Sitting of 27 July 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London United Tramways Bill,
Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill,
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill,
South Suburban Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Tees Valley Water Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Bristol Corporation (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
De Trafford Estate Bill [Lords],
Falkland and Pluscarden Estates Bill [Lords'],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
To be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords],
Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, that Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Local Legislation Committee have leave to sit and proceed with the Unopposed portions of the Bill and the Committee upon Group L of Private Bills with Parts II. and III. of the Bill upon Wednesday the 29th July.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Wednesday.
Private Bills,
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session:
That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith:
That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine:
That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited at the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND (BENEFIT BRANCH).
Copy presented of Report of the Actuary, showing the Results of his Investigations of the Assets and Liabilities of the Benefit Branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd July; Mr. Joseph Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 386.]
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 1st July; Mr. John O'Connor]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 387.]
CIVIL SERVANTS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th March; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be: printed. [No. 390.]
CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES, ETC.).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th March; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 391.]

NATIONAL INSURANOE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Married Women's Special Benefits) Regulations (Wales), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 388.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 24th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Special Customs) Consolidated Order, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 389.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated the 25th July, 1914, providing for a further Grant in Aid of Educational Expenditure approved by the Department under Section 16 (1) (f) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 24th July, 1914, amending the Schedule to the Minute of 30th January, 1905, providing for the establishment of Committees for the Training of Teachers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the principal statutory provisions affecting payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and (2) the amount of such payments for the financial year 1913–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 23rd July, 1914, under the Act affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Kirkcaldy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1870.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated Kith July, 1914, entitled the Northern Rhodesia Naturalisation Order in Council, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Second Report, together with Minutes of Evidence, index, and Appendices, of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire and report on the state of the Public Records and Local Records of a Public Nature of England and Wales. Vol. II., Parts I., II., and III. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5356, 5360, and 5361 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE.
Copy presented of Minute of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the increase in the Metropolitan Police Rate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CHAMBER OF LONDON.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year ending 31st March, 1914 [by Act]; to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Whitweil and District Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Mexico.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if arrangements have been made with the United States Government for Governments whose nationals are affected by the present position of affairs in Mexico to take steps in connection with any aggression upon oil properties and mining rights

  903
  in Mexico; and if he will consider the practicability of coming to a similar understanding as regards personal injury to British subjects?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, laid before Parliament in Cd. 7463. As regards personal injury to British subjects, I do not consider that a similar understanding with the United States Government would be practicable. Each individual case in which personal injury occurs must be considered on its merits.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the resolution unanimously passed by two All-Ireland meetings, held in the Mansion House, Dublin, asking for an inquiry into the origin of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland and suggesting the adoption of safeguarding Regulations to minimise in future the dislocation of the live-stock trade between Ireland and Great Britain when a sporadic isolated outbreak occurs, whether he will consider, in the interests of both countries, the advisability of appointing a Committee to in quire into and report upon the matter?
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Animals Acts as they affect the live-stock trade between Great Britain and Ireland, and to report what future Regulations might consistent with safety be adopted which would reduce to a mini mum the dislocation of trade between the two countries in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in either; whether the terms of reference will be so drawn as to enable the Committee to inquire as to the origin of recent out breaks, the effect which Regulations restricting the importation of Irish animals had during the period of their duration upon the price of meat in this country and to report generally upon the working of the Acts; and whether representation on the Committee, satisfactory to Irish stock raisers and owners will be given, together with power to the Committee to compel the attendance of witnesses and, where necessary, take evidence on oath?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): In so far as the questions relate to the origin or prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, they should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department. On the other points I have nothing to add at present to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Board's Vote on the 16th June.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Are you prepared to keep your promise of the 16th inst?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly, the undertaking which I gave on the 16th will be carried out.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared now to allow the exportation of store cattle from Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that arises out of the question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if nothing seriously happens in the next day or two, we hope that the importation of store cattle from Irish ports will be resumed next week.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. GREENEasked the hon. Member for St.-George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether it is still the case that under the National Insurance Act no sickness benefit is paid to members who fall sick outside the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that their weekly contributions are still levied during the whole of their stay abroad?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Sickness benefit is not paid, but neither are contributions cornpulsorily payable in the circumstances stated.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether an insured woman who is now a paying patient at a convalescent home, and otherwise entitled to sick benefit under the National Insurance Act, has the payment of her benefit postponed until she leaves the home, or whether, by Regulations or otherwise, the benefit can be paid to her weekly?
    Mr. BENN: If the member is an inmate of one of the institutions referred to in Section 12 of the Act of 1911, benefit would not, under the provisions of that Section

