less than 2,800,000 animals were imported from Ireland into England last year. This represents a volume of trade that certainly is worthy of attention on both sides of the channel. It represents an enormous amount of money; in addition it represents a large amount of food and also of raw material. I doubt if any other trade in the three Kingdoms would be so lightly interfered with under similar conditions. I doubt if an embargo would be placed on the cotton trade or any other trade representing millions of money under the same conditions. Last year we had very drastic regulations with regard to the importation of cattle from Ireland; in fact, there was a cattle boycott such as at the present time there is a Cunard boycott. It seems to be very mysterious how this disease came into Ireland, if we accept the various expert opinions in relation to how the disease comes about at all. I think last year that the disease came from the importation of packing, or foreign material. It is wished to prove that at the present time all this disease came, from Ireland. Irishmen are supposed to have double dose of original sin. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, that was once said in this House, and apparently the same thing applies to Irish cattle. What happens? In England Irish cattle are generally debited with the disease, whereas, as a matter of fact, there were, during these years, more outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England than in Ireland—far more. You recently had one in Durham (at Gateshead), and the other day there was one in Worcestershire. With regard to the present outbreak, the position of things, and the condition of Birkenhead lairage. I asked a question on Friday. It appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT—
    "Mr. Field asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease originated and were confined to the Wallasey lairs; whether inquiry has been made if foreign produce was supplied to live stock; and whether the Birkenhead lairs generally are being disinfected?
    "Mr. Runciman: The first cases of foot-and-mouth disease in the recent outbreak at Birkenhead occurred in the Wallasey lairage, but on the following day a number of cases were discovered in the Woodside lairage. The Board hare ascertained by inquiry that at Woodside foreign hay and meal were supplied to cattle, but at Wallasey only Irish hay was supplied to cattle and English meal to swine. The whole of the landing place at Birkenhead is being thoroughly cleansed and disinfected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1914, col. 1287.]
    1458
    In my opinion, the root origin of this whole outbreak is the giving of foreign fodder to live stock. I had the opportunity of seeing the cattle fed with the foreign fodder, and my opinion as to this having infected them with the disease is the opinion of most people in Ireland. I do not go quite so far as my hon. Friend the Member for South Kildare, but there is a very strong feeling in Ireland at the present time that by some means or other there has been an endeavour to bring-about a state of feeling in England to the effect that Irish live stock is infected with-foot-and-mouth disease. This is doing harm to Ireland in England. As a matter of fact, I think what we have to complain of is that the disease has been imported from England into Ireland. It is adding insult to injury in the present condition of affairs. I understand that the right hon. Baronet below me, and others, in consequence of the outbreak, are getting very good prices for their cattle. Let me quote the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, which is not composed of a body of men whose interests lie exactly in the cattle trade, nor are they by any means a body of Irish agitators. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce is perhaps one of the most sensible and level-headed public bodies in Ireland, and this resolution was adopted at a special meeting of its council held on the 20th February, 1914:—
    "That, as it is now certain that fodder imported from outside the United Kingdom has been used to feed Irish live stock, detention Iairages at Birkeuhcad, and, as it is known that this live stock certified healthy, both on embarkation and arrival at Birkenhead, were fed on the 10th February on this imported food, and developed a virulent type of foot-and-mouth disease within fortyight hours; this council demands the immediate, intervention of the Government to prevent this poisoning of Irish live stock and the consequent ruinous restrictions on the trade."
    That is a very strong resolution coming from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and, although both the Chief Secretary, who has, of course, a share of responsibility in this matter, although I dare say he knows more about the classics than he does about cattle, and the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland have done their best in the circumstances, this resolution should appeal, not only to the Vice-President, but also to the President of the Department of the Board of Agriculture in England. The Port and Docks Board, which is also a non-political body, and of which I happen to be a member, are interested in this matter, and they passed the following resolution:—
    "From the reports made by the officials of the English and Irish Boards of Agriculture, it is perfectly evident

    1459
    that as Birkenhead is the only English port affected by foot-and-mouth disease, and, in view of this, the Dublin Port and Docks Board urgently request that all other English, Scotch and Welsh ports be at once opened for the accommodation of Irish live stock and thereby minimise the very serious loss already unjustly imposed upon Irish farmers, cattle traders and business men generally."
    I will not read the whole report of the meeting, but the resolution was supported by several members of the Board and was carried unanimously. I have also protests from my own association, the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stock Owners' Associations, and I received a copy of a resolution from the Liverpool abattoir tenants and the wholesale meat traders' association, and that is even more important because it conies from Liverpool, from the very place in which there is this infection. It was passed on the 20th February, and sent on to me, and is as follows:—
    "That as soon as the Birkenhead lairs are cleaned and disinfected we respectfully request the President of the Board of Agriculture and fisheries of Great Britain to cause same to be immediately opened for the reception of Irish stock for slaughter."
    I ask the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture specially to this clause, and also of the Vice-President of the Department in Ireland:—
    "That we hereby express our opinion that last week's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Birkenhead originated there and not in Ireland."
    What stronger testimony could we have from such men than that? And I hold, under these circumstances, it is obviously the duty of the President of the Board to immediately open the ports for Irish live stock. Why do I say that? Because, as was pointed out by the Vice-President, all the rest of the Irish cattle were found to be free from the disease; because the Veterinary Department cannot find any disease in Ireland; and because the Vice-President invited the President of the Board of Agriculture in England to send him over some of his best experts to find out if that were the truth, and he refused to do so. That being so, I want the Committee to understand that the demand which I make here and now is sound, and is founded upon reason and justice, and is absolutely in the interest of the two countries. We want the Department in Ireland, if possible, to represent more strongly to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in England to remove this embargo at once.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the main Estimates, and not for a Supplementary Estimate. I have already given
    1460
    that ruling upon two or three occasions, and perhaps the hon. Member will observe it.
    Mr. FIELD: I would be very sorry to disobey your ruling, but I really thought I was quite within my rights because the embargo is a thing in existence which I want to challenge, and, of course, it is more or less connected with the circumstances under discussion. However, I will content myself by making one or two suggestions to the Vice-President. I understand that the disinfection of the vessels was carried out perfectly both on this side and on the other. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should issue Regulations as to the destruction of the packing stuffs. He has no mandatory power to do it, but I am sure if he asked through his officials, and made suggestions to everyone using packing stuffs in Ireland, it would undoubtedly be most useful. I am not going to deal with the correspondence. I hope the result of this Debate will be that we will have the co-operation of the two Departments so as to safeguard not alone the Irish cattle trade, but everyone connected with the live-stock trade in England. This is a matter not confined to Ireland. The English and Scotch feeders are as much interested as we are. Surely because Birkenhead, in peculiar circumstances, has been allowed to become the centre of infection, that is no reason why an enormous trade like the live-stock trade, which interests so many people on both sides, should be injured by having an embargo put upon the whole trade! I trust that the result of this Debate will be to show English Members, and perhaps some Irish Members who do not fully understand the question, that Ireland has performed her functions so well that this embargo may now be removed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to follow the hon. Member into a discussion as to whether the disease was introduced from Ireland into England or from England into Ireland, but I would point out that the Irish ports were closed to English cattle, and therefore it would be difficult to introduce the disease from England to Ireland. I only rose in reference to an interruption I made while the hon. Gentleman opposite was speaking.
    Mr. FIELD: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to say that I am perfectly well aware that no live stock is allowed into Ireland, but it was the foreign fodder and packing stuffs to which I alluded.
    Sir F. BANBURY: These do not come from England.
    Mr. FIELD: No, but they come through England, like a great many other things we do not want.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think it would be in order to continue this discussion, and, therefore, I will not do it. I only rose in consequence of an interruption I made when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. Perhaps I was in error, but it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was more concerned to prove that there was no disease in Ireland, and that the disease occurred at Birkenhead, than to discuss whether or not we were voting this money in a manner which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to suppress the disease, which undoubtedly exists in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, I listened to the hon. Member for South Kildare, and he said in his speech only a few moments ago that the disease existed in Ireland. He said that, not only once, but later in his speech, that there was a disease in some places in Ireland. There is evidence that the disease existed up to three weeks ago in Ireland. Unless I am wrong it is nearly two years ago—a year and nine months—since the disease broke out in Ireland, and during all that time—I do not make any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman opposite or his Department—but the fact remains that, although the right hon. Gentleman told us on more occasions than one that the disease did not exist in Ireland, it broke out there again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Did it not break out three weeks ago there?
    An HON. MEMBER: In one place.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But it broke out. After we were told that the disease had stopped it broke out again, and therefore in voting this sum of money we ought to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he would take strong measures to stop the disease, which undoubtedly has been in Ireland for a considerable time.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: The case which the hon. Baronet has made is the sort of a case that riles us in Ireland, because he seems to think that we have indeed a double dose of original sin. No matter what occurs or what steps the Department takes, they will not satisfy the hon. Baronet. There is going on constantly a kind of fishing inquiry, an example of which we
    1462
    had at Question Time to-day, to try and fix upon Ireland responsibility for foot-and-mouth disease. The hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) seemed to apologise for the attitude he took up last year. The hon. Gentleman admitted he was now of opinion that the Department was doing its best.
    Mr. BATHURST: I should like to make my position quite clear. I said eighteen months ago that I thought the administration of the Department was not satisfactory with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. I have not altered my opinion from what it was then, but my opinion is that the attitude of the Department is now satisfactory.
    Mr. FARRELL: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not of the same opinion now that he was eighteen months ago.
    Mr. BATHURST: The hon. Gentleman suggests I changed my opinion now as to the administration of the Department eighteen months ago. What I pointed out was that the administration of the Department now is better than it was eighteen months ago.
    Mr. FARRELL: My view is that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell) is, if anything, too strict in the administration of the Department. The moment an outbreak is reported to him he draws a 15-mile circuit round the spot. He refuses to allow an animal to be removed from one field to another. The whole police force of the country is called to his assistance. I am not eomplaining of the right hon. Gentleman. The view in Ireland is that the right hon. Gentleman is far too strict and much too slow to give relief. Even when it has been proved satisfactorily that the disease has disappeared, he still retains these restrictions. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is apparently not aware that this disease broke out in the spot where this French packing-stuff was unloaded, and there is no concealment of that fact. The moment that one case occurred at Birkenhead all the English ports were locked up against us, and all the Irish ports were put under the same bann. I think that is carrying the law too far. Of course, we are satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President believes these regulations to be right and for the good of the Irish cattle trade, but I think he is rather inclined to be panic-stricken over one case, for that is the very thing which brought about the

    1463
    state of things which occurred last year. I am not speaking for the big cattle graziers, but for the small farmers and producers of the animals, who are hit just as hard as the big grazier. [An HON. MEMBER: "Worse!"] Yes, some of them are hit worse, because they cannot afford the loss which is involved. The sales recently at the local fairs in my part of the county fell 50 per cent., and the prices fell as well; in fact, we were afraid of a recrudescence of the state of things which occurred last year. Whilst I am satisfied with the action of the right hon. Gentleman, still there is a danger in these cases of him becoming panic-stricken the moment a case occurs. I hope one result of this Debate will be to put more backbone into him in fighting these cases with the English Board. The hon. Member said fourteen cargoes arrived at Birkenhead in which cases of this disease had occurred. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to leave the House and the Committee under the impression that this occurred on the arrival of the cargoes.
    Mr. RUSSELL: No.
    Mr. FARRELL: That point was not cleared up. These beasts were detained at the port of Birkenhead, which is now admitted to be an infected area. We also know that the disease has broken out in Worcestershire, and this matter of Birkenhead must be cleared up so far as Irish cattle are concerned. The infected port must be closed until it has been fully disinfected, but the other ports might be opened to Irish cattle at such places as Glasgow, Bristol and London. Why should those ports be closed against Irish cattle because one port has been found to be infected? The general trend of this Debate has been rather narrowed by the ruling which has been given. As to the inquiry between the two Departments, of course we cannot logically blame the English Department for being very strict in this matter. After all, the English buyers purchase our cattle, and we want to sell them under favourable conditions and obtain good prices for them, but I fear in these matters—and I state this quite openly and frankly—in the case of agricultural constituences in this country, there has been a prejudice in this matter of Irish cattle in the interests of the English producers. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] It is a statistical fact which can be proved that the price of home-
    1464
    fed English cattle has gone up since you found this means of picking up the Irish cattle trade. That is only following out the policy adopted for many generations in your dealings with England and Ireland. I do not know whether in the forthcoming inquiry witnesses will be examined or whether it will be an Interdepartmental inquiry. In any case, I hope there will be a thorough investigation of the state of affairs in Birkenhead. The Irish Cattle Traders' Associations and the Farmers' Associations are not averse to a thorough inquiry into the origin of this disease so far as we are concerned. I have received to-day a telegram from a meeting of farmers in Meath, in which they state that—
    "In view of the frequent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and Ireland during the last three years, and the great inconvenience caused thereby to owners of live stock in consequence of the present regulations, an immediate Parliamentary inquiry is necessary, and a new set of regulations are urgently needed."
    I urged the right hon. Gentlemen to press for a most searching inquiry into this matter, and, so far as we are concerned, the assistance of those who are interested in Ireland in this matter will be placed at the disposal of the right hon. Gentlemen. We insist that the Irish case shall be most thoroughly probed and examined.
    Mr. DILLON: I would like to say a few words with reference to the statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He said, that while the Committee and the public in this country had been assured that Ireland was free from disease during last year, it now turns out that the disease had been frequently breaking out in Ireland. That is a very misleading statement, and it would be a very serious matter if it were allowed to go forth unchallenged. There is nothing of the kind in Ireland, and the statement is very wide of the truth. Eighteen months ago an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Ireland for the first time for twenty-nine years. For some months the Irish Department struggled with the outbreak, and they completely wiped it out, and for the last fifteen months Ireland has been as free from that disease as any country ever was. It is true that the Irish Department; is extraordinarily severe in its regulations, but at any rate they declared the country free fifteen months ago.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said the country had been free, but the disease had broken, out again.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Baronet said the country had been declared free, but the disease kept breaking out.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No.
    Mr. DILLON: About five weeks ago one case broke out at Naas and another at Ballysax. Those cases have been isolated, and the usual area has been put under a ban, and for a fortnight no further trace of the disease has been found in Ireland. Therefore it is quite misleading for the hon. Baronet to state that there was anything like a chronic recurrence of the disease in Ireland. While it is very natural that the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. Farrell) should complain of the strictness of the Department regulations, I am afraid I cannot share altogether that criticism, because, after all, such regulations are in the interests of the Irish cattle trade. I am prepared to support the Department in Ireland in its operations, and even in the extreme severity of those regulations, and I will tell the House why. It is essential to the interests of the Irish cattle that we should satisfy the public in this country, and even the most critical hon. Members of this House, that we are determined to spare no precaution or exertion to deal with cases of cattle disease in Ireland, that we are determined to discover them and publish them, and notify the Department the moment they are discovered. I think the Department in this country is thoroughly satisfied with our action. I do not complain of the criticism of the Irish Department which has been made from time to time by the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst). I was gratified to hear that the hon. Member was himself satisfied as to the action of the Irish Department, because I may take him as the high-water mark of expert criticism in this House of the Irish Department, and he has stated that the Irish Department may now be relied upon to do all that efficiency can do to control and stamp out this disease. I agree with the hon. Member for North Longford that there ought to be an inquiry. These regulations are undoubtedly an awful hardship upon a country so dependent upon the cattle trade as Ireland is.
    It is very hard because a case breaks out in Kildare that the entire country should be dealt with, and all the poor and rich farmers many miles away should find their stocks held up. I want to point out that it is ridiculous to say that we are to
    1466
    close the ports of Ireland absolutely against England when a case breaks out in England or Scotland. There must be reciprocity in this matter. The English suffer very little loss when the Irish ports are closed, but when the English ports are closed against us, our vast trade is paralysed, and hundreds and thousands of pounds are lost to the people of Ireland while the English ports remain closed, while it is not possible for us to insist on the opening of the English ports so long as we close the Irish ports. I think there is a case for inquiry as to whether any regulations could be devised which would spare Ireland these terrible losses. We are now being asked to vote money for the suppression of the disease in Ireland. As a matter of fact, this disease has been suppressed in Ireland for the last fortnight, and in six, eight, or ten days Ireland will be perfectly free. We must insist upon having the whole of this question of Birkenhead cleared up, because it is perfectly germane to this question. What is the use of squandering money upon suppressing disease in Ireland if there is no disease to suppress, and if our cattle are to be infected at the port of Birkenhead? I think money should be voted to deal with the Port of Birkenhead. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would like to ask him one or two other questions which have not been raised by previous speakers. Is it not a fact, if my memory serves me rightly, that Irish cattle used to be landed in Liverpool on the other side of the river, and that it was only in consequence of the troubles with foot-and-mouth disease two years ago that they were compelled to be landed at Birkenhead, where, as I understand, foreign cattle were always landed? Are any foreign cattle landed there now?
    Mr. BIGLAND: No, not live cattle.
    Mr. DILLON: Still, it was the port at which any foreign cattle would be landed if they came. The Irish cattle have been driven across the river to Birkenhead, because the great lairages at Birkenhead were being emptied and the trade was falling off.
    Mr. RUSSELL: The animals had to be slaughtered for a time, and the arrangements for slaughtering at Birkenhead were very much better than anywhere else.
    Mr. DILLON: Of course, after Ireland was declared free of disease the necessity

    1467
    for slaughtering the cattle at the port of Liverpool or Birkenhead passed away, and the great majority of the Irish cattle, landed whilst Ireland was free from disease, would naturally be scattered all over England. Yet the Irish cattle were driven over to Birkenhead as if they were all to be slaughtered like foreign cattle. Why does this system obtain, and are Irish cattle still driven to be landed at the port where foreign cattle would be landed? I am told that no foreign cattle are now landed. Is that a fact? And is it not a fact that if any foreign cattle come they would come to Birkenhead, and to these very lairages where the Irish cattle are now landed? I want to ask, further, whether at Birkenhead the Irish cattle have as a matter of fact been fed on foreign fodder, and whether any foreign bedding of any sort or kind is used at the Birkenhead landing stage? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has already answered one question by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Farrell) as to the way in which this disease broke out.
    I followed the right hon. Gentleman very clearly, and I understood him to say that in no case was any beast in any one of these fourteen cargoes found diseased when they passed the inspector on landing at Birkenhead. They were carefully examined when coming from the ships from Ireland and they were found to be perfectly sound, and no beast developed any disease within forty-eight hours after being put on shore at Birkenhead. Of course, if any beast had shown the slightest sign of disease when they came off the ship, that would have traced the disease to Ireland, but, if a period of forty-eight hours elapsed before any sign of disease were found in any one of these fourteen cargoes, then the presumption is that the disease was contracted in the lairages at Birkenhead, and not in Ireland at all. So far as this discussion has gone, it seems clear at all events that Ireland has not in any one of these cases imported cattle into England with any sign of disease, but that the disease has been contracted by the Irish cattle in the lairages at Birkenhead. I think that English Members will admit that if that is the case we do suffer a very great hardship, and that we are entitled to ask both the Departments to spare no exertion to find out at the earliest possible moment the real truth of the case, and, if it should be proved that
    1468
    Birkenhead is to blame for the whole of this outbreak, then they should give Ireland the benefit of that discovery.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Speaking on behalf of Birkenhead, I may say that I have listened to the latter portion of this Debate with the greatest interest. I was not able to be present at the initial stage. We in Birkenhead have the most friendly feeling towards the Irish cattle trade and have done everything we possibly could to provide for that trade. Up to now we have taken the greatest pride at Birkenhead on having an unbroken record for landing cattle at these lairages without any spread of disease ever taking place, and on that account I hope that this matter will not be prejudged against Birkenhead without further inquiry. I think that we are all agreed that this is a most mysterious case. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman personally about it, and he admits that there is a mystery; and I, representing Birkenhead, shall for one, be only too pleased to have an inquiry as to what is the cause. I admit the great seriousness, of it. We in Birkenhead rejoice in a very large measure of prosperity through this trade coming to Birkenhead. I believe I am right when I say that when this trade was first opened we had two lairages, and all the foreign animals slaughtered were directed to one and all the Irish cattle to the other, so that there was no mingling of foreign animals with the Irish cattle. I believe that the House recognises the urgency of this matter, and, if an immediate inquiry can be held, and scientific evidence given that it was some imported hay that caused this disease, then I stand, with the Irish Members and say I sincerely trust that the English Department will open the other ports until Birkenhead is disinfected.
    Mr. RUSSELL: This, in my opinion, has been one of the most important Debates, for Ireland held for a very long time. This trade which is affected represented an export of two million head of cattle last year and £14,000,000. We are, therefore, dealing with one of the most serious questions which can affect Ireland, and I do not think that this afternoon has been at all wasted in discussing the thing fully. I should like to clear up one thing at once. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) made an interjection, but I do not think he meant anything personal to me, and I certainly did not intend to say anything in the least offensive to him. Let us see

    1469
    where the case actually stands. Here is the real difficulty of the situation. It was impossible for me, in opening this Debate, to deal minutely, or indeed at all, with the case of Birkenhead. Under this Vote it could not be done. It was impossible for me to deal with the English case at all. My right hon. Friend is absent, and it would have been out of order. Therefore, I had to confine myself, and I told the Committee so perfectly frankly, to proving that Ireland was not guilty. That is really what I attempted to do. There is one thing which has given me considerable pleasure. The speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) marks a very great, advance. A couple of years ago he attacked Ireland, I think unjustly; but to-day he has not attacked us, and he admits that in dealing with the outbreak we acted quite as promptly and quite as firmly as the English Department could have done. I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his statement to-day. There is no use in going into questions such as those raised by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr Kilbride) that this is maliciously done. I know, and I admitted in reply to a question the other day that the opinion is held by people of great distinction, both in the cattle trade and in commerce, but all I will say is that I have never heard any evidence of it, and I certainly am not going to offer any reward for information on that head until I see some reason for doing so. I do not believe it, and I make no apology for refusing to do it. With regard to hay and straw, I admit that to be a very serious matter. The foreign hay and straw that was supposed to have done the damage two years ago at Curragh was burnt. The Commander-in-Chief issued an order for it to be burnt, and was not to be allowed to be distributed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In Ireland?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, that is in Ireland. The Commander-in-Chief, at all events, dealt with that very effectively, and it was not allowed to be distributed among the small farmers. It was burnt. Therefore, nothing could have arisen out of that. I have been asked why an Order has not been issued for the destruction of all packing material. The Departmental Committee, as the hon. Member for the Wilton Division has said, found that it would be almost impossible to enforce an Order of that kind, and they therefore did not recommend it. I discussed it with the Irish
    1470
    police, and they told mo that they could not enforce an Order compelling the destruction of all packing material in Ireland. I do not think anyone in this House will ask me to issue an Order when those-responsible for the administration of it tell me that they could not enforce it. There may be a good deal in it, and my mind has often reverted to it on the occasion of some outbreak I think it may be possible to recommend everybody concerned to burn this material, but I do not think it is possible at the present time to enforce such an Order in Ireland or anywhere else. Let me come now to the question of the Order issued by the Department. I felt that we were in an impossible position in complaining of England closing the ports when we close our ports whenever an outbreak occurs in England. At the time of the outbreak in the South of England I declined to close the Irish ports against Scottish cattle, but when the outbreak occurred at Gateshead, then I felt it was coining uncomfortably near, and I consequently ordered the Irish ports to be closed against Scottish cattle. I have been rather hardly treated in consequence, but, all I have to say, in my own defence, is that if once the disease got into Ireland I know who would be blamed. I should have no excuse to offer. I should be condemned from end to end of the country. Hon. Members opposite who are interested in the cattle trade must know that these restrictions are absolutely necessary. I was roundly abused the other day by a peer of the realm because I would not allow dogs to run about in the prohibited area. But it is well known that these animals may easily carry the disease on their feet from one place to another. Why, then, should I allow dogs to roam at large when I refuse to allow the removal of cattle? These things may seem unnecessary to some, but in administering these Acts I have to be guided by our experts. It is not necessary that the head of a Department should always give way to the experts, but when it comes to a question like this he would be a very venturesome man who acted directly in the face of the advice of his experts. I, at any rate, am not going to do it. The moment I can remove these restrictions in any shape or form the House may rely upon it it will be done.
    The hon. Member for East Mayo asked me some questions about Birkenhead. I had a great deal to say about that, but I had to give it up, and I am not now going,

    1471
    in the absence of Mr. Chairman, to do that which he refused me permission to do in his presence. Only the other day I said to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture—I have been in constant consultation with him, and there has been the most cordial co-operation between us—we are not doing things without consulting each other—I said to my right hon. Friend, "There are only two things to be done." I am convinced the origin of the disease is not in Ireland. I have satisfied myself on that point. I have used every possible effort to discover the disease in Ireland, and I cannot find any. Nobody need tell me that you can have fourteen cargoes of Irish cattle landed in Birkenhead—that you can examine 38,000 animals in Ireland in the places where these cattle came from—no one can tell me that if the disease came from Ireland, it would leave no record in Ireland. All the other six Irish ports take cattle from the same places in Ireland, the animals landed at them are examined, and no trace of the disease is found at any port. I say the conclusion is irresistible. I said to my right hon. Friend, "In my opinion there are only two things to be done. You must send two inspectors over to Ireland to verify the reports of our inspectors as to the state of affairs in that country. We shall be delighted to receive them. We will take them to the places where the cattle come from, and they can give their own report." "No," he said, "I will not do that. Your officers have been perfectly right." Only the other day in this House he admitted that our inspection has greatly improved, and he told me he was prepared to take the word of our officers in this matter as if it were the word of his own officers. "Then," I said, "the only other thing I can suggest is that there should be a thorough, searching investigation into the condition of the Birkenhead landing." My right hon. Friend agreed, and he asked that our chief officer should put himself into communication with their chief officer, and this investigation will, I am glad to say, commence this week. As far as the Irish Department is concerned, nothing that we can do shall be left undone to trace this matter to its origin. I have not attempted to-day to inculpate Birkenhead. My duty was performed when I was convinced that Ireland was not guilty. I believe that it is quite impossible to stand out against the case made for Ireland.
    Mr. HEALY: I think the state of the Order Paper to-day beautifully illustrates British methods in dealing with Ireland. Your Paper shuts out the question of foreign hay.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I forgot to deal with that point. The original Order has been in existence for many years. It is one precluding the entry of foreign hay into Ireland, and the object of our recent Order is to prevent the entry of Scottish hay, and to put hay from England and Scotland in the same position as foreign hay.
    Mr. HEALY: That is hardly the point I was making. I was going to remark on the general order of business here. The second Order on the Paper is a Plumage Bill, a Bill excluding plumage birds of Borneo, New Guinea, Central America, and places on the Equator, because some humanitarian persons, chiefly ladies who wear these things in their hats, are offended at the fact that this foreign plumage is used for decorative purposes. And on the second night of the Session available for Bills the Government give a Plumage Bill second place on the Order Paper! This affects a trade representing about half a million sterling, at the most, a year, while in regard to a trade admitted to represent something like £14,000,000 a year the English Department does not think it worth while to be represented.
    Mr. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board is representing the Department.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend the President is, as I stated just now, unfortunately unavoidably absent through ill-health.
    Mr. HEALY: What I complain of is that your Department puts down a Plumage Bill as its first contribution to the business, while there is this far vaster question, where not merely a humanitarian question, but the industry of an entire country is at stake. I think we are entitled to claim that the Department should wake up, and should not give precedence to the question of the introduction of plumage birds from the Equator. This infection must come from somewhere. Every year since this thing began we have insisted that, in default of any other source of origin, espe-

    1473
    cially in view of the fact that in the case of Edinburgh the infection was proved beyond all question to have come from foreign hay, we have insisted that the importation of that hay should be prohibited. Who is it is interested in the importation of foreign hay? I do not know. But we have, at all events, this to say: We have two Ministers—a Cabinet Minister and an Irish Minister—and it is idle for them to tell us we have an whole army of inspectors, both in England and Ireland, and nowhere can they discover any source of origin. Why cannot you discover it? Because of your so-called Free Trade principles. Those principles do not affect you when you are dealing with foreign plumage. Your eyes are weeping for the birds in Borneo. But, in regard to this matter, when we have exhausted every source of origin except one, the Government, as far as I can make out, simply say that they are unable to deal with the question.
    With the exception of two industries in the North, the cattle trade is the chief industry in Ireland. Without a word of warning you close not merely the ports of Dublin and Belfast, but every other port in the country. You close them the moment there is a case of infection at Birkenhead. What industry could thrive under such circumstances? If a landlord raises the rent, you can take him into Court. If a man is thrown out of his holding, he has a remedy provided for him by Act of Parliament. The cattle are, practically, over the greater part of Ireland, the only fruit and produce of the land, and yet you stop this trade. It is hopeless to expect that agriculture can be conducted with success when the trade is throttled at the ports as you have throttled it in every port in the Kingdom, because of an outbreak of disease. We have put up, with sorrow and reluctance, for some years with the detention period of ten or twelve hours at the port. We put up with it because we said, ''This is a larger country which has a larger agricultural interest. We bow to it without a murmur." The other day there was a case in Kildare. It is a remarkable fact that all these cases have occurred in propinquity to large camps. The soldier does not draw his nutriment and sustenance from the country which pays his very small wage. The Army is fed from abroad, and one result of this Free Trade policy is that the very packing in which the Army gets its supplies comes from
    1474
    infected areas. Is there any department in France which is not affected with cattle disease? Why, there is hardly a parish in France which is not affected with the disease. While you have allowed a foreign beast to be landed without being slaughtered, every bit of hay and straw that comes in is coming from farms which everyone knows are reeking with cattle disease. The Government knows this, but, of course, it is not suitable to take action. It would greatly offend France. You must not say a word to France. Your people may be shot down in Mexico, but do not offend the Mexicans! It is ourselves of whom we should be thinking. It is the people of these islands who pay the taxes, and who ought to be thought of, but they appear to be the last set of persons who receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government. If this were an English industry, affected as our industry is, the English Members would be up in arms at once. We cannot expect that now, as your farmers may gain something—there maybe a very small gain in certain parts of England—but there are others of your farmers who are greatly hampered. I mean that those farmers who buy our stores are greatly hampered.
    Therefore I hope in this matter that there will be a combined effort by every person interested in agriculture to go into this question, and that we shall, without regard to Free Trade or anything else, lay down this doctrine: that there is one thing in which there shall not be Free Trade, and that is disease. That is really what the matter comes to now. Year after year we have pressed in this matter, but we get no satisfaction. The only result is that the right hon. Gentleman now says that he cannot speak for England, and, as regards Ireland, that she is free. What a comfort! Then he tells us, in addition, that at times when there is infection in England he closes the Irish ports and prevents importation into Ireland. What does he close them against? Mildew on currant bushes? You must not import a currant bush or a gooseberry bush into Ireland? What a tremendous hardship on the English people! I believe a few pedigree cattle do come across, but I suppose the entire number of pedigree cattle coming into Ireland from England would not exceed 100,000 per year. He puts that in the scale on one side and puts the 14,000,000 of Irish cattle in the other scale, and he says, "We are holding the balance

    1475
    evenly." We have not had, from either Department, this matter radically and seriously dealt with as it should have been. It affects not only the cattle industry; it affects the shipping companies, and, because it affects the shipping companies, it must affect the sailors. Therefore I say that from one end of England and Ireland to the other a protest should go up against what I consider to be nothing less than supineness on the part of the English and Irish Departments.
    Mr. GINNELL: I wish to make a few remarks in the nature of criticism of the Irish Department to this extent only—that the Department appears to me to have been weak during the last eighteen months in not finding out the source of the disease in county Kildare. Eighteen months ago the Department satisfied itself that the disease which showed itself among cattle in that county at that time originated in material derived from the camp at Curragh. Why has not the Department availed itself of the time since then so as to be able, once the disease appeared again, with its army of experts, to determine the source and origin of the present outbreak? The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President has been weak in not elucidating that matter. Another particular in which he has been weak is the effort which ought to have been made, but has not been made, to locate the origin of the disease at Birkenhead. lie has admitted too readily the guilt of the fourteen cargoes of Irish cattle, while as a matter of fact not a single beast in those fourteen cargoes was found with the disease on it when on board. Why then speak of the fourteen cargoes at all? If it were true that they had the disease, no matter how many cargoes were at Birkenhead, all the cattle in the lairs would become infected. Consequently he has been weak in admitting anything in a reference to the fourteen cargoes. Another point in which he has been weak is still within his power to remedy—that is, the inquiry to be set up by the two Departments at Birkenhead as to the source and cause of the disease there. The Vice-President said that he is sending the head of his veterinary department to meet a similar expert from the English Department. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most people interested in the Irish cattle trade, that is far too weak a tribunal. Two men are wholly inadequate
    1476
    for the purpose. Whatever strength this tribunal may have the inquiry should have been set on foot promptly when the disease broke out. Promptness is the essence of remedy and of inquiry in this particular matter. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the number of experts he is sending to this inquiry, and to strengthen it.
    I do not think be has satisfied anybody in Ireland, however much he may have satisfied this House, that the restrictions he imposes whenever he finds disease in Ireland are not excessive. I am not aware, and he has not put the Committee in possession of any information to show that any wider distance than five miles is necessary to be prescribed in order to stamp out the disease. If it be that this disease is-carried by other than living animals, as by packing, fodder, and litter, where are his restrictions against the introduction of those articles? He has not told the Committee what action he has taken, or proposes to take, with reference to foreign, matter of this kind, which is believed in Ireland to have introduced the disease there. If he has not got the power at the present time, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to seek statutory powers this Session in order to prevent the spread of disease through this material coming from the Continent? This cattle disease is a terrible evil, but the restrictions imposed by the Department are a still greater evil. They are made too extensive—they are maintained needlessly long, having regard to the period of incubation of the disease, and they inflict grievous injury, not only on the feeders of cattle, but on the small farmers who raise store cattle, and the still smaller people who raise, or try to raise, pigs, who are spending their means in bringing those animals to a marketable condition, but are not able to find a market for them. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman if it be not too late, to strengthen the representation of his Department on this inquiry at Birkenhead, to find out definitely the source and origin of the disease in Ireland, and to reduce the restrictions there as soon as possible.
    Mr. O'DOWD: I intervene in this Debate because I have been asked to do so by the county council of my county. The people of my county are totally opposed to the closing of the ports of Ireland owing to the new scare as to the alleged outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in county Kildare. Sligo, a constituency of which I

    1477
    have the honour to represent in this House, is wholly and solely an agricultural county. Two years ago it suffered terribly owing to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It must be admitted by all authorities, including the Department of Agriculture, that not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in that county, or, for that matter, in any of the five counties of Connaught, for the last fifty years. My county council and all the representative bodies of Sligo protest against the closing of the Sligo port even temporarily, because the port of Sligo is the natural port of North Connaught. Seeing that no case of foot-and-mouth disease can be traced either to the county or to the port or to the province, they think it is terrible that such a wrong should be inflicted on one of the greatest industries of the country. Their only industry, apart from that of agricultural produce, is the cattle industry. Take away the cattle industry from Ireland, and Ireland is nowhere. She lost millions over the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. My experience of the West of Ireland is rather a wide experience, and I was on deputations and attended meetings held two years ago when the disease was the subject of anxiety to every farmer in the west, as well as in every other part of the country. The steps taken, drastic though they may have been, by the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture met, on the whole, with the approval of every man, political friends as well as political enemies, with whom I came in contact. We hoped that we had heard the last of these outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, but unfortunately it seems that this is not so, and that a case has turned up now. I heard the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) remark that the Irish ports were closed against English cattle, thereby inferring, I suppose, that it was proper and right that the English ports should be closed against Irish cattle.
    Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was not heard in the Gallery.
    Mr. O'DOWD: I accept that explanation, but the hon. Baronet must remember that there were three outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England recently, and there has been no outbreak at all in Ireland with the exception of this isolated case. The three outbreaks in England were at Durham, Gateshead, and Worcester. I would not wish the English ports to be closed against Irish cattle, because,
    1478
    after all, the Irish cattle trade is the staple industry of our country, and our principal market is Great Britain. It would be ruinous to Ireland if the port of England were shut against Irish cattle, and it would be equally ruinous if the ports of Ireland were shut against the importation of English cattle. As I understand the object of the Debate is to secure an inquiry, I hope the two Departments will put their heads together and arrange some scheme which would be of mutual advantage to the people of Great. Britain and of Ireland, and that these ideas of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease should be thoroughly investigated lest harm should be done to the trade. In their praiseworthy and zealous efforts to stamp out the disease the danger is that they may not succeed in their object. On the contrary, their action may lead to the ruin of the cattle industry altogether. They should be very cautious. I thoroughly agree that the drastic measures taken two years ago were necessary and reflected on the Department, but at the same time there is no use in raising a scare when perhaps no real danger exists. The thing should be thoroughly and wholly investigated, and expert knowledge brought to bear in all its bearings in this matter, so as to give confidence to the people of Ireland, whose principal industry is the cattle industry. If an inquiry is granted, I hope it will be of such a far-reaching character as will sift the wheat from the chaff and do away with any possibility of a scare, and secure for the future that the cattle interests of Ireland will be protected.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: It is very satisfactory to hear from the Vice-President that Ireland at present is free from foot-and-mouth disease, and that the seat of the disease has been traced to Birkenhead. Birkenhead is what is called a foreign port. It has in the past sometimes had as many as 4,000 or 5,000 South American cattle slaughtered in a week, and sometimes more. Foreign hay is coming into Birkenhead and cattle are coming in from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent. At one time last year there were 100,000 head of cattle suffering from this disease in France alone, and South America was equally as bad. It is very difficult to eradicate this disease from a place like Birkenhead, because it lurks in many a hole and corner. Perhaps there is too much disinfectant used in Birkenhead, and if it contains lime it might scald the

    1479
    feet of the cattle, and to some experts it might look like foot-and-mouth disease. Carbolic acid, if not diluted with water, will sometimes scald, and perhaps this would require to be inquired into also. This is a serious question to the farmers of Ireland. The poor man is shut out from disposing of his stock at present. This is just the season of the year when the exportation of live stock to England is required, and the British farmers are preparing for their summer stock. There is another industry which is called the poor man's friend, and that is the swine industry. On the arrival of one consignment of sixty or sixty-three of these pigs at Dundalk for Birkenhead, they could only ship half of them by the night boat as it was full. The animals were at Birkenhead for three or four days, and it was found that there were two suffering from foot-and-mouth distemper. The rest were delayed for several days, and no disease broke out among them. It shows that there is no disease whatever in Ireland. I do not wish to oppose the opinion of expert evidence, but there were many cases in Ireland even last year, in which, perhaps, if they had been inquired into, it would have been found that there was very slender ground for pronouncing the animals to be suffering from foot-and-mouth distemper. Birkenhead has been found to be the seat of this infection. Why should all Ireland be held up because of Birkenhead being infected? You have the port of Belfast, with six or seven different places to sail to. You have boats going to Liverpool, to Heysham, to Fleetwood, and to Scotland, and then you have Dundalk. Newry, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, and Dublin. Dublin, with all her capacity for carrying live stock to any port in England, and the sailors and others connected with the trade are held up in these ports which are free from disease. Why do you not send them to those ports and allow them to be distributed over the country? I would appeal in all sincerity to the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture to open these ports immediately, now that there is no disease except in this spot in Kildare, and it is five weeks since that occurred. The Vice-President stated to-day that Ireland is free from this disease, then why continue to keep these ports closed? I appeal to him to have them opened at once, and allow the distribution of live stock to take place in Great Britain.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I cannot open the English ports.
    Mr. DUFFY: I should like to ask the Vice-President what attitude the Department intends to take up in reply to the resolution recently passed by the Galway County Council. We have arrived at the period of the year when the farmers of Ireland, particularly in the West, are preparing for the big spring markets. Our people are watching closely for the March and April fairs to dispose of their young-stock, and if anything happens to stop the export of their stock it will mean not alone the destruction of the transport trade, but it will also paralyse every trade and branch of industry in the West of Ireland. The trade in the West of Ireland is largely carried on by means of accommodation, and if our people are unable to dispose of stock at this time of the year, it means that those engaged in all branches of industry, in the towns as well as those directly concerned in the purchase and export of stock, will be involved in the catastrophe which presently threatens the country. The County Council of Galway includes a number of experts in the closest possible association with the cattle, sheep, and pig industries of Ireland, and their minds are full of apprehension as to what is likely to take place in the near future unless some action is taken by the Vice-President, acting in conjunction with his colleagues on this side of the water. The county council has suggested the propriety of establishing a Commission consisting of scientific experts, and particularly experts with a knowledge of agriculture. It is suggested that they should have power to inquire into many things. Has the right, hon. Gentleman considered the matter I If it is his intention to issue such a Commission, may I suggest that there should be representation of the West of Ireland upon it, because I believe people there will be able to supply information of a peculiarly interesting kind indeed. Reference has been made to the possibility that the disease has been brought to Ireland owing to the distribution of packing material. Has consideration been given to the serious danger in Ireland at the present time from that cause? Every town and city throughout the country, owing to the distribution of packing used for wines and brandies, is exposed to this danger. There is scarcely a town in Ireland to-day but is importing wines from

    1481
    week to week, and the packing material is rather a serious danger. I think it behoves the Board of Agriculture to take immediate steps to save our unfortunate people from the serious calamity which threatens their industry.
    Mr. FLAVIN: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Chief Inspector in Ireland and the principal official of the English Department are holding an inquiry. Can he hold out any hope that that inquiry will be concluded this week, in order that there will be some possibility of making a report this week, or in the early part of next week, so that we may have the situation made much more clear than it is at presents? I would express the hope, also, that when the report is issued, the Irish people will be put in a position to know where the disease exists.
    Mr. FALCONER: I rise to support the appeal made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Flavin) that this inquiry should be brought to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment. I do it mainly in the interest of Scottish farmers who are dependent for a supply of store cattle from Ireland. At the present time that supply has ceased, because there is a suspicion that there may be foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. If it is the case, as seems to be supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland at all, then there is no reason why Irish cattle should not be imported at Scottish ports so that the inconvenience both to the people of Ireland and Scotland which is now felt should be brought to a close. I would request the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to press upon the English Board of Agriculture, which regulates these matters in Scotland, unfortunately as I think, the real importance of removing the embargo as between Ireland and Scotland at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. RUSSELL: As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Galway earlier in the afternoon, I have to state that I sent direct to the county council, and I find that they asked for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into a great many questions connected with this disease. I am now able to give the hon. Member the answer which I sent. It was that with the exception of one thing we knew all we want to know. The one thing we do not know is the origin of the disease. It is a very long time since that question was
    1482
    first put. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Cork says, that we have been inquiring a long time, and that we are not very much farther forward. As to that, let me say that there is sitting now a Royal Commission upon which there are the most eminent scientists of Great Britain, together with representatives of Ireland. They are inquiring into that very thing.
    Mr. HEALY: Are there not a majority of Free Traders upon it?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think that the question of Free Trade should be introduced here. The Royal Commission is making inquiry, and it is needless to appoint another Commission while that one is sitting. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) that it is an absolute necessity that the condition of Birkenhead should be inquired into at once, because my right hon. Friend the President of the English Board of Agriculture will have to satisfy himself as to the origin of this outbreak, and until that is settled we cannot get forward. My Department is ready to commence to-morrow. It may be a day, or at most two days, before the inquiry commences, but I am in a position to say that the investigation—a better word than inquiry—will commence this week. That is my information, and as soon as we are in a position to let the House know the result, the House will be informed. I have no power to open the English ports. What power have I, as an Irish Minister, to do that? [An HON. MEMBER: "You can suggest."] Suggesting is another thing altogether. I will endeavour to have this investigation made without delay, and upon its completion I will point out to my right hon. Friend that it is a most serious matter to have every English port closed against Ireland because there is trouble at Birkenhead.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there should be a delay of two days before commencing to inquire into this serious matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I said I was ready to commence to-morrow.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I am extremely sorry that I was unable to be present here at the commencement of the Debate. Nor, indeed, had I the slightest idea that it was likely to arise. I was not aware until a short period ago that there had been a second outbreak in Worcestershire, and that statements were made in regard to

    1483
    that outbreak to the effect that a number of the animals found affected there had come from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to some Commission of Inquiry which is now proceeding, and, in reference to that, he said that we knew everything that was wanted to be known except one thing, and that was the origin of the disease. But I would remind him that we have always had in this country—at all events, for a vast number of years now—negative knowledge of the subject, and that it is still held that this disease is not indigenous to this country. It has never been known for a vast number of years unless it came to us from abroad. That statement applies both to Ireland and England. I am sorry to say that I have only been able to gather from conversation what is the position at the present moment, but there are some broad facts, at all events, which appear to be quite clear. As I remember, there is no question that there was an outbreak in Ireland some three weeks ago. That, I believe, was established and admitted on all sides. The next statement is, that an outbreak occurred at Gateshead in the North of England. As England had been perfectly free from this disease for a long time, the natural conclusion would be that the disease might possibly have arisen in Ireland, and that it would come to us from that country. In Ireland last year there appeared to be good reason to believe that there had been constant occurrence of this disease long before it was known. I am not so sure about that even now. I understand that during the Debate my right hon. Friend has given an assurance to the House of Commons that so long time has elapsed since the disease was certified in Ireland, that it could not have been brought to England from that country this time—either to Gateshead or more recently to Worcestershire.
    Mr. RUSSELL: There, had been no outbreak since the month of August last, and there was no movement of cattle to Gateshead.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Into or out of the farm?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Into or out of the farm.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Then with regard to the outbreak in Worcestershire.
    Mr. RUSSELL: What I said about the outbreak in Worcestershire was that it was reported late on Friday night. The important thing to remember is that the
    1484
    cattle left Ireland on 30th January, and that the disease was discovered on the farm on 21st February. All authorities are agreed that the longest period of incubation known is ten or twelve days. It varies from two days to ten or twelve days. If these Irish animals were responsible for the disease, you must count from the day they left Ireland, and that would make the incubation period twenty-one days—a thing that has never been heard of in the whole history of the disease. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is impossible to trace the outbreak which occurred there back to Ireland.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I should not be prepared to make the broad admission that the period of incubation is never so long as the period stated. I am quite sure that, although the animals them-selves may have been free very often where there has been an outbreak of disease, the germs of the disease lie dormant, either in the manure or something of that kind, for a considerable period. No one can say that a country is absolutely safe from fear of the disease when there has been an outbreak of it unless after a very prolonged period of time. I remember quite early in the course of the outbreak last year that my right hon. Friend, who is of a sanguine disposition, said to me in the Lobby that within three weeks or a month of the disease having appeared in Ireland he would have stamped out the whole thing. I expressed my ardent hope that my right hon. Friend might be right, but, as it happened, it was months afterwards before Ireland was safe, or anything approaching safe. Naturally, therefore, I view the present position with considerable apprehension. Here we have the broad fact that about three weeks or a month ago there was an outbreak in Ireland. Even though in the case of Gateshead, the contagion may not have been carried by the animals themselves, it is perfectly possible that it may have been carried by some other means from Ireland. As regards Worcestershire, there is a clear case, which warrants still more the serious apprehension that I have expressed. I hope that we shall be very fully informed by the right hon. Gentleman of everything that goes on, because as there has been one outbreak in Ireland three weeks or a month ago, and there have been two in England since then, one of which is attributed, so far as one can gather, to animals brought from

    1485
    Ireland to Worcestershire, our expedience of last year leads us to view the matter with the greatest apprehension.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before the Debate goes further I desire to point out, as some hon. Members were not here before, that we must not discuss the policy of the English Board of Agriculture under this Vote. Of course, I know that reference to it cannot be avoided in a matter of this kind, but the ruling which I gave two hours ago must be observed.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a Royal Commission which has gone out to investigate this question. Am I not right in suggesting that it was not a Royal Commission, but a Departmental Committee? I would also like to ask if that Committee has not completed its labours some six months ago? And there is also the important question—when we may expect to get its Report? The matter is of some urgency. The great port of Birkenhead has been placed in a very invidious position, especially this evening, owing to certain statements which the right hon. Gentleman has made; and surely there is an obligation on the right hon. Gentleman, before he casts aspersions upon one of the leading ports of the country, to make himself acquainted with the results of an investigation which, I understand, has been concluded for more than six months!
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I point out that the present Debate is one more example of questions which arouse a great deal of strong feeling in both England and Ireland being calmly and temperately treated under the system of a united Parliament for the two countries? Would it be possible—
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members sometimes discuss large questions on Supplementary Estimates, but never one quite so large as that.
    Mr. HOPE: I think that I have succeeded in making my point, but I would like to ask the representative of the Treasury for information on a rather important point of financial policy which does arise directly out of this Vote. I notice on page 8 that a large sum was paid into the Pleuro-Pneumonia Account. That account, it appears, though it is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, is not necessarily subject to the rule about the surrender of balances. That apparently is optional with the Treasury.
    1486
    What I wish to know is whether in fact they do insist on the surrender of balances. If they do not, but carry them over, does any inconvenience result? This question of the surrender of balances has been one of great interest to some Members of this House for a great many years. I always thought that it was a very unnecessary system.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, "That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5."
    I hope that we may have some answer about the figures which are included in this Vote. There is an amazing symmetry about the figures which almost suggests the hand of the cook. We are told that the additional sum is required to complete the £8,000, and that there has been a saving on tuberculosis of £7,790. If this £10 is right, it is just enough to make an Estimate, and no more. That seems a very suspicious circumstance. It suggests to my mind that this thing was prepared with a view to having a Parliamentary discussion. In the reply which has been made by the Vice-President I did not understand him to answer the point that has been made by the hon. Member for North-East Cork. The hon. Member's point was, if you are to restrict cattle, why do you not restrict other things by which infection may come? The Vice-President explained that there was no reason to think in the Gateshead case that the infection was due to cattle. In that case would not it be wise to impose a general embargo in the case of Ireland, and the same principle would apply to England, on all agricultural produce which comes from any infected place, if you are to have this system of restriction at all? There are two ways of dealing with cattle disease of this type. You may allow free access to all sorts of produce, including cattle, and you may leave the agriculturist to take the risk of his business suffering from infection. I believe that there are many agriculturists who say that is the right way to deal with the matter, that it is a mistake to have all these restrictions in this important trade, and that it is better to leave the disease to take its own course. But if you adopt a policy of restriction, which is the policy of the Department of Agriculture and of the Board of Agriculture in England alike, then it ought to be thorough-going. There is no advantage in restricting cattle and disturbing the large trade

    1487
    between Ireland and England, and not restricting everything else that can equally bring in infection. The question is one to which the attention of the Committee should be addressed, and therefore I move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5.
    Mr. RUSSELL: In reference to the question of the last two hon. Members who have spoken, neither of them was in the House when the Debate was in progress, and I have already made the very explanation as to the form of the Vote which I am now asked to give.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, I was going to point out to the Committee that this note on page 8 of the Supplementary Estimate, is the same as it was in the original Estimate on page 149.
    Mr. HOPE: If the balance of the savings on the tuberculosis (cattle) Vote is larger than anticipated, is it not fair to ask whether that balance should be surrendered or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not fair to ask if there is any variation in the policy laid down when the original Estimate was passed.
    Mr. HOPE: Then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what would be done in the case of a balance arising?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The unexpended portion of a Grant-in-Aid is not surrendered. The unexpended portion of a Vote is.
    Mr. HOPE: Is that by Statute or by practice?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is by Statute.
    Mr. HOPE: I am sorry if I have misunderstood, but the reference here is to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894; and turning to that I find that the Treasury may do certain things in the case of the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account (Ireland). It may direct that such balance shall be paid back, and the question which we ask is: If such a balance arises in this particular item, whether they would act according to their discretion one way or the other?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I could give the explanation as to how the money has been applied. In the original Estimate of the Department for the years 1913–14, the only provision made for this purpose was a total
    1488
    of £100. When that Estimate was framed over a year ago, it was not possible to say whether any expenditure whatever would be incurred in this work during the year 1913–14, and in such circumstances the-practice of the Treasury is not to call on the taxpayer to provide funds for contingencies until the necessity arises, and until the amount required is ascertained. We have asked for a Supplementary Estimate of £8,000 to meet payments that may have to be made before the 31st March next in connection with compensation for animals slaughtered on account of infection. On the other hand the Treasury have allowed us to apply the savings which have arisen on another Grant for payment to local authorities of the compensations paid for animals slaughtered which have been tubercular, and the amount of the Supplementary Estimate is consequently reduced to the nominal sums of £10.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question of my hon. Friend. What the right hon. Gentleman has told us is that the sum of £1,000 has been spent on the tuberculosis account, and that he is going to spend the balance upon foot-and-mouth disease. That we all knew. What my hon. Friend wants to know is what the Treasury is going to do. My hon. Friend referred to the Statute, which he said clearly shows that the Treasury may direct any balance which may not be required to be paid into the Exchequer. What we want to know is, if there is a balance, whether it is going to be paid into the Exchequer or it is not.
    Mr. MONTAGU: In answer to the question put by the Noble Lord below the Gangway, I may state that the practice of the Treasury—as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City is well aware—is not to transfer from a saving on an ordinary Vote to a Grant-in-Aid. That is the result of an undertaking given in the House of Commons some years ago, and it is for the purpose of enabling us to apply the surplus on another Vote to the-Grant-in-Aid that this Supplementary Vote of £10 is asked for. I may say that there is no prospect of any saving at all at the end of the financial year.
    Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 108 Noes, 258.