    905
    and Section 15 of the Act of 1913, be paid to her until she had left the institution, though it would be payable at once to her dependants if she had any. Whether the above provisions apply in a particular case cannot be stated without full information as to the circumstances.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether medical benefit to insured persons includes the provision of proprietary tonic foods; whether in certain conditions of ill-health drugs are of little value and that effective treatment can often be given with suitable concentrated food; and if he will allow medical practitioners at their discretion to prescribe on the lines indicated?
    Mr. BENN: Insured persons are entitled to proper and sufficient medicines as part of their medical benefit; and the question whether any particular compound or preparation is included within that category falls to be decided in the first instance by the insurance committee on the circumstances of the individual case.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he can give any estimate of the number of insured persons who became entitled to disablement benefit on 13th July last?
    Mr. BENN: The Insurance Commissioners have no means of making any precise calculation as to the number of persons who, on 13th July, became entitled to disablement benefit, but on the best estimate of which the circumstances admit they are inclined to believe that the number approximates to 80,000.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked how many new sanatoria have been built by means of Grants from the £1,500,000 provided by the Finance Act, 1911; and how many are in course of erection?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. So far as England is concerned, the number of cases in which building is being aided by Capital Grants is sixty-nine. The work has been completed in twenty-two cases; in the remaining cases the plans have been approved by the Local Government Board,
    906
    and in most of them the buildings are, I assume, in course of erection. In addition, fourteen sites have been approved for the erection of new sanatoria.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that twenty-two had been actually completed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, completed.

    ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked whether the Estimates for the year 1914–15 contemplate the expenditure for the central administration of Part I. of the National Insurance Act of £1,000,821, or what other total, all Votes included, and as the State contribution towards administration of societies and insurance committees of £569,400, or what other total, all Votes included; and what is the estimated cost for the same period or for an insurance year to societies and to committees for administration?
    Mr. BENN: As regards the first and third figures asked for, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras on the 16th June. The amount provided for State Grant towards the administrative expenses of approved societies and insurance committees for the financial year 1914–15 is £680,800.

    OLD WORKMEN (SPECIAL RELIEF).
    Mr. WATSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, on the Report stage of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II. Amendment) Bill, he will consider the question of giving special relief to old workmen in the insured trades who are now over seventy years of age in relation to repayments under Section 95 of the principal Act?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): An Amendment to the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II. Amendment) Bill is already put down in my name to be moved on the Report stage which, I think, fully meets the point raised in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. WATSON: May I send the right hon. Gentleman particulars of the cases I have in mind?
    Mr. BURNS: I shall be pleased to show the hon. Member my Amendment. I think he will find it meets his case.

    CHEMISTS' CHARGES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the bills of chemists supplying drugs under the National Insurance Act have been heavily discounted in districts where sufficient funds were not available to pay them; if the accounts of the doctors have been similarly dealt with; if the charges for drugs are settled before the names of the chemists are placed upon the approved lists; if such discounting has in any case been due to overcharging; if so, whether chemists overcharging have been warned; and whether there are any grounds for introducing variations of prices in different districts?
    Mr. BENN: The chemists in some areas have been paid under discount pending the result of the scrutiny in progress. The doctors are, however, paid on a different basis, and no such question arises in their case. In the normal course the tariff is settled, in substance at any rate, before the chemists renew their agreements, but in some cases details have been left for subsequent settlement by general consent. If by overcharging I correctly understand the hon. Member to mean pricing inaccurately and not in accordance with the tariff, such errors are discovered and adjusted when the accounts are examined. In reply to the last part of the question, if the hon. Member will give particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will make inquiries.
    Mr. HALL: Is it not to the advantage of the insured person that he should be supplied with the best drugs? In view of circumstances which have recently occurred, does the hon. Gentleman think that insured persons will be able to obtain the best drugs?
    Mr. BENN: I think the answer is "Yes."
    Mr. HALL: "Yes," to which?

    CHELSEA DISTRICT INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HOAREasked what are the duties of the Chelsea District Insurance Committee; how many times they have met since their constitution; and whether they have at their disposal any funds and, if so, upon what conditions and to what extent?
    Mr. BENN: The duties which may be delegated and assigned to district insurance committees in London, and the financial arrangements for their discharge, are specified in the scheme framed by the
    908
    London Insurance Committee, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. My right hon. Friend is informed that the Committee referred to have met once.
    Mr. HOARE: Is any money at their disposal, and, if so, how much?
    Mr. BENN: I think the hon. Member will find all the information in the scheme which I am sending him.

    Elementary School Teachers and Caretakers (Housing).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced both in rural and urban districts by teachers and caretakers of schools in obtaining proper housing accommodation; whether the Board authorises loans for houses connected with schools; and whether any limits as to cost and accommodation are imposed upon local education authorities wishing to provide houses for teachers and others?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board are aware that in some rural districts teachers find much difficulty in obtaining houses or lodgings. The Local Government Board are prepared to sanction loans for the building of teachers' and caretakers' houses by local education authorities. With regard to accommodation, no limit has been prescribed. With regard to cost, I understand that the Local Government Board have not had occasion to fix a limit in the case of proposals made by local education authorities for teachers' houses. For a caretaker's house they have intimated that they consider that from £350 to £400 should be sufficient.
    Mr. KING: Does that price include the land for the caretaker's house?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, I understand that it does.