    Division No. 11.]

    AYES.

    [7.17 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Nield, Herbert

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Henry William

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington).

    Barnston, Harry

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Grant, J. A.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Royds, Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandys, G. J.

    Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stewart, Gershom

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

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

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Du Pre, W. Baring

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

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green S. W.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M,

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Hugh Cecil and Mr. Courthope.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, John George

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Crooks, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    Alden, Percy

    Cullinan, John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Herny

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hayward, Evan

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Delany, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Dillon, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hinds, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Doris, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

    Hodge, John

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Boland, John Pius

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Falconer, James

    Hudson, Walter

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Brace, William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Johnson, W.

    Brady, P. J.

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Field, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Joyce, Michael

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gill, A. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Ginnell, L.

    Kelly, Edward

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clough, William

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hackett, John

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

    1490

    1491

    Leach, Charles

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

    Snowden, Philip

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutton, John E.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Maclean, Donald

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thomas J. H.

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

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    M'Kean, John

    Pointer, Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Meagher, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wardle, George J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Waring, Walter

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Molloy, Michael

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Reddy, Michael

    Watt, Henry A.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Webb, H.

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Muldoon, John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rowlands, James

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Scanian, Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sheehy, David

    Yeo, A. W.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    O'Dewd, John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    O'Malley, William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Lord A. THYNNE: Before the Vote is I put I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the very different measure which is being meted out by the Government to Irish farmers from the I measure meted out to English farmers in precisely similar circumstances. I will call attention to what occurred in precisely similar circumstances in England—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord has not been present during the three and a half hours which the discussion has lasted, or he would know that I ruled that the questions of policy cannot be discussed.
    Lord A. THYNNE: If I can refer to it I by way of illustration, I may perhaps be able to do so under the Rules of Order, The point is this—that in the English counties they have been called upon to make good the money which has been spent by the Administration in connection with foot-and-mouth disease.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the English authority and not for the Irish authority.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Class 1.—HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move, "That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100."
    I hope the Government will be able to give a satisfactory answer to the points which I am about to raise. It will be seen that the sum of £3,100 is asked for over and above the estimate which it is contemplated will be used for defraying the cost of certain works. The sum asked for shows a certain amount of carelessness on the part of those who are responsible for arranging the Estimates. The first item is £1,000 for the new staircase leading from the Lower Waiting Hall to the Terrace. The revised estimate is £2,360, and it ap-

    1493
    pears to me that these improvements will amount to a large sum of money. I am sure I do not know what the object of the new staircase is. It certainly is a very imposing structure, but to whom it will give satisfaction I have not the remotest idea. It appears to me that this object of His Majesty's Government is to endeavour to turn the House of Commons into, and to look upon the House of Commons as in the nature of a new restaurant or a new hotel, and to make it as attractive as they can to both the inmates of the House and to outsiders. I do not know whether it is owing to the new custom of giving £400 per year to Members that it is deemed necessary to make the place more attractive and to increase the number of aspirants who seek to come here. Whatever it is, it appears to me that the new staircase is most unnecessary, and that a vote of £2,360 to construct a staircase in the portion of the House of Commons is one to which the Committee ought not to consent. Then there is the installation of the new lift. I should like to ask who is to benefit by this lift? Personally, I have never been up in this lift and I do not know even where it goes or leads to. It appears to me there are plenty of staircases in the House of Commons which are quite good enough, and, in the interests of economy, this sum should not have been incurred. In the Estimate for the Victoria Tower Garden extension there is an error of £1,700, That emphasises the point which I endeavoured to make at the beginning of my remarks, that there is a certain amount of carelessness on the part of those Members of the Government who are responsible. I would ask some information from the hon. Gentleman as it does appear to me that the sum of money now asked for is quite inordinate in comparison with the Estimate.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I do not for a moment say that the First Commissioner of Works has not done all the things he ought to have done, but I do say that this money might have been spent much more usefully. As far as the new staircase is concerned, I think it very beautiful and useful. The new passenger lift is, I am sure, used by many Members. I do not know where the Victoria Tower Gardens are, but I notice that we are spending £7,000 on it. There is one improvement which I should like to bring about. We want to make this place as up-to-date as possible. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that when the general
    1494
    public come in here to listen to our Debates, the visitor likes to see his Member in the House, and if he does not find him is somewhat disappointed. At least, he used to be so, but he is now very angry when he reflects that the Member is receiving £400 per year. What is his Member doing? He is, as a rule, going through the ordinary treadmill of life, answering letters. We have got to do it, for you must remember that most Members, when the Session is in full swing, have a twelve-hour day. We come at 11.30 to sit on one of the—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see where this appears.
    Mr. NEWMAN: During this long day—
    The CHAIRMAN: We must have something that bears on the money being voted.
    Mr. NEWMAN: What I desire to suggest is that the money might be spent in many better ways.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order on an occasion like this, when a Supplementary Vote is under consideration.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I find, on looking at the original Estimate with regard to the first item for a new staircase to the Terrace, that the revised total Estimate is £2,160, and that the original Estimate for this staircase was £810. There was added to that original Estimate £400, which made £1,210, and we are asked today for an additional £1,000, making a. total of £2,210. I see that the revised total amount is £2,360. It will be observed that there is considerable discrepancy with regard to that amount. It is pretty difficult to object to the phraseology in this explanation, but it shows the amount of care and attention that has been given when we hear that this money is to be paid for a new staircase from the "Lower Waiting Hall of the House of Commons." I have been all round the premises looking for such a thing as a "lower waiting hall," and all I could find was the Outer Lobby. How that comes to be described as the ''Lower Waiting Hall," or whether there is a "higher waiting hall" or not, I do not know. While we understand what the description means, it certainly does not apply strictly to any part of these premises. I differ from my Noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh) in thinking that the new staircase was wanted. The old staircase was disgraceful, and I think we are under some obligation to the hon.

    1495
    Member who has charge of this subject for putting in a decent staircase. What I am objecting to is the enormous sum which the staircase has cost, and the discrepancy that has arisen, in the amount estimated and in that paid. Ten of the cottages talked about last week could have been built for the price of making this one staircase. I think the Committee on all sides will be under the impression that such a sum of money for a mere staircase is a very large amount.
    The next item is as to the installation of a passenger lift for which there is a revised total estimate of £2,400, and for which a sum of £200 is now wanted. I find that the original estimate was £2,000, and the total revised estimate £2,400, so that it is difficult to know why it is we have got only £200 here, unless it be that £160 in item No. 4 is going to be carried over to item No. 5. It is a quite a customary thing in all Departments connected with these estimates to carry over the surplus of one account to another without saying anything about it. If that is what is being done, I think it is a mistake, and that we are entitled to have the correct figure. A sum of £2,400 for a lift is an absolutely outrageous amount. I am not without some experience in such matters, and I have put an excellent lift in a building for £400. That would do everything that we want, and it is simply outrageous, because the money happens to be spent by a public Department that the putting in of a lift in this or any other building should cost £2,400. Therefore, I do think we are entitled to a little more information, and not to be merely brushed aside on a point of this kind, but should be informed why the lift should cost such an enormous sum of money. With regard to the Victoria Tower gardens, I differ from my hon. Friend, who does not know where they are. I think most of us know where they are, and it seems to me that the work that is being done there is a magnificent improvement, and will be a splendid thing for this side. I gather that there is not an error of £1,700, to which my hon. Friend referred. I have searched in vain for any earlier estimate with regard to these gardens, and I presume what is really meant is this, that the total estimate for the gardens is £5,000, and that £1,700 is the amount that has been expended up to date in the current year, and which it is sought to pass to-day. I think if those gardens are carried out on that splendid piece of land, which is now being made
    1496
    available for such a purpose, between the House and the Chain Bridge, that it will be a most excellent improvement, and I do not grumble at the estimate of £5,000 if it is judiciously and properly spent. There is then an item for the construction of lavatory accommodation for the engineering staff, and I presume we shall have some explanation why it was necessary, and why it was not voted in the original Estimate. There are certainly two or three of these items which do look as if they were most extravagant, and I think we are entitled to an explanation.
    Sir J. D. REES: Unlike my Noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh), I think the widening of the staircase a very great improvement, and is defensible on the ground that all structural changes should be made with a view of enabling Members to get to this Chamber, which is their duty. Very often there was such a block in the narrow staircase, that I think this is in the nature of a real improvement, and for my part I do not at all object. When you come to the question of the cost, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. W. Rutherford) that it is quite excessive. Though it is desirable that the staircase should be widened, so as to enable Members to come to this House as quickly as possible when the bell rings, I do not think it is necessary to have the piece of tapestry at the top of the stairs. I do not suppose that it is very expensive, and probably it is not a Rose du Barry or an expensive piece from Duveen, but it would be more suitable for the Savoy or the Ritz than the austere atmosphere of the House of Commons. I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain what that piece of tapestry costs, and whether he really thinks it necessary, and if he thinks of extending that kind of ornament, I should like the opportunity of voting against it whenever it appears.
    As regards the lift, if a lift is wanted anywhere, the governing criterion should be that it should bring Members to the Chamber itself. You do not want a lift to bring them up from the Terrace, where they may be having tea and strawberries. The lift that was wanted was one from Palace Yard to this level. I remember that when a lift was constructed in the House of Lords it was bitterly resented by some hon. Members opposite, who asked why the Lords could not walk upstairs, and the answer given was that many of them were gouty. I can sympathise with that, because it is a complaint

    1497
    not confined to lords. There are many Members who would have been glad to have a lift from the Members' private entrance on the ground level to this Chamber. I would have voted for such a lift with pleasure, but this seems, an excessive and unnecessary provision, especially when you consider that the lift only goes from one story to another. For £2,400 I believe you could have had a lift going up several stories, if not as high as the Clock Tower. The Government have raised expenditure under every conceivable head, and it is desirable, when we get a concrete case of this kind, that Members should express their opinion.
    As for the Victoria Tower Gardens, for my part I do not think that they were required. They may be agreeable to people who live in Grosvenor Road, but very few of the inhabitants of London or of the United Kingdom live just there, and I do not think that the Gardens were really necessary as an adjunct to the amenities attached to the Palace of Westminster; nor can I see, in the absence of explanation, why separate and exclusive lavatory accommodation was required for the engineering staff. I did not know that the principle of caste or of occupation restrictions had reached such a degree that none of the accommodation already existing would be sufficient or suitable for the engineering staff. May I say, also, that it would greatly assist Members in looking up the original Estimates, and in coming to right conclusions upon these excessive amounts, if they were not disturbed by the tramp of the treading of feet on the carpet in the Library, which sound would be very much deadened if felt were placed underneath?
    Mr. SANDYS: It was rather unfortunate that the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Benn) was not able to be in his place when my Noble Friend the Member for Maids-tone (Viscount Castlereagh) moved the reduction of the Vote. The grounds on which my Noble Friend moved the reduction were, on the whole, very adequate. He pointed out that it was most undesirable that after substantial estimates had been approved for these particular purposes, the hon. Member should come down again and demand sanction for an additional £3,000. The speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) was interesting, but in one or two respects inaccurate. The tapestry to which he referred, so far from being a charge on the public exchequer, is a loan
    1498
    generously made by the South Kensington: Museum until the place which it now occupies is more suitably filled by the picture representing the flight of the five Members which the hon. Member for West Wolver-hampton is going to present. Consequently the charge of reckless extravagance cannot in this particular be altogether substantiated. I would like to draw the hon. Member's attention to a question asked on this subject so long ago as the 30th June last. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East
    "whether he can now make a statement as to the date when the new staircase and lift leading from the Dining Room Lobby to the Terrace will be completed, and whether the staircase, when completed, will have any decorative or novel features?"
    The reply of the hon. Member was:—
    "The decoration of the new staircase has largely been carried out with the old wood carving which had been in store. The central panel is at present occupied by a tapestry lent for the remainder of this Session by the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is intended ultimately to fill this panel with a picture by Mr. Seymour Lucas, representing the flight of the five Members."
    The hon. Member concluded his reply by saying:—
    "It is hoped that the staircase itself will be open for use on Wednesday. The lift will be constructed during the Recess."
    I went down to-day to test the new lift, but I found that, so far from being completed, it was certainly not sufficiently advanced for use at present. I think it was unfortunate that the hon. Member, unlike his Leader, should have definitely committed himself to an exact period within which this new convenience would be completed. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Somerset is unable to be here to-day. I well recollect his extremely interesting speech on lifts in general, and this lift in particular, when the subject originally came back. The hon. Member disapproved of the lift, and thought that Members of this House would be better—
    The CHAIRMAN: The whole question of the lift was then before the Committee; the only question now is in regard to the additional sum required.
    Mr. SANDYS: If the hon. Member were present I think he would be seriously perturbed by the fact that this additional money is required for a form of conveyance of which he so strongly disapproves, and I hope that, when he hears about it, the news will not in any way retard his recovery. With regard to the Victoria Tower Gardens, I certainly think that the money is being well spent; but inas-

    1499
    much as, on a total estimate of £5,000, an additional sum of £1,700 is required, I think the original calculation must have been extremely faulty. I hope the hon. Member will be able to explain how this very great error has arisen. I do not know whether any portion of this additional sum is to be applied to the purpose of constructing suitable railings round the gardens. I was driving past this afternoon, and I noticed that the temporary railings is a very high structure, so that those people passing through the streets or residing in the houses opposite, are unable to enjoy the view of these new gardens. I hope, therefore, that, if any portion of this sum is to be devoted to this purpose, the fence will not be of the same character as the temporary railing. An openwork fence, through which it would be possible for the general public to obtain a view of the gardens, would be found more satisfactory. I hope the hon. Member will be able to give a satisfactory explanation for these various increases. On general grounds it is very unsatisfactory that those in charge of these matters do not get proper estimates to start with. I should have thought that, in the case of the lift for instance, once knowing what you wanted—that, of course, is the first essential—it would have been perfectly easy to have gone to a reputable firm of lift constructors, and obtained from them a definite fixed estimate of the cost. If that were done, I see no reason why the sum should not be strictly adhered to. Unless the hon. Member can give a satisfactory explanation of these increases I should certainly support my Noble Friend in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I should like to ask whether tenders for either the stair case or the lift were invited from firms of repute, and whether the delay in constructing the lift has been caused to any extent by the lock-out in the building trade in London. I take it that this work has been done under the supervision of the Office of Works. If that is so, has the Office of Works attempted to enforce upon the men employed the objectionable agreement which the employers of London are attempting to impose upon them? If that would, to some extent, account for the delay in finishing the work. I would like to ask, also, whether in both those cases the work has been done on schedule rates and measured up, and whether the Office
    1500
    of Works has exercised the same control over the men who produced the work in the workshops that it exercised over those who fixed it in the House? I am informed that to some extent the Office of Works has been doing all that it possibly could to assist the employers of London to force this objectionable agreement upon the men—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of policy which would come on the main Estimates.
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel BURN: I would like to ask the-hon. Gentleman opposite what reason there is for not installing an Otis elevator, because, then, there would be no need to have an attendant constantly present? We often sit very late at this House; why should a man or men be kept on duty at the lift all the time, with a considerable amount paid in wages? The lift that I have mentioned is very well known. They have it in several clubs. I am perfectly certain that the construction is cheaper than the lifts that require an attendant all the time. An Otis elevator would be much more convenient, I think, than the one it is proposed to put in.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Perhaps I had better deal with the items in the order in which they appear in the Vote. First of all, as to the new staircase—as to its exceeding the first estimate. Although I am very sorry that the figures which were first presented 10 the House have had to be revised, I can assure hon. Members that it is highly desirable in a work of this kind, more than in some others, that it should be worthy of this, magnificent building in which we are, and that no new standard lower than that which was before us, and which had been set by the architects of this building, should be followed. The first estimate was £810. That was subsequently revised to £2,360, an amount which was found to be necessary. The reason for that was simply this: that as we went on with the staircase we saw new ways of making it a better staircase and one more worthy for the purposes it will have to serve, consequently we asked permission to spend a much larger sum of money, and we now come to this House for authority to spend that money. The design of the first staircase was for one nearly to go from the-Lower Waiting Hall, which is properly so styled, to the hall in which is

    1501
    the bust of Oliver Cromwell. This staircase was to follow much the same course as the other disreputable staircase which led to the terrace. When we were getting the designs out for the estimate that was sanctioned it was seen that a very much more desirable scheme could be arranged, one with a staircase with two confluent stairs down to the lower stairs. When we had arranged that and had decided on the decoration for that staircase, the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton very generously offered to the House the present of a handsome picture to adorn the staircase—then already in progress. I think the House will agree that we were acting rightly in making the staircase worthy of the picture. We were advised in the matter by the artist, Mr. Seymour Lucas, who is painting the picture, and we revised the scheme of woodwork for the staircase so that it would be an absolutely proper frame for the picture. The doubling of the staircase involves the lengthening of the skylight and the roof, and enables us at the same time to make some other alterations, to which I shall refer in a moment, so that the House will see that the whole thing, I think I may use the expression, is a progress from good to better.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Also from cheaper to dearer.
    Mr. BENN: Yes, you get more value and you have to pay more for it. I hope the Committee will not think that we have been unjustified when we show a better scheme, and one that I venture to think will be worthy of this House. I come to the second item—the passenger lift. We are having a lift put in which will be capable of being worked by those passengers who occupy it. It is the intention at the same time to have an attendant. For various reasons it seems undesirable to leave the lift entirely unattended. I cannot say that the delay is very much due to the strike or lock-out, although that has been one of the contributory causes. As to the place, there is only one place in this building where you can get a lift through from the lowest floor to the top. Hon. Members have often suggested various other places where it might be constructed, but I have always been able to show them that there is only one place where you can get the shafting from the lowest floor—because this lift does not stop at the Terrace; it goes into the vaults. It
    1502
    comes up in a convenient spot, passing the rooms habitually used by Members, not only on the Committee Room floor, but on the floor above; and as hon. Members will see when the Votes are printed, some money is taken this year for reallocating for the use of Members the whole of the floor above the Grand Committee Rooms. These are very handsome rooms. They are built in much the same style as the rest of the House. I am informed they have been put out of use for many years because hon. Members would not take the trouble to go up and along where the staircase will open into the Hall.
    I am informed that the lift will be ready in a week or two. I would point out to hon. Members that the work was proceeded with in the Recess, and it was hoped that it would be ready for the opening of Parliament. When I made a statement on this subject before I did not absolutely commit myself to the date when the work would be finished. An hon. Member suggested that we should in the matter of the staircase have gone to a firm of repute and have got an estimate for the work. We did go to a firm of repute, and we did get an estimate for it. Out of the £2,487 the total cost, £1,992, is for expenditure on a competitive tender, and the other £400 for various services for which it was impossible—in fact, it would have been very uneconomical—to have obtained a tender—for instance, the reconstruction of the little room which will form an ante-room, and the alterations on the second floor, where the lift will lead to the Committee Rooms. As regards the lavatory accommodation for the engineers, I can only say that there are no less than 140 men employed about this building, either on the staff or by contractors, and the washing accommodation only consists of eight basins. I am sure no hon. Member wishes to interfere with the small sum of money which is really necessary for a matter of this sort, so that the men may work in comfort. As to the last item, that referring to the Victoria Tower Gardens, hon. Members have been under a, misapprehension. Perhaps the explanation on the Vote is not full enough. Under the Westminster Improvement Act, 1900, the Victoria Tower Gardens are to be laid out by the Office of Works at the expense-of the London County Council, and are afterwards to be maintained by the Office of Works. In laying down the cost a sum not exceeding £5,000 is to be repaid by the London County Council. We were under the impression that it would be

    1503
    impossible to spend any of that money this year, but I am glad to know, and hon. Members will be very glad to hear, that the work has been pushed forward, and that it is possible to spend £1,700 this year in the laying out of these gardens, which we hope will be ready a little later in the year. That money is not money which will fall on the taxpayer, but is merely £1,700 out of the £5,000 which will be subsequently repaid and will appear as a Provisional Vote on the Office of Works Vote.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There was a question asked on the Labour Benches which I should be very glad myself to hear the answer to. The hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson) asked whether the delay in completing the lift was in any respect due, in the first place, to the lock-out; and, secondly, what action, if any, was taken by the Government in connection with the lock-out. This matter seems to me to be one of some importance, and to go far beyond the question as to what we should or should not spend upon this alteration. It is a relevant question, because delay means expenditure, and this expenditure is partly responsible for the Supplementary Estimate which we have to consider. If the cost of delay is due to some action that the Government have taken in connection with this dispute, then I do think that this Committee ought to be informed of the fact. I do not wish for a moment—I am sure it would not be in order—to go into the merits or demerits of the dispute, but the question whether the Government have taken part in it, and have taken part, either for or against the men or employers, is one of very great importance, and one which we certainly are entitled to put to the Government. I cannot help thinking that the Government have shown something in excess of their habitual contempt for the protests of individual Members in declining to make any reply to the question.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I supplement the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, and ask how the hon. Gentleman accounts for the figures in connection with the Estimates for the staircase? We are told that the staircase total was £2,360, and we are asked now for £1,000–that leaves £150. Is the reason for that £150 being left the fact that it is not going to this year's expenses? There is a similar case in respect to the lift.
    Viscount GASTLEREAGH: I am afraid I shall have to go to a Division. The hon. Gentleman's explanation leads me to say that here is another example of the way the finances of this country are managed. There seems to be no consecutive plan or principle on which they work.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the money is not already practically spent?
    Mr. BENN: This money is required to be spent before the 31st March.
    Mr. MORTON: It is practically spent, and one of the strongest complaints we can fairly make is not so much as to the amount of the expenditure, as that the Department goes on spending the money and then comes to us afterwards. It really leaves us quite helpless. I know it is the constant practice of the Departments to do that, and then it is made a party matter to get the Vote through, whether right or wrong. I doubt whether Departments ever carry out any work without exceeding the estimate. It appears, from my experience in these matters, that the officials, when they first estimate the amount, do not put down the larger sum for fear they would get nothing at all; they go on spending and they come to us afterwards. I do not suppose that anything I say will induce the Department to economy, but certainly considering the cost of the government of the country it is time for some economy. I do hope that this Department will try if they cannot employ officials who will give them honest and straightforward estimates before they do the work. I have no doubt this will be shoved through to-night whether I like it or not, and perhaps I. may have to vote for it.
    Mr. CASSEL: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reply to the questions put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) as to the effect of the lock-out on the expenses of this work. I should like also to record my protest against the expenditure of this sum on the staircase. This is a year in which we are told economy must be practised in every direction. It is true that this is a comparatively small sum, but if we ask an increase for any of those who are employed by the Government, whether in the postal or other service, or that a proper amount be spent upon the Navy to protect the country from foreign aggression, we are always told there is no money.

    1505
    But here we are spending £2,300 on a staircase in a year when such pretexts are put forward when demands are made for necessary expenditure. I say this is a matter against which we ought to enter our protest.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: There is a sum of £200 on Item A for the engineering staff. The hon. Gentleman said there are 140 men employed in that department. Are they permanently employed? or are they temporary? If these men are only temporary, why spend this money when you might have had, not as artistic, but equally useful basins cheaper. I think this is a large item if the staff is only temporary.
    Mr. BENN: I gave the number of men at present employed upon the building as 140. That is 70 men on the staff and 70 contractors' men. At present they have only eight basins. I do not suppose the Committee would interfere with the spending of a small sum like this for this purpose. As regards the Noble Lord's question, I am sure it would not be in order for me to explain at length what the position actually is in reference to the building dispute. It was not through any o want of respect that I did not do so. The lift would not be affected by the dispute. Speaking generally the action of the Office
    of Works in reference to the building trade and lock-out is one of complete neutrality.
    Mr. MORTON: I want the hon. Member to reply to my question as to why the Department did not come to this House first for this money?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What about the question as to the extra £200?
    Mr. BENN: As regards the lift, £2,000 was voted in 1913–14; £200 further is now asked for, and £200 to complete the job will be included in the Estimates for next year.
    Mr. BARNSTON: I shall support my Noble Friend in the Lobby if he goes to a Division on account of the very unsatisfactory replies the hon. Gentleman made in reference to the staircase. The Office of Works seems to have no settled plan or scheme in framing estimates; they simply make up their minds as they go along. That is not the way any of us would like to carry on our own business.
    Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 227.

    Division No. 12.]

    AYES.

    [8.20 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Archer-Shee, major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldman, C. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Harry

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bigland, Alfred

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campion, W. R.

    Kills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Homer, Andrew Long

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

    Cautley, H. S.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Valentia, Viscount

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Macmaster, Donald

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Donniss, E. R. B.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    Mount and Mr. Perkins.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Bird, Alfred

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Boland, John Plus

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Alden, Percy

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Barnes, George N.