    School Fees (Cathedral Cities).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that £26,331 were paid last year as school pence in 141 ordinary elementary schools in twenty cathedral cities of England, in respect of 61,850 children, these fees are imposed in order to make these schools socially select by excluding children who cannot afford to pay; and whether the Board of Education sanctions the policy of grading public schools in accordance with the financial means of the parents?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no evidence that the facts stated in the question warrant the conclusion suggested. The Board do not countenance any such policy as is referred to in the last part of the question.

    Shetland Industries.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that the Shetlanders have established a special reputation for distinctive classes of hosiery and cloth; that, in order to deprive them of the distinctive characteristics of the trade they have built up, persons have been continually in the habit of passing off goods as Shetland, and real Shetland, without justification; and seeing that the Board of Agriculture have convened a meeting of those interested, to be held at Lerwick on the 18th August, for the purpose of considering the institution of a system of marking Shetland goods for their better protection against the unfair competition of factory-made imitations, will he consider the desirability of sending a representative of the Board of Trade to the meeting to assist in its deliberations?
    Mr. BURNS: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 17th June. As regards the last part of the question, I understand from the Scottish Board of Agriculture that they have convened the meeting referred to for the purpose of obtaining from persons interested—principally native workers and merchants—an expression of opinion as to the desirability of protecting the native industry by a system of marking. They add that the information on the subject at present in their possession is not sufficiently complete to enable them to lay any proposal before the Board of Trade at this stage. In the circumstances I do not think that any useful result would be achieved by a representative of the Board of Trade attending the meeting; but my hon. Friend may rest assured that any proposals submitted to my Department by the Scottish Board of Agriculture will receive most careful consideration.

    Imports.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the value of needles and fishhooks imported into the United Kingdom during the years 1911, 1912, and 1913, respectively?
    Mr. BURNS: Imports of needles and fishhooks are not separately recorded, but are included under the general heading
    910
    of "Iron and Steel Manufactures, unenumerated." The information desired by the hon. Member is not therefore available.
    Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the declared value of motor cars, parts of motor cars, and chassis imported into the United Kingdom during 1911, 1912, and 1913, respectively?
    Mr. BURNS: The total declared value of the imports referred to was £5,991,000 in 1911; £7,146,000 in 1912, and £7,411,000 in 1913. For further details the hon. Member should consult pages 83 and 84 of Vol. 1 of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1913.

    Wireless Installations (Merchant Ships).
    Mr. F. HALLasked what companies, in addition to the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, were invited to submit draft agreements for the supply of wireless installations for merchant ships?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member's question is, I think, based on a misapprehension of the origin, scope and purpose of the recent proposal for an agreement. The Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, in a Report presented to the Board of Trade in 1912, expressed an apprehension that in the event of legislation making wireless telegraphy compulsory on British ships any effective competition with the Marconi Company for the supply of the necessary services might be found impracticable. In consequence of this Report the Board of Trade, when proposing legislation on the subject of wireless telegraphy, considered it their duty to endeavour to safeguard shipowners from the danger of monopoly prices which they then appeared to anticipate. The draft proposal for an agreement for this purpose was recently circulated by me to the Standing Committee by which the Merchant Shipping Convention Bill was considered. As, however, it appeared in the course of that discussion that shipowners now consider that they are able to protect their own interests without any such agreement, there seems no need to proceed further in the matter. The above explanation will make it clear that there never was any ground for attempting to protect shipowners against an apprehended monopoly by means of an agreement with any other company, and, in fact, the Board understood from the shipowners' representatives that they had no wish for such a course to be taken.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do we understand that a model agreement will be presented by the Government to assist in the negotiations between the manufacturers and the shipowners?
    Mr. BURNS: No, I am bound by the decision arrived at in the Grand Committee on this Bill. The document must stand for what it is worth to be used by both sides.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Are not the shipowners good judges of ring prices?
    Sir G. PARKER: Am I to understand that the model agreement which was dropped in Committee will yet be used?
    Mr. BURNS: No. The shipowners being apprehensive about monopoly terms requested the Board of Trade to be the medium of communication with the Marconi Company in the interests of the shipowners, and they are now satisfied that they do not require the protection which this agreement was supposed to give.
    Sir G. PARKER: Then it will not be used.
    Mr. F. HALL: If the suggestions of the Board of Trade had been carried out would it not have created a monopoly for the Marconi Company?
    Mr. BURNS: That is a matter of opinion.
    Sir G. PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the agreement which was dropped in Committee is to be used still for the purpose of negotiations between the manufacturers and shipowners?
    Mr. BURNS: So far as I am concerned, no.