    Bract, William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Clough, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Radford, G. H.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Crooks, William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Richardson, Thos. (Whitehaven)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Morton;

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowlands, James

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Leach, Charles

    Powntree, Arnold

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dillon, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scanian, Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Doris, William

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sheehy, David

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Falconer, James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Snowden, Philip

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thomas, J. H.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Mooney, John J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gill, A. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Morison, Hector

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wardle, George J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Muldoon, John

    Waring, Walter

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Gulland, John William

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hackett, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Webb, H.

    Hancock, John George

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughten)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hinds, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hothouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Hodge, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Yeo, A. W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Johnson, W.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. MORTON: I want to give my hon. Friend a chance of replying to my question. As a matter of right, we are entitled to information on these matters, and, above all, are entitled to see, if possible, that we have a better system in the future whereby we shall have an opportunity of preventing these increases. Under ordinary circumstances when these Votes are made a party question I vote for
    1508
    them; but there is no reason why they should be made party matters.
    Mr. BENN: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not replying to his question. The fact is that we asked for the amount that we thought we should require, and immediately we found that we wanted more money at the first opportunity we came to the House to ask for it. That is what these Supplementary Estimates are

    1509
    for. I regret that the original estimate was exceeded, and our Department will use every endeavour to avoid such excesses in the future.
    Mr. HOPE: A mistake has been made in one item of not less than 34 per cent. Surely those responsible for the estimate last year must have had in mind what was required, and they must have got an estimate. How did this increase arise? Did the Department not have any contract, or did they work it out at the Office of Works?
    Mr. BENN: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not present when I made my reply, because the point he raises has been fully answered.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES REGISTRY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £903, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."
    Mr. POLLOCK: I do not know whether on this Vote it would be in order to discuss a very important matter concerning friendly societies, namely, the contemplated use of a regulation under which friendly societies will no longer be able to choose their place of meeting in regard to the administration of the Insurance Act, and will be prohibited from meeting on licensed premises. That regulation has raised a discussion among friendly societies, who consider that their liberties are being infringed. Now we are being asked to find £90 for incidental expenses, and no details are given of this expenditure. I dare say it would not be in order to discuss this matter on Votes A, but I submit that we ought to be able to raise the point upon these incidental expenses. Therefore, I desire to have your ruling at the earliest possible moment on this question, which is of deep and serious importance to the friendly societies throughout the whole of the country.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should like, on the point of Order, to submit to you that this is purely a Vote for the expenses and wages of the Registry of Friendly Societies, and the rule to which the hon. Member referred is a rule passed by the Insurance Commissioners, with whom this Vote has absolutely nothing to do.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The point raised by the hon. Member is a general one, and I do not think that it can be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate, which he will observe is strictly confined to the Friendly Societies Registry.
    Mr. POLLOCK: As you have yourself said from the Chair that the matter is one of deep and wide importance, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to ask a question about the recent action taken by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and I hope that I shall be in order in doing so. I see that the Registrar asks for an additional £903, and I think I am right in saying that money is required for the service of about thirty additional clerks in the office, who are looking over schemes which are being prepared under Clause 72 of the National Insurance Act. By Clause 72 of the National Insurance Act every friendly society is required to submit to the Chief Registrar schemes for continuing, abolishing, reducing, or altering the benefits of members who become insured persons. The important aspect of these schemes is this. The schemes are supposed to be framed so that the combined effect of the alteration shall not prejudicially affect the solvency of the friendly societies. It is the business of the Registrar to see that the schemes are so framed that the solvency is not prejudicially affected. Hon Members will also remember that Clause 11 of the National Insurance Act provides that no sickness or disablement benefit shall be paid to any person in respect of any injury or disease where the sum paid by way of compensation is equal to the benefit which would otherwise be paid. Information has appeared in the public Press to the effect that the Registrar is acting in this manner, and I want to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he has his eye on the Registrar in regard to what he is alleged to be doing at the present time. From what one sees in the public Press, the Chief Registrar is now insisting that in the schemes sanctioned under Clause 72 of the National Insurance Act friendly societies, in the case of persons who after the passing of the Act have reduced their contributions on the non-State side, shall nevertheless pay to them full sickness benefit in cases of accidents in occupation.

    1511
    I need hardly say that I do not raise this question in order to try and make out that insured persons ought to be docked of their benefits, but if societies have got to pay the same benefit although the contributions have been reduced, it certainly is the business of the State to see that the solvency of the society is not thereby in any way prejudiced or affected. Before the passing of the Act friendly societies paid sickness benefit in full quite independently of payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, an insured person was drawing the full payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the full benefits of the society. The Registrar is now requiring the society still to go on paying the full benefits as before the passing of the Act, at the same time that the insured persons are getting full compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although those persons may have reduced their contributions on the non-State side by as much as 4d. per week. I think it is very unfair to the societies, who, from many other points of view, are expecting and very much dreading deficiencies at the first valuation, that the Registrar should enforce them to pay the full benefits, which certainly, to my mind, will inevitably entail deficiencies in the future. I want to find out from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Registrar is statutorily entitled to issue that instruction to the voluntary side of the Approved Societies. I do not believe that there is anything in the Act which entitles the Registrar to make an order of that sort to any Approved Society on their voluntary side.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member to develop his point so that I might clearly understand him. He has now put it quite clearly, and it seems to me to be outside this Supplementary Estimate. It seems, as the hon. Member has developed it, to be a point which would come properly on the original Estimate and not on this Supplementary Estimate, which is simply for the purpose of meeting the cost of the additional staff. I think the hon. Member must see that if I allowed this discussion there would be no point in the National Insurance Act in regard to which the principal officer is the Registrar of Friendly Societies which could not be raised. I regret that under the rules under which Supplementary Estimates
    1512
    are discussed, I cannot allow the matter to be debated.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I submit to your ruling, but I do not know whether I have made it quite clear that this additional money is for the payment of additional official expenses in the Registrar's office. I believe that no less than thirty additional clerks have been appointed with the sole object and purpose of reviewing the schemes framed under Section 72 of the Act, and it is in connection with those schemes and the way in which the Registrar is reviewing them and issuing instructions with regard to them that I want to move to reduce the Vote. It is the action of the Registrar in regard to these schemes—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting the point of order to me so clearly, but it is quite definite in my mind that he is raising a question of policy, which, I am sorry to say, I cannot allow on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Surely the Chairman cannot say, until we have had an answer from the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote, whether or not some portion of the salaries and wages it refers to is not required for the purpose which my hon. Friend brings before the Committee. If the money is wanted for that purpose, we ought to have the option of deciding whether or not we will pay the persons employed on the work. We do not desire to raise the question of the whole policy on that particular Vote, but we desire to discuss whether these particular salaries shall be allowed, and surely we are entitled to inquire for what purpose the expense has been incurred. We ought also to be entitled to criticise any appointments which have been made. I again suggest that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote should first be allowed to explain it more fully.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is it not true that the only power which the Registrar has in this matter is under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act, namely, the one dealing with compensation alone, and he cannot interfere with any other benefit? Therefore, is it not a question with regard to the Commissioners, and not to the Registrar?
    Mr. CASSEL: Section 72 of the Insurance Act devolves the duty of framing schemes on the Registrar, and Subsection (b) of that Section provides

    1513
    that any scheme adopted by a society or branch of a society in accordance with its rules, when confirmed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, shall be deemed to be incorporated in all registered rules of the society. Is it not the case that this is a matter which falls to be dealt with not by the Insurance Commissioners, but simply and solely by the Registrar of Friendly Societies? Is it also not the case that the scheme may deal not merely with the question of Workmen's Compensation, but may have relation to any benefit whatever? My hon. Friend is raising the point that this expenditure is in connection with the employment of clerks, who have this very work of revising the schemes to do, and, before we pay the money to be devoted to that purpose, we want to raise the point whether the Registrar of Friendly Societies is acting legally within the law. The submission of my hon. Friend, as I understand it, is that the Registrar of Friendly Societies has no power at all of dealing with schemes in this way, and so long as the scheme is a solvent and proper scheme he cannot lay down general rules which fetter the action of the society. I raise this point of Order without committing myself on the question whether the contention of my hon. Friend is right or wrong. I submit we are entitled to discuss the question whether the expenditure ought to be incurred on an action which we consider to be illegal.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to hon. Members for the assistance they have sought to render me, but it does not alter my opinion as to the correctness of my ruling. It is quite in order to discuss whether an official staff is required, but I repeat that that is a question of policy and outside the scope of this particular discussion.
    Mr. HOPE: I beg to move to reduce Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances: England and General) by the sum of £50. If there be any error—and according to your ruling, there is one—I submit it is due entirely to the manner in which the Estimate is presented. We are asked to Vote £813, and the only explanation is that it is a further sum for additional staff. We want to know why this further sum is required. My hon. Friend assumes that it is in connection with the schemes referred to. We know that the schemes have been prepared and a consideration of them has been necessary. We know that further sums are required for the Regis-
    1514
    trar's Department. My hon. Friend assumes that it is because of these schemes, and he claims the right to discuss the Vote in consequence. Of course I do not dispute the ruling of the Chair, but I do dispute the propriety of the Treasury coming down here and asking for an additional sum without a word of explanation for the purposes for which the money is required. Why, I would ask, is this additional staff needed? Why is further money requisite? I turn to other items and I find they are accompanied with explanatory notes. On the item we have just been discussing there is an explanatory note with regard to a new staircase to the terrace. In the next Vote we are to deal with there is a note about small holdings, and so on. If we go through the various items we get explanations, but there is no note explaining this particular Estimate, and we are completely in the dark as to the purposes for which the money is required. I think the Secretary to the Treasury should have made some preliminary explanation in the absence of such a note, and as a protest against the concealment practised by the hon. Gentleman, I beg to move the reduction of the item by £50.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member has compared the way in which this Estimate is presented with the way in which the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture in Ireland was presented, to the prejudice of this Estimate. But if he will turn to the next page, he will find a lengthy explanation given of that Vote, and it is simple to deduce therefore that this Vote really demanded no explanation, because of its simplicity. It is merely a matter of providing money to meet the cost of additional staff. The Treasury consented to a complete reorganisation of the office in view of recent legislation—the Trades Union No. 2 Act and the Insurance Act—under which societies who alter their rules have to approach the Registrar for approval of them. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate which is going to entitle the Registrar of Friendly Societies to undertake any new duty; it is simply the result of a miscalculation of the cost of the reorganisation of the office. It is also the result of changes recommended by a Departmental Committee which sat to consider the way in which the duties of the Registrar of Friendly Societies were being performed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: When did the Committee sit?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It reported last December. A considerable portion of the amount is due, not for the payment of new staff, but for the payment of overtime necessitated by temporary work due to the facts I have just mentioned.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the explanation of the hon. Gentleman has made the matter worse, because, as I understand it, he says that the increase is not due to new duties cast upon the staff, but merely to a reorganisation owing to the Trades Union (No. 2) Act and to the Insurance Act.
    Mr. MONTAGU: To a general increased activity of the Department.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Now we have a third explanation. If the staff are more active, you do not want to add to their number. On the contrary, if you have a very active staff, you reduce their number. I am afraid the last explanation differs from the preceding explanation, which was that the increase was due to matters in connection with the Insurance Act and the Trades Union (No. 2) Act. I am afraid I do not know when the Trades Union (No. 2) Act was passed, but so far as I remember, the Insurance Act came into operation more than a year ago, and therefore the Treasury ought to have foreseen the duties which would have been put upon the Friendly Societies' Registry Office by the passing of that Act. We on this side of the House complain of the lack of properly estimating expenditure. When I sat on that side of the House I listened for hours to hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining that the estimate of expenditure was inaccurate. I remember they always said that if they were in power we should see no Supplementary Estimates, because the business of the country would be carried on in a businesslike manner. Since I have been on this side of the House I have longed for that welcome period, but it has never come, and on every possible occasion the Government are putting forward Supplementary Estimates, and very bad explanations of them.
    I am perfectly willing not to be too hard on the hon. Gentleman, who has only just been appointed to his office and may not be up in all the little manœuvres which are necessary to carry the Financial Secretary to the Treasury through a Debate on Supply, and especially upon Supplementary Estimates. I have no particular objection to voting another £813 if it is necessary. I see the President of the
    1516
    Board of Trade is present. He is very insistent upon good management in his office, and I would ask him whether, if he sat on this side of the Committee, he would be justified in voting for an increase in the staff because the members of the staff had been more active? I can see the right hon. Gentleman getting up and pluming himself on the way in which he had conducted his office. He would say, "I am prepared to pay good salaries, but I will have work done for them. I have started such a spirit of activity in my Department that I am able to say I have been able to reduce the Estimate." Is this increase due to an increase in number or an increase in the salary of the existing members of the staff?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There is a certain increase in staff, but the larger amount is for overtime payments to the existing staff.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how much is due to the increase in staff and how much to overtime? That would make a considerable difference. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to place too much reliance on the gentlemen under the Gallery, because they do not always give the correct answer to the question. Am I to understand we are to have no answer?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I could not answer while the hon. Baronet was detaining the Committee with his interesting speech. I am afraid I cannot give him the information for which he asks. I did not say that the members of the staff had been more active, and that for that reason we were increasing their number. What I did say was that the Department had become more active, and that recent legislation had necessitated greater activity. We wanted, as I am sure the hon. Member himself would wish, to bring the whole Department into a condition of greater efficiency, and we had to do a certain amount of reorganisation work, and to increase, to a certain extent, the number of the staff. I am sorry to tell the hon. Member that I have not the details of the apportionment of this sum between overtime, temporary assistance, and so on. He was good enough to extend to me a certain amount of consideration owing to the fact that I have only recently been appointed to my office. I can assure him that this Estimate

    1517
    has been carefully scrutinised, and I will endeavour to obtain for him, if he will put a question to me, the apportionment he desires us to make.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I have no desire whatever to attribute to him any want of courtesy, for he has always been most courteous in all his dealings with the House of Commons. I am afraid I cannot accept his suggestion. He says, "Vote the money, and I will give you the explanation some time afterwards." That is not business. You get your explanation before you vote your money. The real answer to the hon. Gentleman would be to move to report Progress until the hon. Gentleman does know what is represented by the amount he desires the Committee to vote, but in view of the fact that he has only just taken the office, I do not propose myself to do that, although I do not know what my hon. Friends behind me may do. They may think I am too good-natured, and too willing to let matters go through quickly.
    Mr. HOPE: So you are.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am inclined to be content with supporting the reduction moved by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HODGE: May I, as one who from time to time feels it necessary to call upon the Registrar, say that not only secretaries of trade unions, but secretaries of friendly societies, will hail with satisfaction the increase of the staff. When you submit to the Registrar an amendment of rules it has been my experience that that office has been so much under-staffed that you are kept waiting for months before you can get your rules approved by the Registrar. I trust, as a result of the reorganisation of the office that when we have occasion to go before the Registrar with any amendments of rules we shall get them much more speedily approved than has been the case in the past. It is very bad for the regular work of a society to find that new rules have been passed by the members and they cannot be put into operation until such times as the Registrar can approve them.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The observation made by the last speaker may possibly go to this extent, that a very much larger increase in staff may be necessary. I can well understand the inconvenience of not being able to get rules approved with considerable rapidity. There ought not to be great
    1518
    delay in the Registrar's office, and it must be very inconvenient to all societies to have to wait, because members want to come in or go out, and you do not know what set of rules are applicable to the particular society during the ebb and flow and flux which must take place even during the course of a very few weeks. If the sum asked was a great deal larger possibly the House ought to agree to it, have to wait, because members want to understand is what we are voting for. The Financial Secretary referred to the fact that there had been a good many alterations of rules. What we have been asking is, how there have been alterations of rules under Section 72 Sub-section (3), and if there have been we want to know whether the purpose of that alteration includes a direction that certain benefits shall be paid. Here we have the explicit statement of the hon. Gentleman that a further staff is required because of the alteration of rules. I call attention to this Sub-section, and it occurs to me that if the question can be answered we might be placed a little further forward, because this information will be given, which is the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend desires to place before the Committee. If he says he does not know, I shall respect him very much for being one of the first Ministers who has had the courage to stand up and say, "I do not know," and I shall accept his answer, but if he gets some answer which is based on imperfect and perhaps inaccurate knowledge and pretends to know when he does not, the high position I shall always accord him will possibly be endangered.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The facts are these. Under the Insurance Act, and particularly under Section 72, certain new duties were laid upon the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. In order to cope with those duties and other new duties placed upon him by other Acts, he suggested to the Treasury a reorganisation of his Department. For that reorganisation and for the expenses of the Department generally the House approved last year an original Estimate. That Estimate has proved insufficient, and it is to supplement it that I am asking the House to vote this sum of money.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the question of this alteration of Regulations has been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman, surely one is in order now in discussing the subject which he himself

    1519
    has raised. I asked whether he could give any information whether this alteration of the Regulations does include permission to the Registrar to issue instructions that the societies in future shall pay the same benefits as they did before the Act.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the way in which the Secretary to the Treasury answered in any way opened up the point which I previously ruled out of order.
    Mr. HOPE: The Secretary to the Treasury, I submit, said that part of this increase, and a very large part, is due to the duties cast upon the Registrar under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act. That being admitted, may I ask is it not in order to inquire why this increase is necessary?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury simply stated the fact. Hon. Members desire to open a question of policy which I have ruled out once or twice, and I must adhere to it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) for the statement he has made, because he says he is very glad that this increase is going to take place, because for some time he has found in the course of his duties, which take him to the office of the Registrar, that he has been unable to get that attention which he deserves. That is the whole point. All this ought to have been found out a year ago. It ought to have been in the original Estimate. It is no use saying, "We did not know that the blockage occurred to which the hon. Member refers,
    and now, at the last moment, we are going to do something." Why was it not done before
    Mr. HODGE: The Trade Union (No. 2) Act only came into force on 1st July, and a great deal of work in consequence was thrown on the Registrar's office.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that Act was only one of the causes of this increase. If the hon. Member had said it was the sole cause, that would have been another thing. I did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Trade Union (No. 2) Act was the cause of the delay, and that it was only since last July that he had found it was impossible to get that attention.
    Mr. HODGE: Not only.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That shows I am absolutely right, and that the hon. Member found all these difficulties, not only after 1st July, but before, because the common interpretation of English being as it is, "Not only" does not mean only after 1st July, but before as well. The Independent Labour Party should take their courage in their hands, as a protest against the delay which they say has so injured the people who have returned them to Parliament. Hon. Members below the Gangway will not hurt the Government by going to a Division. I would thank them for once for showing that they are independent in reality as well as in name.
    Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances: England and General) be reduced by £50."
    The Committee divided: Ayes 68; Noes 229.

    Division No. 13.]

    AYES.

    [9.15 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Goldman, C. S.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, W. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks.,Abingdon)

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandys, G. J.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord Ft. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lscker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Macmaster, Donald

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Newman, John R. P.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nield, Herbert

    Fell, Arthur

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    F. Banbury and Mr. Hamilton.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Hayward, Evan

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Alden, Percy

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pointer, Joseph

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

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hinds, John

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hodge, John

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Black, Arthur W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Reddy, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hudson, Walter

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brace, William

    Johnson, W.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Robertson, John M, (Tyneside)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Keating, Matthew

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rowlands, James

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Kelly, Edward

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scanian, Thomas

    Clough, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Sheehy, David

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Leach, Charles

    Shortt, Edward

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Crooks, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Snowden, Philip

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Delany, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Thomas, James Henry

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dillon, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doris, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Molloy, Michael

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Waring, Walter

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Falconer, James

    Mooney, John J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morgan, George Hay

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Morison, Hector

    Webb, H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

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

    Field, William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gill, A. H.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Glanville, Harold James

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Gulland, John William

    O'Dowd, John

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

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

    Hackett, John

    O'Malley, William

    Yeo, A. W.

    Hancock, John George

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

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Shee, James John

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

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

    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, "That Item D (Incidental Expenses) be reduced by £50."
    1522
    In the course of my Parliamentary experience I have often heard, or had submitted to me, barren, jejune, fruitless,

    1523
    superfluous, and meaningless official explanations, but I have never had one which was quite equal to the one which is put under the heading of "(d) Incidental Expenses." It says
    "the original provision has proved insufficient by £90."
    Just above that we had this statement:—
    "Incidental expenses, original estimate £813. Revised estimate £703, the difference between which is £90."
    Surely, in face of that, it is not necessary to put in the special note that the original provision proved insufficient! Clearly there is a difference of £90 between £613 and £703. In face of that, I must ask the Secretary to the Treasury in what respect the provision has proved insufficient?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will endeavour to give the hon. Member the explanation required, very shortly. If, in an unforeseen way, the activities of the Department in special work have been increased, and additional members of the staff have been engaged, a greater expenditure of money has been necessitated in postage stamps, stationery, messages, and all those small expenses incidental to the running of a large office, which is the necessary corollary of the increased Vote which the House has just sanctioned under Sub-head A.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It seems a very extraordinary explanation to say that owing to the increased staff more postage stamps
    and stationery were required, the sum required for the increased staff is £813, and the stamps and stationery are £90. This is a very large sum. You could work it out "if the increased salaries paid to the stall are £813, how much would the extra stamps and paper cost which would be required for their work?" and the answer is £90. That is absurd on the face of it. It is quite impossible that the people who were paid £813 for extra work could have consumed £90 worth of stamps and paper. The original estimate for salaries was £15,108, and the increase was £813. That is an increase of about 5 per cent.; whereas the original estimate for incidental expenses was £613, and the increase is £90, or 15 per cent. That is, three times the increase experienced in the other case. Therefore, the explanation given is absolutely absurd. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly ask the Vice-President of the Board of Trade to ask the gentleman under the Gallery to furnish a better explanation, I am quite sure it will be forthcoming; because, really, with all the desire on my part to do the best I can for the hon. Gentleman, I cannot accept the explanation which has been given.
    Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £853, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 14.]

    AYES.

    [9.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldman, C. S.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, W. R.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Sandys, G. J.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cautley, H. S.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nield, Herbert

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Newman and Captain Wilson.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Alden, Percy

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hinds, John

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hodge, John

    Radford, G. H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Brace, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Reddy, Michael

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Johnson, W.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kelly, Edward

    Rowlands, James

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Clough, William

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

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

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Compton-Rickett. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Sheehy, David

    Cotton, William Francis

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Crooks, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Shortt, Edward

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Cullinan, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Snowden, Philip

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

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sutton, John E.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Dillon, John

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thomas, James Henry

    Doris, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duffy, William J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Molloy, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Falconer, James

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Waring, Walter

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Morison, Hector

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Field, William

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, Henry

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    elder, Sir W. A.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gill, A. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glanville, H. J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Gulland, John William

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hackett. John

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hancock, John George

    O'Malley, William

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yeo, A. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Shee, James John

    Young. William (Perthshire, East)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Hayward, Evan

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 73.

    Division No. 15.]

    AYES.

    [9.39 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Alden, Percy

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hinds, John

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hodge, John

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Radford, G. H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hudson, Walter

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Brace, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rendail, Athelstan

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Johnson, W.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley 0.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Joyce, Michael

    Robinson, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Keating, Matthew

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Kelly, Edward

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rowlands, James

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Crooks, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shortt, Edward.

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Snowden, Philip

    Dawes, J. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Delany, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Dillon, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Doris, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Falconer, James

    Mooney, John J.

    Waro, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wardle, George J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Morison, Hector

    Waring, Walter

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Field, William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wason John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Webb, H.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gill, A. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Glanville, H. J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Greenwood, Hamas (Sunderland)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Gulland, John William

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hackett, John

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Malley. William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Shee, James John

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

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yeo, A. W.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Hayward, Evan

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Bird, Alfred

    Cassel, Felix

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Cator, John

    Barnston, Harry

    Campion, W. R

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    1528

    1529

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.,

    Sandys, G. J.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godtrey

    Mount, William Arthur

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newman, John R. P.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Nield, Herbert

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Cilmour, Captain John

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

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    F. Banbury and Mr. Bigland.