    Transfer of Prisoner to Bucks Asylum.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether a man, by name Humphries, adopted the hunger-strike at Wormwood Scrubbs Prison, and because he continued to refuse food was sent to the Bucks County Asylum; and whether, as he has been certified to be quite sane, he will now be released under the recent Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. Member has been misinformed. This man was transferred from prison to an asylum in pursuance of a certificate of insanity submitted by two magistrates and two registered medical practitioners under
    912
    the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884. He has not since been certified to be sane, but I am in communication with the Superintendent of the Bucks County Asylum on-the subject of his present condition.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether, since those who have published incitement to civil war in Ireland are still at liberty, he will advise His Majesty to extend his royal clemency to Mr. Drew, the imprisoned printer of the "Suffragette"?
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret I am unable to advise any remission of sentence in this case.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his attitude, seeing that the incitations of the Ulster press have resulted in the loss of human life, whereas the incitations of this man—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement which, whether true or not, has nothing whatever to do with this question.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the question, which is whether Mr. Drew, who has been put in prison for printing the "Suffragette," in which there are incitements to violence, is not more innocent than—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise His Majesty to invite Mr. Drew to Buckingham Palace—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no business to make offensive observations.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether Miss Arabella Scott is still in Perth prison; whether she is being forcibly fed; and whether he has any report upon her present state of health?
    Mr. PONSONBYasked for how long Miss Arabella Scott, who is in Perth prison, has been forcibly fed; whether she is resisting and has to be strapped down; by what process is food being given to her; and what is the present state of her health?
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether Miss Arabella Scott has been forcibly fed at any time during the last four weeks in Perth prison; is he

    913
    aware that Miss Scott, who was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in May, 1913, and was released after hunger-striking, has since confined herself to speaking and working in a law-abiding and constitutional manner; if forcible feeding was revived because some persons released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act continued in acts of destruction during the intervals of recovery from hunger-strikes; why forcible feeding has been resorted to in Miss Scott's case, seeing that she has done no act of militancy while out of prison; and has she been advised or invited to give any undertaking not to speak in support of the suffrage cause?
    The SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Miss Arabella Scott was convicted on 19th May, 1913, of attempted fire-raising and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. She has several times been released on license under the Prisoners' (Discharge for Temporary Ill-health) Act, 1913, after serving only a few days and without being forcibly fed. On one occasion when released on license she refused to leave the prison and said she would continue her hunger strike outside the prison gates. On another occasion, when released, she refused for some hours to enter any house. On the occasion of her last re-arrest as she persistently refused to observe the terms of the licenses it was thought desirable that she should serve a substantial portion of her sentence, and from 20th June to 26th July (when she was, again released on license) she has been detained in Perth Prison. During this last period of imprisonment she was artificially fed by the mouth. She has offered some resistance but has never been strapped down. Her state of health on release is reported good, but it was not deemed advisable on medical grounds to continue artificial feeding for a longer period. I am not aware that she has abandoned the advocacy of militant methods. She has not been advised or invited to give an undertaking not to speak in support of the suffrage cause.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is this lady sent to Perth because Perth is the only prison in Scotland where prisoners can be forcibly fed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir. It is not the only prison in Scotland where they can be forcibly fed. There are other prisons in Scotland where they can be forcibly fed, but we have there medical
    914
    officers who are accustomed to perform the operation in the criminal lunatic department there.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the statement published by Dr. Mabel Jones, M.D., that there is no foundation for the allegation that Miss Frances Gordon had undergone a course of drugging before admission to prison, and, in view of this, accompanied by Miss Gordon's denial, will he say on what evidence the statement was founded; if Dr. Watson, the medical officer for Perth prison, is the same doctor who, when forcibly feeding Miss Moorhead in Calton prison, allowed food to enter the lungs, causing pneumonia; was it by the doctor's orders that Miss Gordon was held down by the assistant doctor and wardresses for an hour and a half after the forcible feeding; was a hand or a towel held over her mouth to prevent vomiting, and is this included in the description of medical treatment; will he state why the doctor found it necessary to administer three enemas daily to Miss Gordon; was it explained to her they were not food: and, if not, what did they consist of?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has not been drawn to the statement referred to. The opinion of the doctor that Miss Gordon had undergone a course of drugging was based upon her symptoms and appearance on admission to the prison. The medical officer of Perth prison conducted the artificial feeding of Miss Moorhead in the Calton prison, Edinburgh. There is no foundation for the statement that in Miss Moorhead's case food was allowed to enter the lungs, and this matter was fully dealt with in my reply to the hon. Member for Blackfriars Division on 9th March. In the case of Miss Gordon it was necessary to exercise some restraint after artificial feeding, and this was done under medical directions. The necessity for treatment by enema was explained m my reply to the hon. and learned Member on 16th July.
    Mr. PIRIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the methods of forcible feeding employed in America, in which only women doctors are employed, and the operation is carried out much more humanely?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, my attention has not been drawn to any more humane method. I shall be very glad to I have it drawn to it.

    Education (Scotland) Fund.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the statement showing the proposed application of the Education (Scotland) Fund, promised for week of 13th July, will be circulated before the Debate on Scottish Estimates?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The statement in question was laid on the Table on the 16th instant. I am informed that printed copies are now available, and may be obtained on application at the Vote Office.

    Metropolitan Police (New Scale of Pay).
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary if he will state the proposed new scale of pay for the Metropolitan police; and when it will come into operation?
    Mr. McKENNA: This matter has involved the consideration of many difficult questions, but I am now in a position to state the new scale which, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, I have granted to the Metropolitan police. The pay of constables, now on a scale rising from 27s. to 37s. 6d. a week, will in future be on a scale commencing at 30s. a week, rising annually by 1s. a week to 38s., with further increases of 1s. a week after fifteen and after twenty years' service, giving a maximum of 40s. a week. An increase in nearly the same proportion will be given to the higher ranks. These increases will bring a proportionate increase of pension. The increase of pay will take effect from the 31st of next month. The increased charge for the new scales of pay is estimated at £156,000 a year, exclusive of the future pension charge. Owing to savings and receipts beyond estimate, it will only be necessary during the present financial year to raise a rate of one farthing beyond what was originally estimated; and in the next financial year the cost will, I hope, be met by the increased Government contribution proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. REMNANT: In view of the enormous amount of extra work thrown on the constabulary, especially in Loudon, during the past year, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make this increased scale of pay start from the commencement of this year?
    Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it should be made retrospective?
    Mr. REMNANT: Yes, that it should begin as from the commencement of this year.
    Mr. McKENNA: There are no funds to enable me to do so.
    Mr. REMNANT: You can get a special Grant.

    Street Trading by Girls (Bromley Town Council).
    Mr. BECKasked the Home Secretary whether the general purposes committee of the Bromley Town Council has returned to the Home Office, with suggested amendments, the draft by-laws dealing with employment of children; if the reason for the return of these by-laws is the proposal to prevent street trading by girls under sixteen; and whether, in view of the unanimous recommendation made, in 1910, by the departmental committee that no girl under eighteen should be allowed to trade in the streets, he will prevent the Home Office submitting to local authorities by-laws which ignore this recommendation?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has not, I think, been accurately informed of what has passed. The Town Council submitted a by-law providing that no girl under sixteen shall be employed in street trading. No objection, of course, was taken to this by the Home Office, but the question was raised whether the usual exception should be made for girls trading in the company of a parent or guardian. The principle of such an exception was recognised by my hon. Friend himself in the Bill which he introduced in 1912, and was approved by the Committee of this House to which the Bill was referred. In this case, as the Town Council represented that there was no need for such an exception in Bromley, I have agreed to the bylaw in its original shape, that is, without any exception, and it now only remains for the Council to submit it formally for approval.
    Mr. BECK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my Bill I only agreed to that proviso because it was merely a form and not a conviction on my part.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.

    Castle Hedingham Petty Sessions (Convictions for Assault).
    Mr. BECKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called

    917
    to the sentences of two months' hard labour each, passed at Castle Hedingham Petty Sessions on Tuesday, 21st July, on Arthur Bentley and Walter Clayden; whether the assault with which these men were charged took place in the course of a scuffle between strikers and the police; and whether, in view of the fact that these men have good characters and have never previously been in trouble, he can see his way to securing their early release?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to these cases, and I am making inquiry.
    Mr. BECK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have received an unusually severe sentence, and that there is reason to believe that that severity is due to the fact that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman informed the hon. Member that inquiry is being made. If the Home Secretary had the knowledge, it would not be necessary for him to make the inquiry.

    Police Helmets.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to provide the police force during the summer months with lighter helmets than those they are now wearing?
    Mr. McKENNA: This suggestion has been frequently considered, but it has not been found possible to provide a lighter helmet which would afford sufficient protection to the wearer against blows?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL FUEL.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has recently sent a representative to inquire into the oil resources of Trinidad; and, if so, when does he expect a final Report?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No representative has been sent to Trinidad specially for the purpose referred to. The Admiralty have taken advantage of one of Professor Cad-man's periodical visits to the Colony in his capacity as adviser on petroleum questions to the Colonial Government to ask him to obtain some additional particulars to supplement those which are regularly supplied by the Governor of Trinidad through the Colonial Office.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of postponing the Anglo-Persian Oil contract until he has ascertained whether he can get enough oil within the confines of the British Empire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, certainly not.

    SUBMARINES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of new submarines completed and laid down, respectively, in 1913; and the corresponding numbers in the case of the German Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the information I circulated on the 15th of this month in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Birmingham.

    DOCKYARDS (DWELLING-HOUSES).
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Government is the owner of any artisans' dwelling-houses at any of the great dockyards under the control of the Admiralty; and, if so, if such houses were built out of money voted for the Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): At the great dockyards the Admiralty do not, as a rule, provide civilian dwelling houses except in the cases of a few individuals. As the hon. Member will see from Return No. 117, ordered in another place, there are 147 Civil employés engaged in the various dockyards and factories on wages bringing them within the scope of the National Insurance Act who are provided with Government houses or quarters.
    Mr. FELL: Have not working men houses provided for them at the dockyards at the present time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Those who have houses have duties which compel them to reside in or about the dockyards. Generally a town has grown up with the dockyards.