    Hills, John Waller

    REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, ENGLAND.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar - General of Births, etc., in England."
    Mr. HILLS:I desire to ask a question as to Item A for £125, the "additional sum required to cover the cost of work performed by the National Health Insurance (Audit) Department," and to know what the office of the Registrar-General has got to do with the Audit Department of the Insurance Office. At first sight it is not very clear what connection there is between the work of the Registrar-General, whose duty it is to take the census, and the Audit Department of a great concern like the National Insurance Department. Secondly, I would ask for what the £125, the additional sum, has been used.
    Mr. SANDYS: There are one or two other points in connection with this Estimate, which I think deserves some consideration and answer from the hon. Member, when he deals with the particulars which has been raised by my right hon. Friend. It is true that the total sum to which we are asked to give our sanction is only an amount of £5, but at the same time I think it is desirable that any sum, however trivial it may seem at first sight, should be carefully investigated by hon. Members in view of the fact that in many cases where the sum itself is small the principle which is involved is extremely important. I notice that under the first sub-head, salaries, wages and allowances,
    1530
    the original estimate amounted to £29,156. There is now a revised estimate placed before us of £29,281, giving an additional sum required of £125. The whole of this sum is to cover the cost of work which has been performed for the National Health Insurance Audit Department. I think we are entitled to some explanation with regard to that matter. It has struck me in examining these various estimates that this subject of National Insurance is always cropping up some way or another, and in the most unexpected places we are continually being asked to sanction the expenditure of sums of money, and in some cases large sums of money, with reference to this National Insurance. I doubt very much where any estimate has ever been made as to what all those various expenditures amount to. Those items, as I say, are cropping up in the most unexpected places, and hon. Gentlemen opposite come down to the House and expect them to go through practically automatically. There is another question to which I wish to direct attention, and that is to sub-head E, dealing with salaries and wages. The original estimate was £3,044, and now we are asked for £3,994, an additional amount of £950. I find in a foot note at the bottom of the estimates this explanation.
    "The preparation of the various Census tables and Reports, and the returns for local authorities under Section 9 of the Census Act, 1910, has proved to be more expensive than was anticipated."
    I do not quite understand that, because Section 9 of the Census Great Britain Act, 1910, is in these terms:—
    "The Registrar-General may, if, and at such time as he thinks fit, at the request and cost of any local authority or any person, cause abstracts to be prepared containing statistical informa-

    1531
    tion which can be derived from the Census Returns but is not supplied by the Census Report, and which in his opinion, the authority or person may reasonably require."
    The statement with regard to the cost of these matters proving more expensive than was anticipated does not seem to coincide with the terms of the Act of Parliament, and there seems to me to be a distinct divergence, because it is perfectly clear under the Clause I have read, or at least it so seems to me, that the Registrar-General at such time as he thinks fit may, at the request and cost of any local authority cause those abstracts, and so forth, to be made. It is distinctly laid down in the Act of Parliament that the cost is to come, not out of the National Exchequer, but from the local authorities. Therefore I do not see how there can be any increase in the expected expense.
    Mr. MONTAGU: In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills), in the original Estimate a sum was included for carrying out this work, which amount has not proved sufficient. The Audit Department under the Insurance Act requested the permission of the Treasury that the Registrar-General should make certain researches, with a view to testing the age of assured contributors, because the accuracy of the age returns has an effect on their reserve values. Accordingly the Registrar-General was authorised to undertake the experimental checking of a certain number of cases. In order that these tests may extend over a sufficiently large field, it has been found necessary to extend the work over a rather larger area than was at first thought necessary. The work, therefore, is being continued, and this extra sum of £125 is required. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys) is exercised by the fact that it was impossible to foresee the exact cost of the additional requirements by local authorities under Section 9 of the Census Act, 1910. He points out that this ought to be recouped by the local authority, and he asks why we have come to the House of Commons for the money. What we are asking for is really only a token Vote. By Statute we cannot devote an increase in the Appropriations-in-Aid to increased expenditure. Therefore, although the money is coming in, and the receipts from local authorities
    1532
    will be greater by £1,070, we are bound by the Rules of the House to put down a token Vote, and to bring it before the House for sanction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, that Item E. ("Salaries and Wages") be reduced by £50.
    I do not quarrel with the explanation of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the first item. It is quite possible that it was necessary to have an increased Vote for the purpose which he has indicated, and as the increase is only £125 I do not propose to quarrel with that. But I am not so sure that I can accept the explanation with regard to Item E. The hon. Gentleman says it is necessary to have a token Vote in order that the Treasury may apply the Appropriations-in-Aid which have exceeded the Estimate to the excess sum required under this head. That is quite true. But the footnote says:—
    "The preparation of the various Census tildes and report, and of returns … has proved to be more expensive than was expected. The total excess anticipated is £1,300, but of this amount £359 will lie met from savings under other Sub-heads of this Vote."
    The next item on Appropriations-in-Aid says:—
    "The revised Estimate includes the sum recoverable from local authorities for returns under Section 9 of the Census Act, 1910, and also the additional cash fees which it is anticipated will accrue in respect of searches and certified copies."
    10.0 p.m.
    That is all right. But the original excess is not £950, but £1,300; therefore the original Appropriations-in-Aid from the charges on local authorities should have been not £1,070, but £1,300. There is £350 which apparently appears from savings under other Sub-heads of this Vote. I do not know what those other Sub-heads are; but if they are not contributions from local authorities, the Act which my hon. Friend has quoted has not been complied with. Under these circumstances I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I take it that these additional Estimates are expected to be exact Estimates, in order to complete the accounts. The note on Appropriations-in-Aid says:—
    "The revised Intimate includes the sum recoverable from local authorities for returns under Section 9 of the Census Act. 1910. and also the additional cash fees which it is anticipated will accrue in respect of searches and certified copies."
    Suppose they do not amount to £1,070, how will the Estimates then balance? They would appear to have been made out very exactly, as we are asked to sanction an additional sum of only £5. But if it

    1533
    is anticipated that £ 1,070 will be received, it would appear that the accountants might just as well have anticipated the receipt of £1,075, in which case nothing would have been asked from the House.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London knows that, although it is not possible for the Treasury to devote Appropriations-in-Aid to increased expenditure, it is competent for them to devote savings under one head to excesses under another head of the Vote. That has been done in this case temporarily. The hon. Baronet is quite right in saying there will be an extra sum of about £300 from the local authorities, which we do not anticipate will be collected this year, but it will come in at the commencement of the next financial year. For the present we are meeting this deficiency—not being able to collect that sum from the municipal authorities up to the 31st March—by savings on wages and other small heads of expenditure. In regard to the hon. Member who spoke last, we have been doing our best to make these Estimates exact. If we do not get the sum necessary, I presume we shall have to come back to the House and say the Estimates are not accurate and ask the House for a further sum.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I point out the very unsatisfactory method of dealing with these accounts? We have nominally been asked to vote £5. As I understand the explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not be able to apply the £1,075 against the expenditure shown in this Estimate. If that is so, we are really being asked to vote £1,075; in other words, we are really being asked to sanction this Appropriation-in-Aid. I must say I think that very unsatisfactory. I have always thought that the national accounts were not a model of all that they ought to be so far as clearness is concerned, but if I rightly understand the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, this method of saving on the Estimates really is positively misleading. It would have been far better to have had a Supplementary Estimate in full and allow the Appropriation-in-Aid to go to the National Debt.
    Mr. GRETTON: I really do not understand the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has said that if events did not run out as the Treasury anticipates the Government would have to
    1534
    come to the House for a further vote. Are we to understand that these savings from other items are only temporary savings, and that if the other sums recovered in the vote do eventuate as the Treasury anticipate that these savings will not be permanent, but that they will be carried over till next year It really seems to me a most muddle-headed way to keep the accounts of the nation. It is not competent to the Treasury, or any other authority, to carry over savings from one year to another. If there are savings in the current year they have to be applied for the purpose of the National Debt Commissioners in the reduction of the National Debt. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give us an explanation to clear up this difficulty which he has left in the statement which he made to the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his statement. It did not appear what actually was going to be done till I asked the question. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I want to ask this: Next year, when he gets the £350 from the local authorities, what is he going to do with it? He ought to surrender it to the National Debt Commissioners, because there will be a surplus of £350; he will have got the money which ought to have been paid before the coming 31st March. He anticipates that he will not get it; therefore, what is he going to do with it when he does got it next year? £350 is a small sum when we are spending, something like £200,000,000, but it is not the sum which counts. It is much more than that. It is a principle which is at stake. Is the Treasury to be permitted, if they think it convenient, not to press certain debtors to pay their debts, but to take money from somewhere else which ought to go to the Old Sinking Fund to meet that debt? Under these circumstances I do not think it is possible to have a satisfactory explanation unless the hon. Gentleman gets up and says that he has made a mistake.
    Mr. HOPE: I think that my hon. Friends have made a very true point in respect of this £350. This procedure is in principle an entire departure from something Mr. Gladstone held absolutely sacred, namely, the "water-tightness"—if I may use such an expression—of each financial year. Personally I disagree from my hon. Friend. I have long thought, and argued years ago, that this system of the

    1535
    necessary surrender of balances at the end of the financial year was a mistake; but so long as it remains a principle, it ought not to have these trifling insidious exceptions. I frankly acknowledge that the above unexpended surplus may be carried on over the 31st March, of course, being used in the sum paid in the next financial year. What I want to ask is, why the Treasury allows these local authorities to get into debt to the Registrar-General's office at all. What is the need of it? Note the 9th Section of the Census Act of 1910. Why, therefore, ought this debt to be incurred by the central authority? Why not make the local authority deposit the estimated cost or something more than the estimated cost; or why not withhold some sum on the Local Taxation account that will likely cover the cost? The method proposed by the hon. Gentleman is an
    entirely unbusinesslike system. Obviously these Appropriations-in-Aid are speculative. On some of the other items I find the Appropriations-in-Aid are sums definitely paid. It is true they have to be sanctioned by the House, but they are already tangible. These are not tangible. These are speculative. By admission they are not necessary to be paid in the same financial year. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Aberdeen opposite, whose views on direct taxation are so sound, and whose knowledge on these matters of accountancy is so varied and ample, as to whether he approved of this method?
    Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 257.

    Division No. 16.]

    AYES.

    [10.15 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Greene, W. R.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. Ft.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Sandys, G. J.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Homer, Andrew Long

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    lngleby, Holcombe

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Cooper. Sir Richard Ashmole

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S.W.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Nield, Herbert

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Du Pre, W. Baring

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

    Fell, Arthur

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    F. Banbury and Mr. Gretton.

    Gardner, Ernest

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Agnew, Sir George William

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Alden, Percy

    Black, Arthur W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Boland, John Pius

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Brace, William

    Clough, William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Crooks, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cullinan, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Delany, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dillon, John

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Doris, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    'Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Maclean, Donald

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanian, Thomas

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Falconer, James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Sheehy, David

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Shortt, Edward

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meagher, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Field, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molloy, Michael

    Snowden, Philip

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sutton, John E.

    Gill, A. H.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) o

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Worrell, Philip

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morison, Hector

    Thomas, J. H.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Trevelyan, Charles philips

    Hacked, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hancock, John George

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wardle, George J.

    Harmsworth. Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Waring, Walter

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Warner, Sir Thomss Courtenay T.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnall, Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradcston)

    Hazleton, Richard

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

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Malley, William

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Whyte, Alexander F.

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hinds, John j

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hodge, John

    Parker James (Halifax)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hudson, Walter

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Firie, Duncan V.

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Yeo, A. W.

    Johnson, W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Jones. William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Gulland and Mr. Webb.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Radford, G. H.

    Mr. HOPE: In consequence of the silence of the hon. Gentleman on the List occasion, I must ask him how these sums have to be recovered from the local authorities, and why it is necessary for them to run into debt. I refer to Item
    1538
    G. On what basis is the Estimate of £1,010 framed? It says that this £1,070 includes the sum recoverable from the local authorities under Section 9 of the Census Act, 1910, and also the additional cash fees which it is anticipated will accrue in

    1539
    respect of searches and certified copies; and we know from the last item that £1,300 was expended for returns for which the local authorities are ultimately responsible. Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the whole of this £1,300 will be collected at all? I take it that it will not be collected within the present financial year. I should also like to ask whether any part of this is due from private persons, because that is also contemplated under the Census Act in the same way. How is it that some can be collected within the financial year and that the sum of £350 will have to stand over until the next financial year? The whole thing appears to me extremely unbusinesslike. I cannot understand why either local authorities or private persons were ever allowed to get into debt.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I take it that these cash fees are paid by local authorities to people who dive into these records and have to make searches and get their copies and pay for them. I also take it that now there are old age pensions and also maternity benefits under the Insurance Act there is more necessity for these researches than before. Are the fees the same as ten years ago, or more? What does the word "additional" mean?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think if the hon. Member looks at the note to the original Estimate he will find all the information for which he asks. These are local autho-
    rities, and not persons, but I do not think, it is a case of getting into arrears with, their payments. The work of the Registrar-General takes some time, and some of the details which are asked for entail some research. The Act merely says that local authorities shall repay, but it does not say within any particular financial year. Some of these payments, without being in arrears, will not necessarily come in before 31st March. On the other hand, the salaries and wages have to be paid from week to week, or from month to month. For that reason they have been made temporarily, but next year they will appear again as Appropriations-in-Aid.
    Mr. NIELD: I wish to call attention to the habit of the Registrar-General in making charges for searches. I have already brought the matter to the notice of the Treasury by letter. It is a great hardship that a person who comes to search for a birth or a death—the occurrence is much more usual in those cases than in marriages—is compelled to pay 1s. for every name searched.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which should be raised on the main Estimate and not on the Supplementary Vote. There is no change in that respect by these Estimates.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 97.

    Division No. 17.]

    AYES.

    [10.29 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, H.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Falconer, James

    Alden, Percy

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson.

    Arnold, Sydney

    clough, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Field, William

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Barnes, George N.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crooks, William

    Gill, A. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Cullinan, John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Black, Arthur W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Boland, John Pius

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Delany, William

    Hackett, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hancock, John George

    Brace, William

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Doris, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Duffy, William J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morrell, Philip

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Morison, Hector

    Scanian, Thomas

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Muldoon, John

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Sheehy, David

    Hinds, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Shortt, Edward

    Hodge, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Brlen, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Snowden, Philip

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sutton, John E.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Johnson, W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Malley, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Thomas, J. H.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Shee, James John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Keating, Matthew

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Kelly, Edward

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Waring, Walter

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    Wlles, Thomas

    Lynch, A. A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhougton)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Yeo, A. W.

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Molloy, Michael

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Rowlands, James

    Gulland and Mr. Webb.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Barnston, Harry

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Macmaster, Donald

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nield, Herbert

    Campion, W. R.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Greene, W. R.

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Gretton, John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Cator, John

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

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Cautley, H. S.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cave, George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hills, John Waller

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hohler, G. F.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Courthope, Georgs Loyd

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

    1542

    1543

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Touche, George Alexander

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    F. Banbury and Major Gastrell.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    LUNACY COMMISSION, SCOTLAND.
    Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £362, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Lunacy in Scotland."
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I rise not with the view to moving a reduction of this Vote, but to ask the Secretary for Scotland for some explanation of it. I understand that the first charge of £182 arises out of the passing of the Mental Deficiency Act of last year, under which the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to appoint a new Lunacy Commissioner, and also, I think, some Deputy-Commissioners. I do not know how many Deputy-Commissioners he has appointed, but I understand the Lunacy Commissioner has been appointed. That Act does not come into operation until 15th May this year, and it does not seem to have been particularly necessary to begin the payment of salaries before that date. It may be however that these Commissioners are possibly employed in making rules, which, I fancy, will be rather difficult to construct, for the carrying out of the Mental Deficiency Act. Most of the Acts passed by the present Government require a great many rules to make them intelligible, and this particular case is no exception to the rule. I also understand that in the case of this particular Act there may be an excuse for having appointed these officials at a comparatively early date, because I understand these rules, once made, become statutory until they are reversed or altered by this House. They are not in the same position as the Insurance Act rules, which alter from day to day and from minute to minute, as one can judge from the appalling mass of literature that comes to one by post two or three days in each week, and which I wish to goodness they would stop sending to me, because I never read them. If it be that these rules are in that position, I think the right hon. Gentleman was very wise in appointing the officials
    1544
    in time and seeing before the Act came into operation that as far as possible they were rules of a kind which would not require, in the course of the near future, at all events, to be altered, and perhaps if that be so he will tell us for what date these appointments have been made, and how this sum of £182 in salaries has been arrived at. Then might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could explain the charge of £220 for travelling expenses for the existing staff and new Commissioner. I can hardly believe the new Commissioner is responsible for all of that £220. It is quite impossible that he is doing otherwise than sitting in his office carefully trying to make out what the rules ought to be, and if he is travelling about he is certainly not doing the work he is getting £182 salary for. Therefore I presume most of the £220 has been incurred by the existing staff. That is 20 per cent. above the average, which is a large addition, and as we are getting into the habit now of being charged very heavily by these bureaucrats for travelling expenses, and as I believe in many cases there is a very great amount of unnecessary travelling, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give an explanation upon that point.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The explanation of the item for salaries is that we found it necessary to appoint two junior clerks and a typist. I do not think it is a piece of extravagance, because neither of the Sub-commissioners have been appointed during this year. Their appointment will date from 1st April. I have only appointed two out of the four Sub-commissioners who were sanctioned by the Act. With regard to the Commissioner himself, the hon. Baronet was, I think, justified in saying it was prudent to appoint him because of the great mass of correspondence which devolved upon the Lunacy Commissioners in connection, with the new Act. It was necessary also to have the extra help for the purpose he mentioned of dealing with the machinery for bringing the new Act into operation.

    1545
    The £182, therefore, includes nothing for the salaries of any Sub-commissioner, but it includes £40 for the salary of the new Commissioner and the salaries of the three junior officials whom I have mentioned. With regard to travelling expenses, there is a statutory obligation upon the Lunacy Commissioners to visit each asylum twice a year, and this year, in connection with the passing of the Mental Deficiency Bill through this House, it was necessary that one of the Commissioners should be in attendance, and that necessarily added to the travelling expenses which had to be met. The senior medical officer, Dr. John McPherson, was in attendance in London for some time during the progress of the Bill. During this month the new Commissioner will be visiting the asylums, as well as the other Commissioners. That, I think, answers two of the points raised by the hon. Baronet. The third point had reference to the Appropriation-in-Aid. It consists of charges for proceedings before the sheriffs, and these will be greater by £40 than was anticipated.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to reduce Item A (Salaries: £182) by £10.
    It may be owing to my stupidity, but I cannot understand what this money is for. Were the appointments made as from 1st April, 1913, or 1st April, 1914?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the hon. Baronet will recollect that I said we had not appointed any Sub-commissioner during the present year. The appointment will be made in the next financial year.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What were the salaries for?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They were for the new Commissioner and three junior officials. They were appointed about six weeks ago.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That, of course, alters the matter. They were appointed six weeks ago.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I wish to correct that. They were appointed about six weeks before 1st April next.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the appointments are dated back as from 1st April, 1914, they have only been appointed about four days. There is one week in February and thirty-one days in March included in the period. That is a very different story from what the right hon. Gentleman told us at first. It is just as well that hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench should learn their lesson, so that they should not get up and make a statement one moment, and then have to correct it immediately afterwards. Instead of being £182, the new appointments mean an annual charge of about £1,820. That is a very large sum of money, and it is much more, it seems to me, than it ought to be. There is an item of £220 for travelling expenses under Subhead B. That was for the expenses of the Commissioner, who was present at the Grand Committee when the Bill was under consideration. What was he present for? Was it to tell the Secretary for Scotland what answers he should or should not give? If so, could not the money have been saved if the Secretary for Scotland had known anything about the Bill? £220 is a very large sum to pay for coming from Scotland to London and going back again, even if he included his subsistence during the time he was in London. I suppose that £10 at the outside would cover the travelling, and, therefore, the other £210 must have been spent otherwise.
    Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £352, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 257.

    Division No. 18.]

    AYES.

    [10.51 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cassel, Felix

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cator, John

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cautley, H. S.

    Fell, Arthur

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cave, George

    Fetherstonehaugh, Godfrey

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Barnston, Harry

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Grant, James Augustus

    Bigland, Alfred

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Bird, Alfred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gretton, John

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Butcher, John George

    Daiziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Mills, John Waller

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    locker-Lampion, G. (Salisbury)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Macmaster, Donald

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie 0. (Reading)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green S W)

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Nield, Herbert

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    F. Banbury and Major Gastrell,

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

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Falconer, James

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Agnew, Sir George

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Aiden, Percy

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Field, William

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

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

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Arnold, Sydney

    Fitzgibbon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Flavin, M'chael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Barnes, George N.

    Gill, A. H.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Seale, Sir William Phipson

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Glanville, Harold James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

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

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molloy, Michael

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    .Black, Arthur W.

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

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Boland, John Pius

    Gulland, John William

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hancock, John George

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brace, William

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Muldoon, John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley 0.

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hayward, Evan

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Clough, William

    Hinds, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hodge, John

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Malley, William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shee, James John

    Crooks, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Crumley, Patrick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Cullinan, John

    Johnson, W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, j. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Joyce, Michael

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Delany, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Phillips, John (Longford, S)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Keilaway, Frederick George

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Pointer, Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Pratt, J. W.

    Doris, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duffy, William J.

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

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Radford, G. H.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rattan. Peter Wilson

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    1548

    1549

    Reddy, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Webb, H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clattered)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Randall, Athelstan

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    'Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roche, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rowlands, James

    Trevelyan. Charles Philips

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Yeo, A. W.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Scanian, Thomas

    Wardle, George J.

    Younger, Sir George

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Waring, Walter

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Shortt, Edward

    Watt, Henry A.

    Original Question put and agreed to.

    It being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any and, if so, what alterations are desirable in the practice and procedure of this House with regard to public business:
  Ordered, that the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members:
  Committee accordingly nominated of Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Booth, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Goldsmith, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Timothy Healy, Mr. James Hope, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Wedgwood, I and Sir Thomas Whittaker:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from time to time:
  Ordered, That Five be the Quorum.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  BLASPHEMY CHARGE (T. W. STEWART).
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. LYNCH: In the course of the Debates during the last few days we have heard a great deal about intolerance. Many seem to have reached the conclusion that intolerance is an abominable thing except towards those who differ from us in religion. The case I have to present illustrates that aphorism. In my remarks I do not wish to display any personal animus towards the Homo Secretary, whom I have always found to be essentially courteous in his relations with Members. On the 17th November, 1913, a certain man of whom I know very little myself, and with whose expression of opinion I profess no sympathy whatever, namely, Thomas William Stewart, was tried at the Staffordshire Assizes before Mr. Justice Coleridge, on two charges, one of indecency, and the other of blasphemy. On the charge of indecency he was acquitted; and I contend that, therefore, the charge should have disappeared from the purview of the Court. I am not a lawyer, but I believe there is a legal maxim, non bis in idem— not twice for the same thing. After a man has been tried and acquitted it is not lawful to try him again on the same charge, or, at any rate, it is not lawful to raise that charge against him to create an atmosphere of prejudice in regard to another charge. On the charge of blasphemy he was condemned and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Blasphemy is, one would have hoped, an obsolescent charge; one would have hoped it had become obsolete in this country. Public opinion—that is, of intelligent men—was shocked by this sentence of four months' imprisonment on a man really because he happened to have

  1551
  religions opinions—or lack of religious opinions—at variance with those of the great majority of the people. A petition was sent to the Home Secretary bearing the signatures of some of the most eminent men in England—theologians, professors of literature and science, and many others, including even some enlightened Members of this House. A reply was given to this petition, the substance of which was that certainly this man had been convicted of blasphemy, although that is a charge on which one can hardly keep a man in prison, yet there were other elements connected with the case. There was the element of indecency, and this charge was driven home, not so much by placing it in the forefront, as by what I may call a most cowardly insinuation, and by creating such an atmosphere of prejudice as makes it so difficult to properly deal with a case, even when a man takes his courage in both hands and defends one against whom that peculiar sort of prejudice has been created. The Home Secretary displayed courage worthy of a better cause. It was bad law, and I challenge the Home Secretary to find one other eminent lawyer here who will back him up in the statement that it represents good law—to try a man on two charges, to acquit him on one, and use the prejudice connected with that charge upon which he is acquitted in order to drive home the second charge. I say even if it were good law, it would be most contemptible justice.
  It is extremely difficult to define what is blasphemy. It will be urged that this man not merely had opinions different from that of the majority, but that he ridiculed, say, the Christian religion; that he held it up to contempt. Ridicule and contempt are weapons which are not generally discarded even by the Front Bench opposite. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of his famous speeches—I do not evidence this against him—on the contrary, to deal by ridicule with that which is ridiculous is a strong and effective way—speaking of his political opponents, say that the aristocracy was like cheese, the older it became the higher it became. To quote the other side—to show I am not using the argument in a partisan fashion—a Noble Marquess said he should like to see all Socialists hanged, drawn, and quartered, and the Chancellor himself sent, not to the Riviera but to a far
  1552
  hotter place. These are the arguments of ridicule. But you do not put the Chancellor of the Exchequer or this Noble Marquess whom I have quoted on trial for blasphemy. I come again to that question of blasphemy. I will put as bold a challenge as it is possible to set forth tonight. I will put the Bishop of London in the dock. In the course of a Debate in this House the hon. Member for Swansea quoted the Bishop of London, from one of his utterances in Hyde Park. That utterance was this—and I will quote from the paper I have here, because I do not want to depart one iota from the "words: —
  "I appeal to God. He can smash any machine; I appeal to God to smash the Parliament Act."
  I would rather be in prison with this man Stewart than confess before the world that my mind was of such a character, my appreciation of the universe so low and so contemptible, and my aspirations towards God so miserable to make God Himself a pawn in the miserable party game. I would say that that speech was blasphemy. However, in order to give the Home Secretary a chance to reply, I will conclude by saying this: I wish the House, and especially Labour Members, to observe that there may come a time when some of the more impetuous of their supporters may infringe some of the obsolete Acts of which the British Constitution is full—one of these obsolete Acts which are brought out of the darkness after 500 years to punish political opponents. And, remember, a Home Secretary standing there may declare, this man was not punished for the infringement of the particular Act, but some prejudice would be created, as has in other cases been created, and it might be insinuated that the person was a low Radical, a Socialist, or a Syndicalist. What is the argument of the Home Secretary? I pin him down to this point: he has uttered bad law. He has a man in prison, and is keeping him in prison, who was tried for one offence and acquitted, and who is being kept in prison, by the prejudice created, for another offence on which he was charged.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am at a loss to know what are the real facts to which the hon. Member wishes to direct attention. His first point was really not an attack upon me, but upon the procedure of the Court on the occasion of Stewart's conviction. But the hon. Member, unfortunately, owing to a failure of memory, misstated the facts in a most

  1553
  extraordinary manner. He represented to the House that Stewart, who had on 17th November been tried and acquitted on a charge of selling indecent literature and pamphlets, was on the following day convicted of blasphemy. The reverse is the truth. He was tried and convicted of blasphemy on 17th November, and it was after he was convicted of blasphemy that he was tried and charged with selling indecent pamphlets, and was acquitted.
  Mr. LYNCH: I accept that correction, but that does not dispose of the matter.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am going to deal with the whole matter. Let me say at once that so far as the prosecution of Stewart was concerned I had no more responsibility for it than the hon. Member, and so far as the conviction of Stewart was concerned I am also equally free from responsibility. Stewart was tried at the Assizes, was convicted, and was sentenced for having committed a breach of the law. Stewart has not appealed. So far, we must suppose that Stewart was satisfied that his conviction was in accordance with the ordinary process of law. Whether the hon. Member or some of his friends think the law to be a good one or a bad one is not, for the purposes of discussion, relevant. He may think the law may be a bad one, and other people may think so, but in that case the proper remedy is to repeal the law. There can be no question whatever that under our law as it stands Stewart was rightly convicted and rightly punished. Now comes the question whether I should intervene after conviction and punishment and advise the prerogative of mercy, and upon what grounds? It has been suggested, not by the hon. Member, but on other occasions, that I should advise the remission of Stewart's sentence because the law under which he was convicted was bad law, but I submit to the House that for any Home Secretary to make a Statute ineffective by remitting sentences in every case after conviction would be to advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in a most unconstitutional manner. If I, or any other Minister or Member of this House, believes a law to be bad, our duty is to come to Parliament to repeal the Act, and not by the exercise of the prerogative to render the Statute ineffective. I felt that very strongly to be my duty, and I acted upon ray view of what my duty was. Knowing that the hon. Member was going to raise this question, I sought and fortified myself with precedents. I had inquired if there was any
  1554
  precedent in the Home Office any Home Secretary on any count, either that he considered the law old and obsolete, or bad law, or on any ground whatever, had on that ground ever advised the exercise of the prerogative, and I was told there was no precedent for any such action by any Home Secretary. I submit it would have been improper for me, instead of introducing a Bill, to proceed by my own personal action. Now are there any other grounds on which I might advise the exercise of the prerogative? Certainly there are: If the character of the criminal is good; if it is his first offence; if his motive for committing the crime was not bad. We have to consider what was the motive of Stewart, and the circumstances surrounding his commission of that offence for which he was convicted.
  In the petition it was represented that Stewart was the victim of religious persecution. I understood that to mean that it was intended to convey that Stewart was a man holding strong views about religious questions, that, actuated by the zeal of the missionary, he felt impelled to publish his views to others, and to endeavour to proselytise. If that had been a true view of Stewart's case, I confess it would have had weight; I confess a man who receives a severe sentence, who is only actuated by a belief that he is doing right work, and states his intention that he will conform to the law in the future, in such a case I think—and I believe the House would support me—to advise the exercise of the prerogative would be a just measure. I had, therefore, to inquire from the judge what were the circumstances attending the commission of this crime by Stewart. I was informed, as was, in fact, the case, that Stewart, whatever the zeal may have been which is peculiar to his religious views, that he used the occasion of his speeches to gather round him a miscellaneous crowd of men,, women, and children, that amongst this crowd he sent his wife to advertise his trade, and his trade was of a peculiarly objectionable character. Not necessarily criminal. Not at all. It was found not to be criminal That is not the point. The point I had to consider was whether Stewart was the victim of religious persecution, or whether he was conducting a very disagreeable trade. We may all have sympathy with a man who is actuated by zeal and enthusiasm, however

  1555
  mistaken his case may be; but we cannot have quite the same sympathy for the man who uses violent and, I will only say disagreeable language, in order to gather a crowd round him, and then uses his wife to advertise his trade in that crowd. The hon. Member alleges, on what ground I am utterly at a loss to understand, that in the Home Office letter of 27th December, it was stated that the Home Office admitted that Stewart was sentenced on a charge on which a man could hardly be kept in prison. That was not the meaning of the letter.
  The plain and only meaning of the letter in reply to the allegation that Stewart was a victim of religious persecution, was that Stewart having been convicted of blasphemy, the circumstances attending the commission of the offence by him were not such as to admit of advice being given for the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. That is all the letter meant, and nothing else. Stewart is not kept in prison by me, but under the sentence of the Court, and I am bound to say I believe I should not be fulfilling my responsibility if, knowing as I do the conditions under which Stewart gave his lectures and made his speeches, and the use he made of those speeches and lectures for the purpose of carrying on his trade, I advised that mercy be used in his case. I have already dealt with the first ground why I think it is not my duty to take upon myself to repeal Acts of Parliament, and, therefore, on both those grounds I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member that there is no ground for the remission of Stewart's sentence.
  Mr. RADFORD: I cannot congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the defence he has made for his action in this matter. He has shown great ingenuity in his defence, and he has availed himself of this opportunity of blackening the character of a man who is detained in prison under what I believe hon. Members of this House will regard as a savage sentence. What is the offence for which this man has been convicted? I am not speaking of the offence of which he has been acquitted and which it is now sought to bring home to him again. It is the offence of bad taste. It is a criminal offence, so it appears, to represent the Christian religion in such a way as to ridicule it. I think Christians nowadays must be content to put themselves on a level with other people and to use the forms of language for attack and defence just as heathen people do. Consider the case of the late Mr. Matthew Arnold. He ridiculed the Christian religion in a shocking passage called the Fairy Tale of the Three Lord Shaftsburys. Mr. Matthew Arnold retained his liberty, and was not charged with any offence of this sort. I mention that to show that this is a case in which the law comes down heavily upon the poor, and the wealthy and cultured person is left free to blaspheme as much as he likes in his own particular manner.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned it Half after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  EXEMPTION.
  EXEMPTION.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Local and Imperial Taxation
  Local and Imperial Taxation
  Friendly Societies Registered.
  Friendly Societies Registered.
  Public Works Loan Board.
  Public Works Loan Board.
  Home Grown Tobacco.
  Home Grown Tobacco.
  Undeveloped Land Duty (Exemptions).
  Undeveloped Land Duty (Exemptions).
  Income Tax Returns.
  Income Tax Returns.
  Road Improvement Fund (Armagh).
  Road Improvement Fund (Armagh).
  District Probate Registries (Clerks).
  District Probate Registries (Clerks).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Local Government Board, Ireland.
  Local Government Board, Ireland.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Clontafleece National School, County Down.
  Clontafleece National School, County Down.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Registration of Births and Deaths.
  Registration of Births and Deaths.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROSYTH DOCK WORKS (ACCIDENTS TO WORKMEN).
  ROSYTH DOCK WORKS (ACCIDENTS TO WORKMEN).
  CROMARTY NAVAL BASE.
  CROMARTY NAVAL BASE.
  Special Reserve.
  Special Reserve.
  Government Buildings (Shannon).
  Government Buildings (Shannon).
BRITISH ARMY.
  SHORTAGE.
  SHORTAGE.
  QUICK-FIRING GUNS.
  QUICK-FIRING GUNS.
  RATIONS.
  RATIONS.
  SUNDAY RIFLE PRACTICE.
  SUNDAY RIFLE PRACTICE.
  TROOPS IN IRELAND
  TROOPS IN IRELAND
  Catholic Inspectors of Schools.
  Catholic Inspectors of Schools.
  Feeble-Minded Person (Conviction at Rotherham).
  Feeble-Minded Person (Conviction at Rotherham).
  Trade Dispute (Assault).
  Trade Dispute (Assault).
  Cyprus Government.
  Cyprus Government.
  Refugees at Berbera.
  Refugees at Berbera.
  Indentured Labour (Somaliland).
  Indentured Labour (Somaliland).
  Tonnage Tax (Havana).
  Tonnage Tax (Havana).
  Government Buildings, Delhi.
  Government Buildings, Delhi.
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Sir Stuart Samuel.
  Sir Stuart Samuel.
  Rural Education Conference.
  Rural Education Conference.
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum.
  Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum.
  Emigration Statistics.
  Emigration Statistics.
  Bromham Parish Council.
  Bromham Parish Council.
  Woolwich Post Office.
  Woolwich Post Office.
  Engineering Grade, National Telephone Company.
  Engineering Grade, National Telephone Company.
  London Institution.
  London Institution.
  Post Office (Women and Girls).
  Post Office (Women and Girls).
Preamble
The Lord ETTRICK (L. Napier)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ADDRESS.
The KING'S Answer to the Address of Wednesday last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield) and read as follows:
"MY LORDS,
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.
I take note of your representations "in regard to the Government of Ireland Bill."
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society. [H. L.]
Chelmsford Gas. [H.L.]
Great Eastern Railway [H.L.].
Great Northern Railway. [H.L.]
Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas. [H.L.]
Whitwell and District Gas. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday the 3rd of March next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
1. Provisional Regulations as to Claims for Exemption (Ireland);
2. Provisional Regulations as to the Sums payable in respect of the Administration Expenses of Deposit Contributors (Wales);
3. Provisional Regulations entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Consolidated Regulations (Wales), 1914 (Wales);
4. Regulations entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (Wales), 1913 (Wales):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 13.)

PARTY HONOURS.
THE EARL OF SELBORNErose to move to resolve—
"That a contribution to Party funds should not be a consideration to a Minister when he recommends any name for an honour to His Majesty; that effectual measures should be taken in order to assure the nation that Governments, from whatever political Party they are drawn, will act according to this rule; and that this House requests the concurrence of the House of Commons in the foregoing Resolution."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I pass to the subject-matter of the Motion of which I have given notice, I wish to make certain preliminary observations. The Crown is the fount of all honour in this country, but the Crown bestows honours in two different ways. Sometimes the Sovereign acts on his own gracious motion, and at other times he acts on the advice of his Ministers. Nothing that I am going to say to-day refers to those honours which the Crown gives of its own grace. I refer only to those which it bestows on the advice of Ministers. Again, I must make a distinction in that case. There is a certain class of honours, perhaps the most important class, in respect of the gift of which and the selection for which I have never heard a word of adverse criticism. I mean those honours which are conferred on the Civil Service and on the Navy and Army. Those are always given for meritorious public service, often for very brilliant public service, and nothing that I am going to say to-day refers to that class of honours; though I must confess that I fear that, unless present tendencies receive a salutary check, the day will come when some one will offer to buy a Victoria Cross. It is quite incomprehensible, I agree, that any one should wish to possess a Cross so acquired, but then there is a great deal about this question that is incomprehensible. We all of us know the story of a very distinguished personage who used to delight to recount his exploits at the Battle of Waterloo, although he knew that every one to whom he spoke knew that he had never been there. I shall only treat of those honours which are given to the public at large on the advice of Ministers, and I mainly refer to those which are known as political honours.
There is a prevalent belief—I do not think that I should be guilty of exaggeration if I said a very widely prevalent belief—that persons are often recommended for these honours whom no one would have

253
thought of so recommending if they had not contributed largely to Party funds. That prevalent belief takes three forms, as I know, not only from the Press, but from a voluminous correspondence on this subject. It is believed that persons who have social ambition, or whose wives have social ambition, and who have really no claim at all to receive an honour, can purchase it if they go to the right place. Again, the belief takes this form, that there have been cases where social ambition has never entered into the soul of the innocent rich man, but where he has been tempted and where an honour has been actually hawked to him on condition that he would make this contribution. The third case is rather of a different kind, but still, I maintain, a great evil. It is the case of men who have really done public service, whom public opinion would be very content to see honoured, and who have had pressure—I would almost say brutal pressure—put upon them to make a contribution to Party funds which they did not wish, and in some cases could not afford, to make. If it were necessary, I could quote sheaves of cuttings from the public Press to prove the prevalence of this belief, and from newspapers covering the whole field of political opinion, from the Labour Leader to the Morning Post, and from the Nation to the Saturday Review, and last, but not least, we have the new publication, the Candid Witness, in which Mr. Gibson Bowles has dealt very fully with this question. And further, every playgoer knows that this matter of the sale of honours is now openly scoffed at in the theatre, and it has also even been thrown across the floor of the House of Commons as a taunt from one member to another.
I say at once that this prevalent belief applies to both political Parties, to both those great political Parties that have held office, and that the evil is a growth of our Party system and that both political Parties are responsible for it. Therefore, my Lords, I think you will see at once the point of view from which I am asking you to-day to approach this question. I will commence with the confession that if you asked me to prove in a Court of Law one single case I could not do it. Though I have been the recipient of numerous confidences, I could not prove one single case. Yet I am not ashamed to say here that I believe there are grounds for the
254
prevalence of this belief. Moreover, I fear that the evil is growing and that it will continue to grow unless checked by public opinion. I will give presently the reasons why I think the evil, unless checked, is bound to grow. I will first of all ask, Is it an evil? Certain of the most cynical among my friends shrug their shoulders and say it is not an evil, and that it is prudery or pedantry to make a fuss about it. But, my Lords, I should not have brought this matter before your Lordships if I did not believe it was an evil.
I think it is an evil with many sides to it, but the two on which I wish to lay stress are the injurious effects of this belief on the prestige of the Crown and on the standard of public morality. This is not the occasion to talk about loyalty, that feeling which defies analysis and yet is a force which actuates us throughout our lives. But, altogether apart from that, is it not true that thinking men of all Parties are feeling more and more the great value of the Monarchy as part of our Constitution? As we watch the working of other forms of government, in other countries, I think. we more and more congratulate ourselves that we possess a Constitutional Monarchy; and those who believe, as I do, that the Empire is a great force and an increasing power for human happiness and for the peace of the world, value the Monarchy, because we know that under no other system whatever could the Empire be held together. Therefore, an influence which injuriously affects the prestige of the Monarchy, of the Crown, must be a great public evil. Is it possible that this belief, that honours which proceed from the Crown can be acquired by wealth, by whomsoever owned or howsoever got, should be prevalent and the prestige of the Crown not be affected? I will not incur the wrath of the shade of Lord Macaulay by saying that "streams meander level to their fount"; but I do say it is natural for an ordinary man, when he sees the stream polluted, to think that there must be something wrong with the fount, whereas we know that in this case the fount is undefiled, and that the source of pollution is elsewhere.
What about the standard of public morality? Surely it does matter whether the hall-mark of honour is to be genius or noble life, or position, or public service,

255
or whether the hall-mark of honour is, as I have already said, to be simply wealth by whomsoever owned and howsoever got; and I do not think a less question is before your Lordships to-day. Therefore I say that it does affect the standard of public morality, because if the Crown selects men of genius, of noble life, and of great public service for honour, it must be a support to the standard of public duty throughout the nation; whereas, if the opposite is the case and honours are just as easily or more easily acquired by those who fulfil none of the qualifications I have enumerated but who have simply bought them, then, I say, the standard of public duty and the service which flows from the sense of duty is dangerously impaired. If you believe, as I do, that the system of honours if properly used is a good system and a valuable institution in the State, must it not be true that the value of honours will in time be fatally impaired if they can be bought? What possible object can a man of genius have in accepting an honour which a man who is not only not a man of genius, but who has no qualifications except wealth, shares equally with himself?
There are those, of course, who think that there should be no honours. There are countries in which in theory there are no titular distinctions, but I notice that in practice titular distinctions exist there in a large quantity, and I am prepared to argue that honours properly bestowed are a real incentive to public virtue and national service, and that they are in accordance with the good sense and the reason of most men. Surely it is a good thing when the King draws public attention to the self-sacrifice of some miner, or railwayman, or seaman, or soldier, and marks it publicly in the eyes of the whole nation; and I think every sensible man feels satisfaction and personal gratification when the King confers an honour on such men as the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Morley) or the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, or when he crowns the career of a man like Mr. Burt by promotion to the Privy Council. In order that I may avoid all misunderstanding, I want to explain to your Lordships the point of view from which I approach this question. I think it is quite reasonable that honours should be conferred on men of genius or of noble life or of position, or who have performed valuable public service, or who represent
256
families or houses that have done so, provided always that the private life of these men has been clean and honourable. My conception of public service, I admit, is a very wide one, and I think it ought to be a very wide one. In public service I include all service for the State, whether Imperial, or Parliamentary, or municipal, and, of course, I include Party service. I know there are people who say that Party service ought not to be included. I do not think they have thought out what the consequences of exclusion would be, because under our system a very large number of our most valuable public servants always have been and always will be Party men. Then, of course, I include eminence in commerce and manufacture; eminence in art, including, of course, the stage; eminence in literature, including, of course, journalism; eminence in science, and public benevolence and munificence. I do not mean for one moment that that list is exhaustive. I only put it before you as showing that my conception of public service is a very wide one, but always with the condition that the life of the man to be honoured must have been clean and honourable. The scandal —the grievous scandal, as I submit it to be—which is alleged, and which public opinion ought to kill, is that a man whom no one would think otherwise of recommending for an honour should be able to buy an honour just as he would a picture.
Let me pass to another aspect of this question. Just as there are those who say that there should not be honours, there are those who say that there should not be Party funds. That is a very big question on which I can only touch lightly to-day, but it is a very serious question, as I will show to your Lordships presently. I noticed that the Nation called this question of Party funds the Achilles heel of the Liberal Party. I think the simile rather a strange one. I should have thought that the deplorable militarism of Achilles would have made him an unsuitable prototype of the Liberal Party, and we who live in partibus infidelium are happy to think that we can see more vulnerable parts in that Party than merely the heel. But the simile of the Nation brought another to my mind. Would it not be true to say that this greed of all political Parties for money with which to run their political machinery is the clay foot of Democracy? Just think how mixed up this question is

257
with all we call popular movements. They cannot be worked by either Party without money and no Party can do without money and without titles. Look, my Lords, at the last instance, the Land Campaign, of which the Government have appointed Mr. George to be manager. That campaign consists in speeches and organisation, for both of which Mr. George is responsible. But in making his speeches a Duke is just as indispensable to Mr. George as a mother-in-law is to the editor of a half-penny comic paper.
I hope that noble Dukes in this House will forgive me when I say that they and Mr. George between them are becoming a bore, although Mr. George has done his best to be amusing by discarding fact for fiction. But the point is that just as fictitious proceedings attributed to those that are Dukes are the basis of Mr. George's speeches, so the actual contributions of those who want to be Dukes are the basis of his organisation—that is, of those who want to be Dukes or to put their feet on the rung of the social ladder. I am very glad that the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lincolnshire) has just come into the House, because he is the patron saint of this organisation. Just think, my Lords, what it means. There was an inquiry, perfunctory and illusory, it is true, but it must have been a very costly inquiry, and now this programme is being preached all over the country by means of an immense organisation. Am I to be told that that organisation is financed by the mites of the Liberal widows, or by a sort of Peter's pence of the Liberal Party; or perhaps I ought to say Paul's pence, because the noble Viscount opposite will remember that one of his colleagues suggested to us the other day that the only person really worthy to be compared to Mr. George was St. Paul? No, my Lords, nobody will believe that this very costly and elaborate organisation is only financed by what I have called the mites of the Liberal widows. I have taken that illustration. The noble Marquess opposite, if he indulged in tu quogue, which he never does, might find an organisation belonging to my Party with which he could parallel it, but if he did so he would only be helping me to prove my point, and that is that one of the greatest evils and dangers of Democracy is that both political Parties are becoming absolutely dependent on enormous funds for their existence.
Why do the Parties want money? And they want more and more every year as time goes on. It is because a very large proportion of the Democracy take no interest in politics, know nothing about politics, and would not take the trouble to vote unless a refusal to do so became more irksome than acquiescence in going to the poll. It is the necessity of endeavouring to educate this large part of the Democracy, however superficially, and above all of having such a machinery as will bring the last man to the poll, however unwilling he may be, which is forcing both political Parties to cry out more and more for money. And think, my Lords, of the incongruity of the position. Just at the very moment when those who pay most taxes have least political power, and when there is a real danger lest certain forms of property should be the subject of unjust legislation—just at that very moment wealth, as mere wealth, and without responsibility, has the most opportunity of illicit and secret influence. We are not the only country that has had this experience. We have the example and experience of other countries before us. There is a noble Lord, one of the most distinguished members of our House—I do not see him here to-day—who might be able to tell us that in other countries it has happened that those who have found the money for a Party have eventually also dictated its policy. Who can say there is no danger that the same sordid fate should not befall us? Men will dispute till the crack of doom as to the respective merits of different forms of government, but I say without hesitation, and I know not one of your Lordships will deny it, that the very worst fate that could befall a country is to be governed by an alliance of the caucus and the plutocrat. Remember, my Lords, the more the honours flowing from the Crown are depreciated the more influence you are throwing into the hands of what is known as the plutocracy. There is a danger—noble Lords opposite must know it as well as we, do—lest the real residuary legatee of that influence of which you are trying to deprive the hereditary Peerage should be not the people but the plutocracy.
Now the whole of this controversy centres round the Whips and the Whips' Office. Whips are not more depraved than other people. That would be a com-

259
plete misapprehension. How is it that they have got into this position? They have a very weary and thankless life, and they are being subjected ever more and more to claims from sections of their Party for money. Because the Party machinery is ever becoming more and more elaborate, the Whip is ever being asked for more and more money, and he becomes obsessed with the idea that the only thing that matters in this world and probably in the next is that his Party should remain in office. He begins to think that money is an essential condition to his Party remaining in office, and in the end—well, the end justifies the means, and, however scrupulous he may have been when he begins, he ends by thinking that the Party must have funds at all costs. He is very loyal to his chiefs. He tells them everything about the Party except about the Party funds, and his loyalty there is shown by telling them as little as possible. The Party chiefs are busy men, and they are careful students of the Book of Genesis, and they avoid the tree of knowledge of good and evil. My Lords, the position is really perfectly intolerable both for Whips and chiefs. I do not believe there are any men in England who would be more delighted if they could be freed from this curse of the Party system than would the Whips and their chiefs. But I very much doubt if they can free themselves. I doubt if this servitude imposed upon them by the Party system is one from which they can escape of their own action and their own desire. I believe it is public opinion and public opinion alone which can rescue them.
I want to guard carefully against an interpretation of the views that I put before you which might otherwise be made and which certainly does not represent my views. I want to guard against the supposition that I think that men who are otherwise properly and reasonably qualified to receive an honour should become disqualified because they have also contributed to Party funds. I think that would be most unreasonable, and I will give your Lordships an instance. I have been very careful not to introduce any personal element into this discussion, and the name I am going to mention now I name with respect and only as an illustration of my meaning. I will take the case of Sir John Brunner. There is a man who has done long and honourable service in the House
260
of Commons and who is the head of one of the greatest commercial enterprises in the country. It seems to me very reasonable that he should have been honoured by his Sovereign. But if there is any Party man in England it is Sir John Brunner, and although I have not the honour of being in his confidence, I feel perfectly certain that he has contributed liberally to Party funds. But how absurd it would be if because he had so contributed he should be disqualified for the honour he has otherwise deserved! My meaning is made so much plainer by that illustration that I think Sir John Brunner will pardon me for borrowing the use of his name. If you tell me that the line will often be very hard to draw I quite admit it. Not only do I agree that the line will often be hard to draw, but I think that many of us would differ in respect of individual cases that might be put before us. But I submit that it is quite useless to attempt definitions in a case like this, and that any tendency to pedantry in the matter would defeat the object which I have in view.
Surely this is the whole truth—that if public opinion is vigilant in the matter and sound in itself, Ministers of all Parties will conform to the standard demanded of them. And if it is true that this evil has been growing under our Party system, does no blame lie at the door of public opinion? I say, my Lords, that public opinion has been extremely lax in this matter, and that it is disquieting how little attention the Press has paid to it down to quite recent months, because it is of all things an evil in which the opinion of the public, as voiced by the Press, may have a most salutary effect. We are accused sometimes by other nations of hypocrisy. We deplore the forms of public corruption of which we have heard in other places. My Lords, is not this accusation a little true sometimes? Would it not have been better if we had attended to this beam in our own eye before we had deplored the mote in the eyes of other nations in the matter of public morals? That is really the object of my Motion to-night. I want to do what little I can to rouse public opinion to this evil of the sale of Party honours which I believe exists, and to the still greater evil—this greed of all Parties for money—which as I have said is one of the great dangers ahead of Democracy.
I have proposed no remedies, and I have been deliberate in my determination not to propose any, because if I had offered a prescription for the disease the discussion would have ranged over the prescription and not over the disease. What I have desired has been to focus public attention on the disease; and for another reason, because no rule, no regulation, no law will be of any effect whatever in this matter if public opinion is not sound. If public opinion is sound and vigilant, then the remedy will be found quickly enough. But before I sit down I should like to say for myself that I believe we have in our Constitution machinery that may be of great service in this matter as in so many others, and that is the Privy Council. I believe that the Privy Council may be used to help us in this matter, and with that suggestion I ask your Lordships to affirm this Motion.
Moved to resolve, That a contribution to Party funds should not be a consideration to a Minister when he recommends any name for an honour to His Majesty; that effectual measures should be taken in order to assure the nation that Governments, from whatever political Party they are drawn, will act according to this rule; and that this House requests the concurrence of the House of Commons in the foregoing Resolution.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD CHARNWOODhad given notice to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" in the first line, and to insert—
"in view of the persistent allegations implying that contributions to Party funds have been a consideration to Ministers when recommending names to His Majesty for honours, this House would welcome an assurance from His Majesty's Government that such allegations are untrue; and that in view of the actual or possible abuses of Party funds in regard to the manner in which they are employed as well as the manner in which they are said to be raised, this House urges upon His Majesty's Government the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire by what amendments of the Corrupt Practices Acts such abuses may most effectively be restrained."
The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will not think it in any way unfitting that on this particular subject a very recently created member of your Lordships' House should come forward at once to address you. The noble Earl has not described the malign influence of which he spoke as an invention of the present Government. He has described it as what
262
it is—something which has a long history behind it, and which almost unconsciously has been suffered to regain force in recent years. He has also made it perfectly clear to those who did not know it well beforehand that he has absolutely no partisan object in raising this question. He would be willing, I imagine, to take the position, not of censuring the existing Administration, but of raising a matter which requires attention; and he may he well assured that he has the sympathy of as many men in the Party opposed to him as he has, I am sure, on his own side.
There is only one observation of the noble Earl's to which I will refer. He confesses that he meets a good many people to whom this whole subject does not seem to matter. We have all of us, I suppose, come across that state of mind. There are, I believe, perfectly honourable gentlemen to whom this system seems something amusing, even picturesque, something which has a fine antiquarian flavour about it reminiscent of the eighteenth century. But I think that anybody who makes light of it is mistaken altogether. That is not at all the way in which the man in the street regards this thing. The ordinary honest Englishman hopes that, if he were to receive a chance of an honour which had been in fact bought, he would reject it as a dishonour. That is the unsophisticated view; and the prevalence and growth of the system to which the noble Earl has referred, should it proceed further, will be, I think one may seriously say, a thing which will expose the governing classes of this country to the contempt of the poorer people whom they govern.
In what I am going to say, therefore, I do not wish to make light of the secret influence to which the noble Earl referred. I desire, on the contrary, to point out how subtle the influence is, and how likely it is to survive the remedy which he prescribes. We may make, I think, a very good guess at what takes place in these matters. It is not that one supposes that Ministers put names before the Crown for false reasons, the real reason being that they know that their Party funds will benefit. That is unthinkable. The fact is, I imagine, that a Minister recommending a name for an honour is very often ignorant—a particularly cynical Minister would probably take care that he was always ignorant—