    Passenger Steamers, Scotland (Sale of Tobacco).
    MARQUESS of TULLI-BARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether owners of passenger steamers plying on inland lochs in Scotland where only temperance drinks are sold may not sell tobacco; whether he is

    919
    aware that by taking out a licence to sell spirits they may sell tobacco; and whether, in the interests of temperance, he will make representations to the Inland Revenue authorities to have this practice altered; and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (2) whether the Inland Revenue authorities cannot grant a tobacco licence to the owner of a steamer plying on Loch Katrine unless he also takes out a licence for spirits; and, if so, whether, in the interests of temperance, he will consider the possibility of assimilating the Regulations on the subject to the custom on shore?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Tobacco licences are issued in the cases in question without requiring a spirit licence to be also taken; and I understand that a tobacco licence was issued for the vessel in question at the commencement of the current licence year.

    Committee of Imperial Defence (Sub-Committee's Report).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether he can now lay the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the invasion of these islands upon the Table?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on 11th June last.

    Income Tax (Royal Commission).
    Mr. G. LOCKER- LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he can yet announce the names of the members of the Commission upan Income Tax; whether the Commission will begin its sittings before the close of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can at present add nothing to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Dulwich on 21st July.

    Hereditary Titles (Termination) Bill.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Hereditary Titles (Termination) Bill has passed through Committee without amendment; and whether, in view of the fact that a private Member is not in a position to advise the Crown to place its interests at the disposal of Parliament, he will, as a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, recommend
    920
    His Majesty to place his interests in connection with the conferring of hereditary titles at the disposal of Parliament; and, having obtained His Majesty's sanction, will he give time for the Report and Third Reading of this measure, which in its first three stages has met with no opposition or criticism whatsoever, and can, therefore, be regarded as a non-contentious Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first branch of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the two latter branches, I understand that the Bill referred to cannot be regarded as unopposed, and I do not, therefore, see my way to accede to my hon. Friend's request.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision, in view of the fact that a discussion in another place by Noble Lords who are chiefly affected by the provisions of the Bill, would be of great public interest?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that is not a sufficient reason.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not within the competence of the hon. Member to move an Address to the Throne asking His Majesty to place his interest at the-disposal of Parliament?

    Gold Reserves.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime-Minister whether the Government proposes to take any steps to strengthen our gold reserves, in view of the fact that existing reserves would not suffice in times of acute political, socialist, syndicalist, or financial strain, to meet which Continental nations are now increasing the reserves in their own State banks?
    The PRIME MINISTER: the maintenance of adequate gold reserves is primarily the duty of the banking community, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the national aspects of the question will not fail to continue to engage the careful attention of the Government.
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the very important Bankers' Committee which is now deliberating on this question, and does he know when it will report to the Bankers' Association?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    Law Courts (Attendants).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the position of the attendants at the Law Courts, who are being retired without pension on attaining the age of seventy years, although there was no such condition when they were appointed; and whether he can remedy their grievance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. Member must be under a misapprehension. The staff of attendants is constituted under Statute by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. I am informed that the men are on weekly wages, and subject to weekly notice; that by the Regulations they cease to be employed after sixty-five, but that, in practice, some have been allowed to stay longer. I have no power under the Statute.

    Education Vote.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether the only opportunity for discussing the educational administration of England and Wales, and its expenditure of twenty millions of public money, will be on the second Order for Tuesday, which may never be reached; and whether, in view of the importance of many questions connected with it and the fact that the Government have postponed their Education Bill, he will give a full day for discussion before the Session ends?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member is aware, arrangements as to the subjects to be discussed on Supply days are made through the usual channels, and I shall be glad to concur if, in the remaining days allotted to Supply, the Education Estimates are arranged to be taken. An opportunity may also occur on the Second or Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ARMY CANTEEN COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint another representative on the Army Canteen Committee specially representative of the private traders of the country, as these traders are apprehensive that their special interests as large taxpayers and rate payers may not be fully appreciated by the Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, arrangements are being made for this to be done.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the private soldier, who is mostly concerned in the matter, directly represented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had any representations to that effect.

    NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (KING'S PRIZE).
    Mr. HAYWARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt amongst members of rifle associations throughout the Empire at the proposal to change the conditions under which the King's Prize at Bisley is competed for by abolishing the aperture sight and the sling and reverting to open sights and introducing rapid shooting conditions; whether he is aware that the commandants from the Overseas Dominions have protested against the proposed alterations and definitely stated that their respective teams will not again compete at Bisley if the same are carried out; whether he is aware that the change, in the opinion of many best qualified to judge, is calculated to eliminate interest in rifle shooting throughout the Empire and have a disastrous effect on the Territorial Forces; and whether, before such change is finally decided upon, he will reconsider the matter, with the view either of abandoning the new proposal altogether, or of imposing a qualifying course under conditions to be arranged by the "War Office, leaving the competition proper under National Rifle Association conditions, as suggested in a resolution at the Bisley Tent meeting on the 21st instant?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The War Office proposals affect the conditions for some of the important Bisley competitions, including the King's Prize, and it is hoped that the proposals will do much to stimulate interest in rifle shooting generally throughout the country, and will greatly assist in increasing the musketry efficiency of the Territorial Force. The large majority of those Territorial officers who have been consulted are in favour of the War Office proposals, but I understand that the captains of the teams from overseas are not in favour of the alterations in the conditions referred to. I have, however, received no protest on the subject. As regards the last part of the question, the agreement between the War Office and the Council of the National Rifle Association was arrived at after protracted negotiations, and I think that time should be given for the new conditions to be thoroughly tested.
    Captain MURRAY: Before finally closing the door to the suggestions contained in the last part of the paragraph, will the right hon Gentleman consider the advisability of consulting the Australian Commonwealth Council and the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. F. HALL: If the right hon. Gentleman has a protest brought to him dealing with this matter and stating that those who have been in the habit of attending at Bisley are against this change, will he give careful attention to it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

    PRIVATE SOLDIERS (DEMONSTRATIONS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 22nd July men of the Irish Guards quartered at Wellington Barracks made a demonstration when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for East Mayo passed the barracks on their return from Buckingham Palace; whether any notice was taken of this action by the commanding officer or any other officer; if so, what action; and whether any Regulations were infringed by the men in question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the facts are as follows: On Wednesday last, at about 1.20 p.m., a large civilian crowd were accompanying and loudly cheering the two hon. Members in question as they left Buckingham Palace and proceeded along Birdcage Walk. The shouting attracted the attention of some ten or twelve men of the 1st Battalion Irish Guards, off duty at Wellington Barracks, and also attracted the attention of some twenty or thirty men in the barracks, who leant out of the windows. These men joined in the general cheering. There was no infringement of King's Regulations. At 9.45 on the following day the officer commanding formed up his battalion informally behind the Orderly Room, and in a few words told his men that such an incident, small and minor as it was, was liable to be misinterpreted, and reminded them that, as soldiers in or about barracks, they were not allowed to give public expression to private opinions.
    Colonel GREIG: Does or does not the principle of the admonition given by Lieutenant-Colonel Morris to the rank and
    924
    file of the Irish Guards not to demonstrate their political opinions publicly equally apply to officers, honorary or otherwise, of that and other regiments?
    Major MORRISON-BELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage any attempt to drag in the Army by means of the Irish Guards?

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (STRIKE).
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the steps taken by the Government in connection with the recent strike at the Woolwich Arsenal involve the adoption of the principle that the War Office will not employ non-union labour at any of its depôts or works?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    RESERVISTS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has yet made any arrangements to prevent employers of members of the Special Reserve or Reserve not being able to obtain relief under the employment section of the National Insurance Act in respect to the refund of one-third of their payments?
    Mr. BURNS: The point raised in the Noble Lord's question will be met by Clause 5 (3) (b) of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II. Amendment) Bill, which secures that any contributions paid by the Crown, in accordance with Section 98 of the principal Act, in respect of a workman in training, shall for the purposes of a refund under that Section count towards the number of forty-five contributions required to have been paid by the employer by whom the workman was employed immediately before the training.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Mr. AMERYasked what is the total number of officers belonging to the Special Reserve who are now serving with units of the Regular Forces, according to the several arms?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This figure could not be given without collecting information which is not at present available. But I may say that Special Reserve Officers attached to Regular units are not included in the Returns of officers on the strength of those units.

    DESERTION.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether the net loss from desertion during the last three years amounted to 4,799, and for the three preceding years, namely, 1908, 1909, 1910, to 3,413?
    Mr. TENNANT: The figures quoted are correct additions of the separate totals shown for the years in question in the General Annual Report for 1913.

    Drumtogh Fruit Farm (Auchterarder).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware of the conditions of housing and sanitation on the Drumtogh fruit farm, Auchterarder; is he aware that 500 people are provided only with 176 beds, placed on the floors of barns and stables, that there is no medical or other examination of persons employed, many of whom are obviously suffering from diseases, that the sanitary arrangements are quite inadequate, the pails used for rasps by day being used as commodes in the bothies by night; is he aware that, although the farm is in telephonic communication with the Labour Exchange in Glasgow and Stirling, the officers of those exchanges sent to the farm on Monday the 20th instant an additional fifty persons (some of whom were children), for whom there was no sleeping accommodation whatever; and will he say if there are, any medical or other inspectors or authorities under his control who can insist, in the interests of the community, upon some regard being had for decency and safety?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As this question only appeared on the Paper on Saturday, I have not had time to obtain information as to the statements contained in it, but I am making inquiries.

  POST OFFICE.