263
whether the good man whom he recommends has contributed to the Party funds or not. But here is the trouble. A Minister cannot always, cannot often, be aware of how it conies about that that good man's many virtues have been so prominently brought under his own notice. Therefore, as it seems to me, this Resolution might be passed, and every Minister who recommends the bestowal of an honour to the Crown might be able with truth to declare that he acted upon the principle of the Resolution; and nevertheless the system might still be going on, that cash was paid with the prospect that honours would result, or what is scarcely less offensive that honours might be bestowed and thereafter blackmail extorted with the allegation that it was a sort of customary fee. Therefore I think that the mere assertion of this principle in a Resolution does not carry us very far.
The noble Earl said that the expression of public opinion and the existence of a vigilant public opinion in this matter is the real remedy and a sufficient remedy, as I take it, for the evil which he believes to exist. But there is this further difficulty. It is very hard indeed—it would be impossible in many cases—for public opinion to draw a. line between proceedings which might be absolutely clean and proceedings which might be quite scandalous. I happen to speak on this question of Party funds with considerable detachment. My own relations to Party funds, I say plainly, are those of a beneficiary, not a benefactor. Large contributions to Party funds are quite out of the question for me or anybody connected with me, and I imagine that in that I am like many of my noble friends; but possibly I am unlike them in the further fact that in repeated elections I have received help from Party funds myself. There is nothing necessarily dishonourable in the fact that rich men on both sides on occasions make large gifts. There is nothing dishonourable if, for other reasons, those very men have honours conferred upon them. There is nothing dishonourable in that. And yet so long as that is admitted, so long there will be considerable danger that the secret influence to which the noble Earl has referred will be at work.
I believe, therefore, that you cannot strike at this evil in so simple a way as the Resolution suggests, or by merely an
264
appeal to public opinion. You will do a little good, but no great permanent good, I believe, by enunciating in this Resolution what, after all, is a moral platitude. You must, I think, be prepared to go further, and must be prepared for drastic measures in regard to these Party funds. You must be prepared to cut short the lavish expenditure upon elections, which is the root of the evil and which puts upon Party managers, who, as the noble Earl said, are just as often as honest as any other class among us, a really terrible strain and a really terrible temptation.
I should like to say a word or two, if I may, with reference to the wholly exaggerated and distorted impression which exists with regard to this subject out of doors, and which one meets with sometimes in the Press. The idea that all honours, or almost all, have been solicited or been afterwards paid for, is, of course, a ridiculous and contemptible idea. But there is this further point which I think requires in common decency to be widely recognised. It has been the subject of frequent comment out of doors that recent distributions of honours have been large. They have been large, my Lords. It may be a wise policy or it may not, that the present Government have bettered the example of some of their predecessors in conferring recognition on many varied kinds of merit and of public service which might not have been so freely recognised at a former time, and I thoroughly believe that a good many honours of which the public wonders about the cause are well deserved recognitions of local public services of a meritorious kind. That, as I say, may be wise or not. Again, it may be wise or not that the Government should have been very ready to create what I may call nominated members of this Second Chamber. But whether that was wise or not, it was obviously in itself not a discreditable thing. And this wide distribution of honours happens, I think, to have been accompanied by something which is in itself honourable in a very high degree. I think that the Government have gone beyond precedent in the giving of honours—I am not speaking, of course, of official honours—without regard to Party considerations at all. Not only have they conferred honours upon politicians opposed to them; but they have, for example, elevated to this House gentlemen qualified to assist its deliberations who,

265
though not politicians, would certainly not be expected to support the present Government. I am not instituting any kind of Party comparison, but I believe it to be the fact that the Ministers at this moment in office have in that respect gone beyond the practice of any of their predecessors, whether Liberal or Conservative. The credit of the Government is not impugned in this debate, however, and that is the only reference that I am going to make to the policy of the present Government in particular in this matter.
Now to return to the reality of this question. It would be futile, as the noble Earl has said, to examine particular cases, for where the information that comes to one is most precise and most authentic it is apt to be such as no one would state publicly, and even the dates and the names are in some cases carefully not revealed. But there is one general reason why I think we may take it as quite certain that this practice is growing at the present time and is likely to continue to grow; and it is the enormous growth of election expenditure. That expenditure goes very far beyond any possible requirements of honest and reasonable propaganda, and the existing law either has not been enforced, or, as I think also is the fact, is in itself inadequate to the case. Just before I came down to the House this afternoon there was put into my hands an illustration of what I am saying. I am told by an eye-witness that in the South Bucks by-election the other day part was taken by representatives of the Tariff Reform League and the Free Trade Union, the Ulster Unionists and the Home Rule Council, the Land Union and the Land and Housing Council—six organisations, three on one side and three on the other, all having representatives at work in this one by-election, and all those representatives unquestionably paid.
Now, my Lords, I think I have very good legal authority for saying that the salaries and other expenses paid to the agents of these organisations are required by law to be returned as election expenses of the two candidates, and the treasurers of these various funds are liable to criminal prosecution if those expenses are not so returned. Will those expenses be so returned; and. if not, will any prosecutions take place? I doubt it very much. Why have no prosecutions on that account
266
taken place in the past? I am afraid there is no possible answer but one, and that is that some understanding exists between the gentlemen on both sides of politics who work these various organisations. A large and flourishing political industry is in existence and would be in danger if these practices were curtailed. Bach of these organisations has its paid organisers and its paid missionaries. A large number of persons on both sides are interested equally in the maintenance of this state of things. But I put it very seriously to the Government, that here is a question which possibly the Public Prosecutor might sometimes consider; and I put it very seriously to the leaders on both sides that by an understanding among themselves this covert agreement which exists could be to a very large extent broken down.
I said just now that these elaborate proceedings at elections and previous to elections go far beyond the needs of honest propaganda. I can conceive somebody supposing that all these organisations tend to the education of the electorate. Now is that so? Is the education of the electorate really going to be effectively promoted by gentlemen who preach political views for hire?—a class of men, many of whom I know and for many of whom I have had the highest regard in the past, but a class which is growing and multiplying, and which I am certain includes at the present time, and is certain more and more to include, persons who will preach views with the same fervour as readily upon one side as upon the other according to which is able to offer them the highest pay. This lavish expenditure at elections is an evil, not only because it necessarily tends to measures for replenishing Party war chests, but for many other reasons as well—because it is a depraving influence on political discussion, because it encourages a fresh kind of corruption among the electors, and because it tends to put our whole representative government permanently within the grip of the machine. I do not think there will be any disagreement on that. I should be going too far from the immediate subject of the debate if I were to dwell any further on that particular point. I will remind you of the way in which it is connected with this question of corrupt influence in the matter of honours, which was the original subject of this Motion. It is that so long as election expenses

267
go on at this lavish scale, so long will Party managers be under dire pressure to replenish their Party war-chests per fas aut per nefas.
Now, my Lords, is there no remedy? I have suggested that in part the remedy would be possible under the existing law if that existing law were vigorously administered. I do not believe, however, that the existing law does carry us far enough in the matter. The remedy, if there is to be any, must be drastic. It would require the concurrence of men in both Parties or in all Parties in the State. It would require, I believe, also a long and patient inquiry into the remedies. I do not mean inquiry which should dig up things of the past, but a careful examination of the practicability of the remedies that may be proposed. And such inquiry, I believe, ought to include an investigation of the measures which in other countries have been found useful. That, my Lords, is the reason why in the Amendment I have placed on the Paper I have suggested the machinery of a Royal Commission. Briefly to outline the sort of measures which I have in my mind, I may say that they would include a clearer and more rigid regulation of expenditure by candidates themselves during and before elections, and a similar curtailment and regulation of expenditure by outside organisations within any constituency. I suggest that they should also include a requirement that the names of the subscribers or donors to Party organisations of this sort and the amounts of their subscriptions or donations should be available for inspection. The whole possible harm and the whole possible shame of gifts of that kind disappear if they are given in the light of day.
In reference to my Amendment I may say that I ventured to put down the first part of it thinking at first sight that the noble Earl's Motion might read as asserting the existence of conduct on the part of Prime Ministers or other Ministers of either Party of the kind indicated. I do not think, however, on further thought that the Motion carries with it any such suggestion as I at first thought it might be capable of. Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to move my Amendment in this form—To add at the end of the Motion, "and in view of the actual or possible abuses of Party funds in regard to the manner in which they are employed as well as the manner in which
268
they are said to be raised, this House urges upon His Majesty's Government the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire by what amendments of the law and administration of the law such abuses may most effectively be restrained." I hope that in the endeavour with fair brevity to make my point clear I have not merely succeeded in adding obscurity to undue length. I am sure that you will never get at the root of the evil of which the noble Earl complains except by a drastic regulation of election and of other cognate expenses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
To add at the end of the Motion, "and in view of the actual or possible abuses of Party funds in regard to the manner in which they are employed as well as the manner in which they are said to be raised, this House urges upon His Majesty's Government the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire by what amendments of the law and administration of the law such abuses may most effectively be restrained."—(Lord Charnwood.)
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I do not know what view my noble friend who made this Motion will take of the Amendment which has just been proposed. Neither do I know whether a Royal Commission on this subject would do a great deal of good, or whether we should get much advantage out of it. The only people whom you could examine would be the Party Whips on both sides, and I imagine that they have information at their disposal which even a Royal Commission would find great difficulty in extracting. But it is no good for any one to think that the noble Earl has brought forward charges which are vague and cannot be substantiated. Nobody knows that better than I do, because I have dabbled in the sale of honours myself. I do not mean that I bought my own title. That was conferred on my ancestor for an active part that he took in placing the Tudor Dynasty on the Throne—a Dynasty which furnished a line of Monarchs who, I believe, would have treated noble Lords opposite in a very different way from that in which they are being treated by his present Majesty.
I will tell you the circumstances of this attempt of mine. You need not be anxious: I am not going to implicate anybody on my own side, although, even if I did, we have been out of office so long that I think the Statute of Limitations ought to apply with regard to any trafficking

269
which the Conservative Party might have had in this unclean thing. I wanted a large sum of money for an enterprise which cannot be entirely dissociated from Party politics, but which I can assure your Lordships was entirely patriotic in its design. I called upon a gentleman and suggested that if he would give me this sum of money I would use my influence with my Party to secure for him, not a Peerage—a baronetcy only. I am not quite sure what the price of a baronetcy is—I dare say some of the Whips on either side will be able to tell me—but the price which I asked was, I assure you, not excessive. Then a question was put to me which was a perfectly natural one. The gentleman said, "That is all very well, Willoughby, but when are yon going to deliver the goods?" I said that I might not be able to do so in any case, but I certainly could not do so until the Unionist Party got back into office. He said, "When will that be?" and I replied, "I am sure I do not know." Since that time we have had two General Elections; and I am not at all surprised that I was very politely shown the door.
The noble Earl has raised one of the most important questions, probably the most important question, that we can consider, and that is the grounds on which a title or honour should be given. He recited in the course of the eloquent speech which he made—with every single word of which I desire to associate myself—the public grounds on which an honour should be granted. I have never been quite sure whether we ought to look on the granting of an honour as a reward for services done either to country or to Party. Do you not think that it would be better to agree with what Francis Bacon said about an honour and regard it as a vantage ground for doing good? And this particularly applies with regard to the granting of a hereditary Peerage. An honour is given to a man in order that he may have, not only reward for something that he has done for his country in the past, but in order that he may have distinction and authority among his fellow men to enable him the better to perform his duty in the future and to do more work for the nation and the Empire. That was why, if I may say so, when Mr. Curzon went to India he was made Lord Curzon, and why Mr. Gladstone when he went to South Africa was made Lord Gladstone—namely, in order that each
270
might be in a position of eminence the better to enable him to perform his trust to the Empire with authority and dignity.
But it is not the slightest use giving a hereditary Peerage or a title or honour to anybody unless the possession of that title is going to bring with it the enjoyment of power, the exercise of responsibility, and the discharge of duty, and this particularly applies to the institution called the hereditary Peerage. Noble Lords opposite may think that they have brought the hereditary Peerage to the ground. I do not believe it. I do not believe that you have heard the last of the hereditary Peerage in this country, and I do not believe you ever will. We talk from this side of the House and from the other from different points of view, perhaps, about the reform of the hereditary Peerage. That may be all very well. I am prepared myself for the present to go very far in the direction of getting a Second Chamber of some kind or another which will be based upon sufficient authority to correct, and, if necessary, as Lord Ampthill rightly said the other day, to disagree, and effectively disagree, with the House of Commons. Whatever form your reformed House of Lords is going to take it will never have the same authority in the long run that was enjoyed until recently by the hereditary Peerage—an authority which will be one day recovered by the hereditary House of Lords. Oliver Cromwell got rid of the hereditary House of Lords for a few short years during the history of this country, and reformers on both sides of the House may try as hard as ever they like they will not be able to beat Oliver Cromwell at that game. Any Constitution which we may agree to in the future is bound to be in the nature of an interim Constitution. You have one interim Constitution already which was set up by the Parliament Act. How long do you think that is going to last? Do you not think it has very nearly come to the ground already? Lord Ampthill used the word the other day and I will use it again. I say the Parliament Act stinks; and it is a foul deed which will
smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
From the point of view of the nation and the Empire, the greatest disservice which statesmen and those who are responsible for the granting of honours in this country can possibly perform is to debase

271
the hereditary Peerage. The granting of a hereditary title is a most difficult thing to do. If I were a Radical organiser I should always try to choose my Peers from among those who, like Mr. Jorrocks, had no legitimate offspring. Sometimes their conversion to Tory principles is only a matter of a few months, or a few weeks, or possibly in their heart of hearts a few hours, but their son is almost certain to become a Tory, whereas a Radical grandson of a Radical Peer is a phenomenon that cannot be conceived. On the other hand, if you were going to choose a hereditary Peer, not from the point of view of the caucus but from the point of view of the nation, you would certainly choose him on what are called eugenic principles. [Laughter.] I had seriously hoped that noble Lords would not laugh at that. It is obvious that he should be chosen on account of his coming from a sound stock, being himself sound and coming, as Lord Selborne said, from a family—I do not care whether he is rich or poor—who are patriotic and are likely to continue in their posterity the same qualities. That is not an extravagant demand.
But what are the grounds on which you give a title to gentlemen nowadays? He would be a very bold man who would get up and deny that the grounds on which you advise His Majesty to grant a Peerage to-day are not more dictated by the necessities of the caucus than by the needs of the nation and of the Empire. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl condemn so eloquently that terrible alliance, which is mutually exploiting one another, between the caucus and the plutocracy. This thing called Democracy, of which everybody is talking so glibly in this country and of which we have had such an orgy in England during the last few years, has one never-failing vice, and that is that it throws up a race of exploiters who were well described by the late Mr. Price Collier in his exceedingly penetrating work, "England and the English," as politicians who live by the people, on the people, and for themselves. That is the government from which we are suffering to-day, and I think we should suffer in a greater or less degree whichever Party was in office.
I do not want to make a strong Party speech this evening, though it is impossible to make a speech about public affairs without treading upon somebody's toes; and I am not going to refrain from saying
272
what I think simply because it happens to give offence to one Party or the other. But here is your view recently expressed with regard to the creation of Peers. You told us that you had the power—I presume that you had; we shall never know—to create 500 Peers in order, if necessary, to pass the Parliament Bill and the Home Rule Bill. I say that it is just as corrupt to extract a consideration out of a man by means of a direct vote as it is to extract a consideration out of him by means of the direct payment of a sum of money; and if a great many of us had tried to get money in the same way as we try to get votes we should have been sent to prison long ago. I ask one question quite seriously and with the greatest respect, and I intended to ask it in exactly these words whether Lord Reading—Sir Rufus Isaacs that was—was in his place or not. I see that he has left the House. I do not know him personally, but will the noble Marquess or any one who is going to speak from the Government Front Bench deny that unless it had been convenient to the Radical Party and necessary to your credit in the country in a certain sense to place Lord Reading at the head of the judicial system and also to advise His Majesty to make him a Peer—were not those recommendations based more on the convenience or what you thought was the credit of your Party than on what you thought was best for the credit of the nation?
This question of bestowing titles and honours opens up a very wide-reaching consideration which what are called the working classes of this country will do well to consider. We are witnessing, and have done for some years past, a struggle in the industrial portions of England between Capital and Labour, and that struggle is largely engendered because the working classes have to deal with a small knot of employers who have not been brought up in and do not understand the old English traditions between employers and employed. These men are the plutocrats who are at the bottom of a great deal of the industrial unrest to-day; and the one power which stands between the working classes of this country and the plutocracy which they are rebelling against but which they do not quite know how to defeat, is the hereditary Peerage as represented in this House. And whatever you may do to the hereditary Peerage, that connection between the hereditary Peerage and the

273
working classes of this country is bound to survive. I say to those who are engaged in the industrial struggle that the best chance they have to defeat the plutocracy, with which in many cases they are perfectly and justly engaged in a righteous warfare, would be to uphold the hereditary Peerage and sec that it is recruited from those who have got some instinct, some tradition, and who have been brought up in those honourable relations between employers and employed which have always prevailed in this country in the past.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, into what I recognise as some of the "Die-hard" arguments, except to say that under his able hand they seem to trot out pretty briskly. Nor do I wish to follow him into the special virtues of the hereditary principle. But as we here are all more or less victims of the hereditary principle, I think we ought to be much obliged for the encomiums he has been good enough to pass upon it. Neither do I mean to go into the question of Party funds, upon which both Lord Selborne and Lord Charnwood touched to-night. I have had very little to do with Party funds, and I have always expressed a profound reluctance to subscribe largely to them.
But, like the noble Lord who spoke last, although I have not exactly dabbled in getting honours for people, I have been, I believe "approached" is the right word, from time to time during the ten years or so that I was a Whip in this House; and only the other day I was called upon by a very honest foxhunter, who sent up a message to see me with so much mystery that I thought he wanted to sell me a horse. I went down to see him. He is not a man who keeps in touch with current politics and he seemed to be under the impression that I was still a Whip, and that though a Whip in the House of Lords is not an individual who has very much to do in that kind of way, he evidently thought that any channel might be useful. It turned out that he had come on behalf of a friend of his. He looked grave and pregnant with thought, and, when I pressed him, he put the matter in a very blunt way. He said his friend would like to have a certain sort of honour. So I said, "Well, what is the inducement?" "Oh," he said, "I think he would give a good deal of money." I asked, "What sort of
274
figure?" He indicated a figure, and I said, "I don't know about that." After walking about the room a good deal he came back, tapped me on the shoulder, and said, "I think he would go a bit better." So then I said to him, "Yes, that might be all right, but what about his political views?" He did not seem to have thought about that at all. "I don't know much about that," he said, "but I think it will be all right." With that he went away.
With regard to the business we have before us to-night, I am bound to say that I am not in agreement with either the Resolution or the Amendment. Both speakers at times touched what the papers call a "high" note in the arguments which they put before us, and at the end their accents reached a solemnity which reminded me of the lines—
Religion, blushing, veils her sacred fires,
And, unawares, Morality expires.
And, much to my surprise, the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, who as a rule is inclined to take an Alfred Jingle view of life, had very much the same sort of solemnity about it. This, of course, makes me nervous of what I have to say. I am afraid I belong to the class of people which the noble Lord behind me (Lord Charnwood) very pleasantly alluded to as people who seem to think that these things must be, that they do not very much matter, that they have always gone on and are likely to go on, and that if they do not go on in one form they will go on in another. That is precisely my opinion.
I, personally, do not care very much about the Resolution in the form in which Lord Selborne has put it, because, as far as I can make out, the effect of it would be absolutely nil. Even if we moved to resolve what he asks us to resolve, and even if we should invite the House of Commons to move to resolve something of the same sort, I think at the end of both transactions both Houses would be expressing a pious and—I do not use the word in an offensive sense—a slightly Pharisaical opinion. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Charnwood) is enamoured of that-well-known engine a Royal Commission. When any one is in a difficulty in the City a committee is appointed to look into it. When we are in a difficulty in the Houses of Parliament a Royal Commission is appointed to get us out of it. My opinion

275
of Royal Commissions is that they either report so much that it is difficult to do anything, or they report so little that it is not worth doing anything.
In this particular case I have no doubt that a reference drawn on certain lines would be an extremely popular thing with the public, but I am reminded of what fell from Mr. Justice Darling in a case the other day, when he told the jury that they ought to remember that public interest was not the same as public curiosity. There is little doubt that if you had a Royal Commission, and if you had the Whips up, if anything could be extracted from them it would very likely be of a kind which would be stimulating to our reading of the newspaper reports of that Commission on that particular day. But I dare say that even under the guile of a Royal Commission very little would be extracted, and therefore I do not think there is much to be gained by having a Royal Commission. There is no doubt that there are cases which we should not like to know too much about, where honours have been given in this way. But is it such a very terrible evil as all that? I would put it in this way. I have never, or very seldom, been able to construct a syllogism, but I think a syllogism could easily be constructed out of the following materials:—That, for good or evil, we in this country have for a long while been proud of Party government; Party government, on whichever side, requires large sums of money; the more money there is the better the Party government will be—that is, the machinery of Party government will be more perfect. To that extent, therefore, I think it is a good thing that as we must have Party government it is better that it should be well endowed with funds than that it should not.
Then the noble Earl opposite (Lord Selborne) was very angry with the caucus, but he was still more angry with plutocrats. Now, why is he so angry with plutocrats? I am not one of them myself, but I believe they are a very nice body of men. At all events, I am reminded of Dr. Johnson's line—
Slow rises worth by poverty depressed.
After all, if a man wants to get on in this world, he is none the worse for having a little money, and for persuading the Party Whips that money may be useful to the
276
Party chests. Therefore I take the view— the view which Lord Charnwood felt sorry about—that we are to some extent tilting at a windmill on which we shall not make very much impression, and that there is a great danger in an inquiry of this sort that our minds may be a Little deflected by proper feelings, but proper feelings which verge on those we associate with Mr. Pecksniff. We have heard that everything depends on enormous Party funds, and that the great vice of the day is that everybody wants money. That, after all, has been the difficulty of every day. And, as to things having become more expensive, everything has become more expensive, from your washing bill to a seat in Parliament. I conclude with repeating that I do not agree with either the Resolution or the Amendment, and that personally I think that this particular thing had much better be left very much as it is.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I hope I may not fall under the lash of the noble Lord's sarcasm if I treat this subject with a slight approach to seriousness which he may condemn as solemnity. I am very sorry to appear priggish, and I really think I enjoy the noble Lord's witticisms on suitable occasions as much as any man in this House. He has often greatly entertained me, and I always welcome his appearance in debate for that reason; but I cannot resist the feeling that a rather unfortunate impression would be given to the world outside if what is, after all, the grave matter which has been brought before us by the noble Earl on the Front Bench should be, as it were, chaffed out of court. I am afraid I shall be unable to add to the gaiety of nations in the few remarks which I shall venture to offer to the House, but perhaps I may contribute to some extent to reviving the impression under which a great many of us were earlier in the evening—that we are discussing a public matter of real gravity about which many of us have strong opinions. The noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, expressed the view that he differs both from the Motion and the Amendment. I am rather inclined to agree with both. I agree with almost everything which fell from Lord Selborne except his concluding passage, in which he seemed to me to be prepared to rely exclusively upon public opinion to produce a remedy for what, personally, I cannot describe otherwise than as a very great and growing evil.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I meant that public opinion must be awakened before any effective steps could be taken.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I quite agree, and perhaps the greatest advantage to be derived from a discussion of this kind in this House, if it can be kept on right lines, is that it will stimulate public opinion on the matter. Perhaps I might say from another point of view that it will satisfy public opinion, that it will focus public opinion; for my belief is that there is a great and growing and serious feeling throughout the country as to the enormity of the sale of honours, which it is just as well that Parliament should take some pains to direct into wise channels. But though I attribute importance to the effect of a discussion of this kind upon public opinion, I do not myself think that we can stop there; and I believe that if we are serious in the matter in this House or in the other, if we are really serious in the two Houses of Parliament something material may be achieved.
I must say I was looking forward with some curiosity to the line which noble Lords representing the Government might take to-night, especially in view of Lord Charnwood's original Amendment, which called upon them to give us an assurance that the allegation that a Minister might recommend a name for an honour to His Majesty on the ground of contributions to Party funds was untrue. The significant change which the noble Lord subsequently made in his Amendment has, I fancy, relieved his leaders from a very great difficulty. They could hardly take no notice of his demand for such an assurance, but I think we should have listened with some surprise if that assurance had been given. The great difficulty of this discussion, of course, is that it is impossible to produce absolute proof of what is described as the sale of honours. In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, honours are not sold, like butter or cheese. It may even be said that there is no honour, however flagrantly bestowed, which cannot often, or in fact, always, be accounted for by some plausible reason besides the true one, and care is always taken to avoid suspicious juxtaposition of cause and effect. If a gentleman of good position and standing who happens to have contributed liberally to the Party funds becomes the recipient of an honour, who is to say that
278
the Minister who recommended him was influenced wholly or mainly by gratitude for his generosity and not by other considerations? The only thing we know is that the tendency to bestow titles of honour on persons with no very obvious qualifications is a rapidly growing tendency, and that the bestowal of them has a habit of synchronising with periods when the Government of the day is in special need of funds.
As regards the multiplication of honours, I do not want to go into a great number of figures. But it is, I believe, a fact, taking only the creation of Peerages—although I do not want to be regarded as maintaining that the Peerage is the form of honour which is most freely used for replenishing Party funds—that the present Government during their eight years of office have created no fewer than 63 Barons, not to mention Lords of Appeal, whose case, of course, has no relevance to the matter at present under discussion—63 Barons, or about one-sixth of the total number of Barons in this House, although it has existed for more than six hundred years. In the eight years preceding there were 41 creations of the same rank, which one might have thought was already a sufficiently liberal figure. I do not mention this with any intention of raising a Party point; that is very far from my desire. Indeed, it may be said that the only reason why the present Government has created the largest number of Peerages and other titles of honour on record is that it is the latest comer, and that its successor may outdo it in that respect, although I sincerely hope that, possibly owing to the efforts now being made, that will not be the case.
There is another interesting point besides the number of these creations, and that is what I may call their periodicity, the cyclical movement which seems to affect them. They are rather like shooting stars. I mean to say there is a certain period of the year when we always look out for them, but a really imposing shower only occurs every two or three years—perhaps I ought to say every three or four years; at any rate, it only occurs in connection with critical moments in the life of a Government. The occurrence of these great showers of honours is nearly always in the year before, or the year of, or the year

279
after a General Election; and one is almost forced to the conclusion that there is some kind of mysterious relation between the two phenomena.
But be that as it may, the Motion of the noble Earl only goes this length, that it asks us to declare that the use of titles of honour as a means of replenishing Party funds is not a proper use to which to put them, or the Royal power by which they are created, that it is more or less dishonouring to His Majesty—a degradation of honours and a degradation of public life. I could not add anything to what has been said so well by the noble Earl about the bad effect which the traffic in honours must have upon the esteem in which honours are held, and the harm it does in destroying a powerful and respectable incentive—though I do not say it is the highest form of incentive—to good public service, and to munificence for public objects. But there is an even worse consequence of this traffic, and that is that by offering to Party managers the opportunity of collecting enormous secret funds it helps to rivet the yoke of Party upon our public men, to undermine independence alike in candidates and in Members of Parliament, and to submit Parliament and the nation to the uncontrolled and growing despotism of the Party machine. It is part and parcel of the same system which has destroyed the authority of this House and is fast reducing debate in the other House of Parliament to a farce.
The noble Lord who has just spoken said, I think truly, that Party funds were an inevitable concomitant of the Party system, and as he is a great admirer of the Party system he thinks the larger Party funds are the better. I differ from him in that I am not a great admirer of the Party system. But, accepting the Party system not as a thing in itself desirable but as, in my lifetime at any rate, a necessary evil, I am still anxious to limit, and not to encourage, one of its very worst and most discreditable features. There is nothing which is more calculated, in my humble judgment, to lead to the widespread corruption of public life than the irresponsible control of large secret funds by Party managers. Is not there a certain extraordinary inconsistency in the line which we at present take about bribery and corruption? You have laws against them
280
under which a trifling transgression—a transgression which may be committed in all innocence by a man or his agent—may invalidate his election; and yet can it be said that the power of money, which all these Statutes are intended to curb, that the power of money, either in an individual or a Party, to influence the judgment of the constituencies, has in any way been diminished? We all know that it has not been; on the contrary, it has been increased. The forms of bribery may have altered, but the essentials of it are there, and they are as strong and formidable as ever they were. Whether it is worse to buy a few votes at an election by giving illegitimate employment, or to try to debauch a whole constituency by promising a vast expenditure of public money within its borders or by flaunting before it some wealthy candidate who is expected to be a rich fount of future favours, I must leave to moralists to determine; the point is that the vast expenditure of money upon constituencies at election times and during intervals between elections, is giving and continues to give an undue and unhealthy influence to mere wealth on the destinies of the nation. And the corrupting influence of overgrown Party funds, in itself a thing that is undesirable and evil, is only rendered possible by this traffic in honours, which is likewise discreditable to public life.
I do not know that it is for me to venture to suggest any remedies for this evil. I think' it really rests with the members of both Front Benches—for both Parties have something to atone for in their past conduct in this matter—to suggest the remedy. But I cannot agree that nothing can be done beyond appealing—though I am all for appealing—to public opinion and trying to arouse public opinion. I agree with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that it is possible, and indeed I think it is imperative, if there is any sincerity in our professions of dislike for corruption, to try and restrict expenditure at elections, and expenditure so restricted might, I think, fairly be thrown on the public funds. But that is not alone sufficient, because the wholesale bribery of constituencies is not confined to election times, but goes on merrily in the interval between elections. It seems to me that it would be idle merely to restrict expenditure at election times unless it could also be made illegal for Members to spend large sums of money between elections in their constituencies.

281
Unless that is going to be done I think the unfortunate and evil need for large Party funds—which has to be satisfied by the undesirable means we are discussing— will continue to exist.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I make one other suggestion? Would it be unreasonable that when honours are announced some brief statement of the reasons for which the honours are conferred should be given? The thing is done, for instance, whenever money is granted to deserving individuals from the fund at the disposition of the Prime Minister—the Civil List. I have constantly seen—it has appeared a reasonable and satisfactory proceeding in cases where grants were made from the Civil List—a brief statement, entirely honourable to the recipients and perfectly satisfactory to the public, of the reasons why the grants were given. Why is there any objection to doing the same in the case of the bestowal of any honour whatsoever? I do not say it would altogether remedy the evil of which we are complaining—there is no single remedy, it has to be attacked in a number of ways—but it seems to me this would be a very considerable check on the abuse of the bestowal of honours, for no Minister would wish to make himself ridiculous by giving explanations of the honours he had asked the Sovereign to confer which were obviously ill-founded and calculated to excite general derision.
I do not say that these are very valuable suggestions or that they are the best that might be made. I repeat that I think it rests more on the leaders of Parties than upon independent members of this House to suggest a remedy. What I do hope is that the decision of the House to-night, the reception which the House gives to the Motion, and, may I venture to add, the speeches to which I hope we may yet look forward from the leaders of both Parties, will leave no false impression on the mind of the nation, as I think a false impression may have been left by some of the preceding speeches, but that it will go forth to the country that in this House at least the degradation of titles of honour is regarded with abhorrence and is looked upon not only—which is a minor consideration—as an injury and insult to the order to which we have the honour to belong, but also as a serious injury to the nation.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I agree with what fell from the noble Earl who introduced this Motion and with what has also been stated by other speakers that no question whatever of Party advantage or Party feeling ought to be involved in this discussion, and I think that fact has in the main been recognised by those who have taken part in the debate. It is also true that none of us wish to adopt a priggish or Pharisaical attitude in this matter; at the same time we are certainly not disposed to minimise its gravity. Speaking for myself and my noble friends behind me, we take precisely the same view of the importance of the subject as was taken by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I think, however, there has been a tendency on the part of some speakers to exaggerate the position as it now exists, and, as it were, to attempt to indicate that political life is becoming less pure and honourable than it was, and that, as the Roman poet said—
"We are worse than our grandfathers, and our children are likely to be worse than ourselves."
As a matter of fact, any one who looks back at political history will recognise— whatever may be said of the existing state of things—that the contrary is unquestionably the case.
There is no need to go back very far. You can go back if you like only a few years, within the memory of those who are now alive. The whole position in relation to Party expenditure and the dependence of Party expenditure upon honours and distinctions and gains of all kinds was, as everybody with the most trifling knowledge of history will recognise, infinitely worse during the whole period before the Reform Bill of 1832 than it has ever been since. All through the eighteenth century the possession of pocket boroughs and borough-mongering generally brought about abuses of this kind which were infinitely more flagrant in every respect than anything that has ever been hinted at since; and it was not until the year 1782 that the Whig Government of that day—and we all of us, I think, ought to be proud of the Whig Party in that respect—brought in a series of Bills, some of which became Acts of Parliament, dealing with some of the grosser forms of corruption which then existed. Everybody knows that the owners of boroughs,

283
representing something like two-thirds of the whole House of Commons, commanded votes, and that those votes meant money and also meant honours. All the patronage, English, Irish, Indian, and Colonial, was practically in the hands of the people who owned the boroughs and could command the votes. Government Loans were issued in their interest at a price which meant an enormous loss to the country, and in one famous case the country is supposed to have lost a million sterling owing to the price of issue in favour of certain privileged persons.
And then, as we know, the Government used to buy seats in Parliament outright. There was one famous case when Lord North bought three boroughs for a particular election; the price that he offered was £2,500 per seat, and the owner of the seats obtained a certain reputation for stinginess by insisting on the pounds being made guineas. Dozens of instances of that kind could be given. The noble Viscount who has just spoken told us about the number of Peerages created of late years, implying—though I do not think he actually stated in so many words— that the creation of at any rate some of those Peerages had a connection with Party funds. Well, my Lords, between the years 1784 and 1801 Mr. Pitt made 140 creations or promotions in the Peerage.
A NOBLE LORD: English?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Mainly English. And certainly the noble Viscount, who has studied history, will not say that a great many of those titles, now honourably borne by their descendants, were given on account of anything which could be called in a strict sense service to the State. There is no object in raking up stories which tell hardly upon our forbears, but it is necessary to mention these facts in order to show that when an almost portentous tone is adopted in relation to what is considered to be political corruption to-day we ought to remember that as a matter of fact we are living, as I believe, in an infinitely clearer atmosphere in these respects than ever existed before the Reform Bill. I do not believe that, except for a short period when Parties were all in confusion and therefore the Party system was not working as it has worked since—say, between 1845 and 1860—I do not believe that at any time,
284
except possibly during those years, when the whole question of Party funds was for the time being in abeyance, there has been any material change for the worse in respect of these matters which are complained of.
When we come to the actual terms of the Resolution proposed by the noble Earl, and of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend behind me, there are one or two words to be said. The noble Earl says that "a contribution to Party funds should not be a consideration to a Minister when he recommends a name for an honour to His Majesty"; and my noble friend behind me, in the original form of his Amendment, stated, as the noble Viscount has reminded us, "that in view of the persistent allegations implying that contributions to Party funds have been a consideration to Ministers when recommending names to His Majesty for honours, this House would welcome an assurance from His Majesty's Government that such allegations are untrue." The noble Viscount seemed to think that it was out of some consideration for the feelings of the Party leaders that my noble friend behind me had altered the terms of his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Can you give us the reason?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It was in no way known to me that my noble friend had done so, and the fact that he has done so does not prevent me from giving, as far as I am able to give it, a categorical assurance on behalf of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that a contribution to the Party funds has not been a consideration to him when recommending names to His Majesty for honours. I should not have the least hesitation, although I have had no communication with either, in giving precisely the same assurance on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rosebery, and also on behalf of Mr. Balfour (if he would allow me to do it), those being the only two others alive who have been placed in the same position as my right hon. friend.
The noble Lord has pointed out, what is quite true, that although we should always desire that a contribution to Party funds should not be a consideration, yet it is altogether impossible to lay down a

285
rule that a contribution to Party funds should be a bar to the reception of any honour whatever. The noble Earl opposite gave an instance of a highly respected individual who, he had no doubt, had contributed to the Party funds. Such instances could be multiplied of those who have received distinctions of various kinds and who have contributed, being men of wealth, sometimes in very large sums to the support of the Party to which they belonged. Consequently, it is only possible to suggest to those who have the power of recommendation that their minds should work in a particular way, and that certain considerations should not be present to them. That, of course, points to the difficulty of laying down or attempting to establish a distinct canon or rule in a matter of this kind, and I find myself in general agreement with the noble Earl opposite when he says that the real safeguard to which we must look— in my belief it is the only practical safeguard—is the force of public opinion being brought to bear upon appointments which are improper in themselves.
It is only, as the noble Viscount pointed out, where a person—supposing such a person to exist in any Party—receives an honour for which he is obviously unfit that the question is asked, "Why has this particular gentleman been singled out for this distinction?" If the recipient is considered generally worthy no kind of question is asked as to whether he has or has not contributed to the support of his Party. The same thing, I think, may be said to apply to other forms of what is called the purchase of distinctions. It has often been rumoured that high distinctions of various kinds have been purchased, not by contributions to either political Party, but by what may be called general munificence, gifts to hospitals, gifts to colleges, gifts to public objects of various kinds, which according to popular talk and rumour have been made by wealthy persons with apparently the main object of achieving some form of distinction. There, again, these things are impossible to prove, although I suppose in the abstract we should all desire that in such a case distinction should be withheld. Yet those cases are cases of extreme difficulty, and they would not, as far as I know, be covered by any of the general remedies which some noble Lords have suggested.
THE EARL OF SELBOENE: The distinction in that case is that it is the nation which gets the benefit and not the Party.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I suppose it might be argued by sound Party men, by noble Lords opposite or ourselves, that there is some national advantage in the Party which holds the views which we believe to be the right views being in power; but, still, I will not argue that. One suggestion of the noble Viscount was that the practice which obtains in relation to the Royal Bounty, by which, when donations or annuities are given to certain people in bad circumstances, the reason is given for the particular donation, might be followed. I do not know, my Lords, that any great service would be done by insisting upon a similar rule in the conferment of honours unless you are prepared to go so far as to say that no honour should be given except for public service, independent of Party, and that, I think, has not been suggested. If, on the other hand, the reason given is that the recipient has done good service to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal Party, as the case may be, I do not know that public opinion would be very much more satisfied than it is at the present moment.
Then I come to the suggestion made by my noble friend behind me for the appointment of a Royal Commission. His ingenious plan is to get round the difficulty not so much by inquiring into what is called the sale of honours as by, as I understand him, having a Royal Commission to inquire into the. working of the Corrupt Practices Acts and into the possibility of their extension in order to bring about his object in a circuitous way; that is to say, in this manner. Supposing you can avoid all expenditure on elections you will not then need Party funds. If you do not want Party funds you will not desire people to subscribe to Party funds, and therefore the power of acquiring distinctions as some form of reward will fall to the ground. But the doubt which is in my mind is this. Although there is, I think, much to be said for some possible extension of the Corrupt Practices Acts, in particular with regard to those irregular bodies or societies which seem to have taken the place to some extent of the regular Party organisations in conducting the business of elections and spend large sums outside the legal limit, I should have

287
thought it would be possible to achieve that object directly by legislation rather than by instituting the long and heavy machinery of a Royal Commission. And there is rather a singular point in relation to those outside societies which has not, I think, been mentioned—that although they are not in direct opposition, of course, to what is called the regular Party funds, which are the main object of censure at this moment, yet I do not know that they are always looked upon on either side with particular enthusiasm by those who are responsible for the management and expenditure of those Party funds. I greatly question, therefore, whether the kind of inquiry that my noble friend suggests into the operations of these various leagues and unions and other bodies has much bearing on the subject of the noble Earl's Motion, because there is no implication, so far as I know, that subscriptions or assistance to those more or less irregular bodies has been used as a lever, as it is supposed subscriptions to Party funds have been used, for the purpose of acquiring distinctions of any kind.
I come back, therefore, to the expression of my opinion that it is not possible, at any rate at present, whatever it may be at some future time, to do more than attempt to encourage sound public opinion in all these matters; and, consequently, although I have no desire to offer any opposition to the noble Earl's Motion, I find it difficult to agree to the actual wording of it when he asks "that effectual measures should be taken in order to assure the nation that governments will act according to this rule." That appears to indicate that he supposes some machinery could be set on foot with that object. But I take his speech, rather than the actual wording of his Resolution, as expressing what he means so far as he thinks the possibilities of the moment are concerned, and on that ground I do not desire to offer any opposition to the noble Earl's Resolution. So far as my noble friend Lord Charnwood is concerned, I am afraid that we could not give our concurrence to the idea of the appointment of a Royal Commission for this purpose, because I do not think it would effect much in the direction which the noble Lord desires; but I repeat once more that I am far from implying, in saying this, that I do not think some extension of the Corrupt Practices Acts might very properly be undertaken.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment, but I desire before this discussion ends to state in one or two sentences why I am ready to give my support to my noble friend beside me (Lord Selborne), and why, on the other hand, I do not feel able to recommend the proposition which the noble Lord on the Back Benches opposite has put upon the Paper as an Amendment. In the first place, I think we may congratulate my noble friend beside me upon the extremely sympathetic reception which his proposal has met from all parts of the House. I confess that with regard to the wording of his Motion—for which he is himself entirely responsible—I think something might be said, but, like the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I pay much more attention to the substance of my noble friend's speech than to the precise words in which he has framed his Motion.
Now, what was the case put forward by my noble friend? He was perfectly frank and candid with the House. He told us that he was not prepared to produce instances of the kind of abuse to which he desired to put an end; and he rested himself almost entirely on the suspicion— I think he said the widely prevalent suspicion—which exists in the public mind that abuses of this kind do take place, and take place not infrequently. I believe with my noble friend that that suspicion does exist, and that it is widely prevalent, but I think, with the noble Marquess opposite, that it is probably exaggerated, and I noted with satisfaction that my noble friend early in his speech pointed out to the House that in his view, so far as a very large body of the honours which are now conferred by the Sovereign are concerned, there was no reason for the kind of misgivings which are present to his mind. In regard to honours conferred upon the Civil Service, the Army, and the Navy, and upon the Sovereign's Indian subjects, I certainly do not think there is a word to be said. As for the honours conferred upon others, any one who looks through the lists of the names of those who have received distinctions within the last few years will readily recognise that the greater number of those names are the names of persons who are in every way well fitted to be rewarded in this manner.

289
But, undoubtedly, the public mind does require to be reassured upon this subject, and I think the Resolution of my noble friend Lord Selborne, received as it has been here to-night, and perhaps confirmed by a similar Resolution in the other House of Parliament, will have the kind of reassuring effect that we desire. There is a universal feeling of reprobation of the idea that honours of any kind conferred by the Sovereign can form the subject of a bargain between the persons who receive them and the persons who are instrumental in procuring the bestowal of such honours. I agree with my noble friend in believing that the need of precautions in this respect tends to become greater as time goes on. I am afraid that suspicions of this kind are inevitable so long as we have what is commonly called the Party system in this country. The Party system in a democracy like ours means a great many things. It means that you must have Party organisation, Party machinery, Party literature, and that you may have to support Party candidates. All these things mean, and mean inevitably, the expenditure of large sums of Party money, and that money inevitably tends to be taken out of the pockets of the wealthier members of the Party. That may not be a very pleasant thing to contemplate. My noble friend used a happy phrase when he said that that state of things "revealed the clay foot of democracy." But I doubt very much whether any precautions that you can take will altogether obviate the dangers against which we all desire to guard.
The matter is complicated by this fact, and I think it was admitted both by the noble Marquess and by my noble friend, that these contributions to the Party funds are perfectly avowable transactions. What I think my noble friend desires to insist upon is not that a man who has made a contribution of this kind to his Party's funds should have a black mark put against his name and should be regarded as disqualified for the receipt of an honour, but that the liberality of his contribution should not be the justification of the honour of which he may eventually be the recipient. I say distinctly— I cannot say it too strongly—that while in my view a contribution to the funds of a Party is a perfectly avowable transaction, such a contribution ought in no circumstances to lead a Minister to con-
290
sider for an honour an individual whom, but for that contribution, he would not have been ready to consider. That, I take it, is the principle upon which my noble friend insists. But then, of course, you will inevitably find yourselves face to lace with very complex cases. There is the case of a man of wealth who has spent his wealth wisely and generously, who has acquired a conspicuous position in the industrial world, who has been a model landlord, who has attended to the business of his own neighbourhood, and who may also have been a liberal contributor to the funds of his Party. How is the Minister, or how is the lesser personage who advises the Minister, to decide how much weight is to be given to the generous contribution to the Party war-chest, and how much to the meritorious record in other respects of the individual concerned?
I noted, as did the noble Marquess, the expression in my noble friend's Motion to the effect that he calls upon the Government to devise effectual means of guarding against these abuses. He did not specify the means that he had in his mind except, I think, in a passage at the close of his speech, when he suggested that questions of this kind might be dealt with on the advice of the Privy Council. That is a suggestion whish is, I have no doubt, worth considering, but I should be sorry to commit myself to an acceptance of it this evening. The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, thought that in each case there might be published with the announcement of the honour an intimation of the services in respect of which the honour was conferred. That seems to be a not unreasonable suggestion, but I am bound to say that I would much prefer to leave the consideration of the effectual means which my noble friend desires to see adopted to the Sovereign and those who advise him in regard to these matters; and I feel sure that the action of your Lordships' House this evening will have a salutary effect in calling attention to the question.
With the proposal to refer the whole matter to a Royal Commission I cannot say that I am much enamoured. The noble Lord who makes it no doubt has in his mind not that the past history of these transactions should be raked

291
up but that the question of strengthening the law in regard to them should be considered. But his suggestion is for a Royal Commission "to inquire by what amendments of the Corrupt Practices Acts such abuses may most effectively be restrained." I am afraid that his Royal Commission would find it very difficult not to consider what the alleged abuses were, and that opens out a rather alarming field. I think there are at this moment three statesmen alive who have held the office of Prime Minister. I doubt very much whether the noble Lord would gain anything by examining Mr. Balfour and Mr. Asquith as to the circumstances under which the two hundred and odd Peers who have been made since the year 1885 received their honours; while the 300 baronetcies, and the literally innumerable knighthoods, would open out a still more distracting field for investigation. May I interpose the observation that I heard with interest my noble friend Lord Milner's comment upon the fact that during the past eight years the present Government had made, I think, 63 Baronies—is that the figure?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I think that is the right figure, excluding Law Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The comment I was going to make upon that fact was that the other evening, when we had a most important Division on my noble friend Lord Midleton's Amendment to the Address, in spite of the 63 Baronies noble Lords opposite marshalled altogether only 55 Peers of all sorts and descriptions to support them against my noble friend.
Then I think further difficulty would be encountered when, as the result of this or any inquiry, you set to work to frame rules for the purpose of guarding against the apprehended abuses. My noble friend said, I think very truly, that it was almost impossible to define the circumstances in which an honour might or might not properly be given. That is perfectly true, and I am very much afraid that, whatever rules you might adopt, it would be found that a twentieth century Party manager was able to drive a coach-and-six through them. For that reason, my Lords, I very much prefer, at any rate in the
292
first instance, to trust to the effect which will be produced upon the public mind by this discussion and by the Motion of my noble friend behind me; and I do sincerely believe that if the two Houses of Parliament join in expressing a decided opinion upon this important question the result will be to reassure the public mind and greatly to strengthen the hands of the Minister and, above all, to lead him to resist the temptation which is always present in the case of an overworked man: the temptation to rely upon the advice of somebody else rather than upon his own instincts and his own judgment.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I do not rise to prolong this discussion, but in order to try and meet a point which has been raised by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. His Majesty's Government as your Lordships have heard, offer no opposition to this Motion. But the noble Marquess in the course of his remarks drew attention to the form of the Motion, and in doing so criticised it in a way which seemed to us on this Bench to have considerable force. I rise, therefore, to make the suggestion to the noble Earl that his Motion should be amended so as to meet more nearly the opinions of the noble Marquess opposite. The noble Earl no doubt notices that in the form of his Resolution as it is at present he would almost seem to call upon the House of Commons to take effectual measures. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, seemed to think that for the present, at any rate, it would be sufficient if measures were taken by His Majesty's Government, and he left for future possible use the question of measures being taken by the House of Commons. I think, therefore, that we may say there is a weighty body of authority in this House anxious for some amendment to this Resolution. The amendment which I would suggest—I throw it out not with any particular pride of authorship—is that the words "effectual measures should be taken in order to assure" should be left out, in order that it might run in this way, "that the nation should be assured that Governments, from whatever Political Party they are drawn, will act according to this rule." Your Lordships will see that the effect of that alteration would be to leave out the phrase which seems to call upon the House of

293
Commons to take the effectual measures, and postpones until a later period the question whether effectual measures should be taken or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite sure that I follow the argument of the noble Earl. He began by saying what all your Lordships have said, that the Motion commands his sympathy; but in his criticism of the wording he said that as the Motion stands it seems to throw upon the House of Commons the obligation to take effectual measures, whereas he quoted my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition as saying that the effectual measures might properly be considered by His Majesty's Government. I do not follow his argument. There is nothing in the terms of my noble friend's Motion that throws upon the House of Commons the providing of effectual measures; it is that effectual measures should be provided; nor does the Motion prescribe any particular effectual measure. There was the suggestion made by Lord Milner just now which I think might be an effectual measure, and there are others which might be suggested. But the general argument, I would submit to your Lordships, is this, that if it be true that a contribution to Party funds should not be a consideration, then it is clear also that effectual steps should be taken to make that opinion effective. Those measures might be taken by the Government itself, by the Prime Minister himself, or by any other authority; but that some effectual measures should be taken to make effective what your Lordships' House has passed seems to follow as a matter of course. It is a most significant thing that a suggestion should be made to cut out from the Motion words which imply that effectual measures should be taken to carry it out. What is the reason of a Motion of that kind? Even if the words might have been left out originally, I think that to strike them out now would have a significant and unfortunate effect, because it would seem to imply that although we were ready to express a pious opinion we did not want any steps taken.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might explain what is at the back of my noble friend's mind, and what also appears to me to be the case. What we are asked to do is to communicate to the House of
294
Commons a Resolution and to ask their concurrence in it. We call upon some person or persons unknown to take effectual measures; but the whole trend of the debate has been, both in the speech of the noble Earl and in that of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, that we are not prepared to say as a House that any effectual measures can be taken. It may be that as far as rules or regulations, still more as far as legislation is concerned, it may not be possible to invent a form which will meet the case. Is it then quite dignified to send down a Resolution to another place saying that effectual measures must be taken when we are not able even to suggest what those effectual measures should be and some of us think it may not be possible to take any active measures? It was merely out of concern for the proper dignity of this House in approaching the other House that my noble friend and I made the suggestion that to speak of effectual measures when we have none in our minds was not the right way of dealing with the matter.
LORD AMPTHILL: What the noble Lords suggest can be done very simply by putting in these words, "that it is desirable that effectual measures should be taken." But the alteration suggested by Lord Beauchamp would land us in another difficulty; it would put us in the position of resolving that the nation should be assured that no Party would ever do a certain thing. We have, of course, no power to ensure that any political Party would do what we wished in any matter. Quod est absurdum. What you want to do is to agree that it is desirable that effectual measures shall be taken, which, after all, is what is in the Motion as it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think what the noble Lord has just suggested is a distinct improvement.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. In doing so I should like to state, with regard to what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, who suggested that I altered my Amendment in order to relieve the leaders of my Party of a great difficulty, that I entirely repudiate that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEaccepted the alteration suggested by Lord Ampthill, and the Motion was put in the following form:— Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House a contribution to Party funds should not be a consideration to a Minister when he recommends any name for an honour to His Majesty; that it is desirable that effectual measures should be taken in order to assure the nation that Governments, from whatever political Party they
296
are drawn, will act according to this rule; and that this House requests the concurrence of the House of Commons in the foregoing Resolution."
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to request their concurrence therewith.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.