    MESSRS. DOUGLAS BROTHERS, BRISTOL.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Messrs. Douglas Brothers, of Kingswood, Bristol, are a non-fair firm of contractors who have recently been struck off the fair list by the War Office; if he is aware that the firm are at present engaged on work for the Post Office'; and if he will take steps to strike them off the list of contractors tendering for Post Office work?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): A small Post Office contract was recently placed with the firm, and this
    926
    is practically completed. In view of the hon. Member's statement and of information which I have now received from the War Office, I propose to have investigation made as to the rates of wages and general conditions of employment, and it will depend on the result of the inquiry whether or not the firm are again invited to tender.

    POSTAL FACILITIES (SOUTH WEXFORD).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked if inquiries have yet been made with respect to the necessity for granting increased postal facilities to Bridgetown and other villages in South Wexford in the vicinity of the Great Southern and Western Railway; and with what result?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It has not yet been possible to arrive at a decision in the matter, but I hope to be in a position to send the hon. Member a definite reply shortly.

    MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY COMPANY.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Post master-General whether his attention has been drawn to the general meeting of Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company last Tuesday, and the statement then made that the net profits of the company amounted to £122,000, while a sum of £119,000 was still owing (payable in cash) to the American Marconi Company; and if he has taken steps to assure himself that the company is able to carry out the indemnity referred to in Clause 22 of the agreement with the Government?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for the Horncastle Division on the 20th instant regarding this indemnity. I have no reason at present to doubt the ability of the company to carry out their undertaking in this respect.

    POSTAGE or MAGAZINES (CANADA).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Postmaster-General if he will give the date when the agreement between this country and the Dominion of Canada respecting the rates of postage charged for sending British magazines to Canada ended; and what is the position at the present time?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The present rates of postage on British newspapers, magazines, and trade journals sent from the United

    927
    Kingdom to Canada will remain in force until the 31st of December next. I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement as regards the conditions of the service after that date.

    New England Company.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset? [Address for Return of the income and expenditure of the New England Company, with balance sheet to the 31st day of December, 1913, the gross yearly rental and income of the company, with the properties and investments held, and copies of the charter of incorporation and of any charters, leases, bequests, or other Grants, subsequent to the year 1836, from which the present income of the company is derived (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 522, of Session 1858).]
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I regret I cannot do this, as the information is not furnished to the Colonial Office.

    Rhodesia.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to make any statement on Tuesday with regard to his reference of the ownership of unalienated land in Rhodesia to the Privy Council, and to any action that can be taken by him in connection with the administrative provisions in the charter of the British South Africa Company in October next?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am laying Papers which will give information with regard to the Reference to the Privy Council, and I do not think that, pending the decision of the Judicial Committee, I can usefully discuss that question. As at present advised, I do not think that I shall be able to make a statement with regard to the Charter on the Colonial Office Vote.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to secure that the new pension scheme for Irish teachers will be made retrospective, so that a teacher who re tired from the service of the National Board on 1st October, 1901, and who had given about thirty-eight years' service, may obtain an increase in his pension?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is proposed to apply the new scheme to teachers who retired from the service on pension on or after the 1st April, 1900.

    Motor Omnibuses (Mud-splashing).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Secretary of the Board had communicated with the town clerk of West Ham to the effect that the Board were empowered to deal, under Section 6 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, with mud-splashing by motor omnibuses, but that they were not in a position to make a regulation at the present time; and whether the reasons for this inability can be stated, in view of the nuisance and expense which is caused in wet weather by the mud thrown from the wheels of motor omnibuses?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Oldham on Monday last.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether, in assessing income from possessions abroad for 1914–15, the average income of the three preceding years will be taken?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Except where the duty is charged by way of deduction, the assessments in respect of income from possessions abroad for the year 1914–15 will fall to be made on the basis of the average income arising in the three preceding years.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that would also apply to income coming to this country for the first time?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather not answer that off-hand.

    Revenue and Expenditure (Returns).
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked what is the cause of the unusual delay this year in issuing the two annual Returns, Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland), and Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure), Great Britain and Ireland; and when they will be issued?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There has been nothing unusual in this matter. These Returns are in the Press, and will be issued on Tuesday.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Is it not a fact that the Returns have never been so late as this year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that is not the case, but I dare say the hon. Gentleman has looked it up.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the necessary maps and documents in connection with the purchase of the E. J. Sugrue estate, Ballinskelligs, have yet been furnished to the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, will further steps he taken to complete the purchase negotiations?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The maps and documents in connection with this estate have not so far been lodged, but the Congested Districts Board have recently been informed by the owner's solicitor that it is proposed to prepare and lodge the necessary documents.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board, which has taken over the Rae estate, Keel, county Kerry, will immediately inquire into the losses which the tenants have suffered during the past six years owing to neglect on the part of the landlord to keep the sea banks in repair, as he was bound to do; and whether immediate steps will be taken to have those men compensated who had their lands or cattle injured by this neglect?
    Mr BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board do not propose to inquire into the losses caused to the tenants on this estate during the past six years by the breaches in the embankment, and they cannot take steps to compel the owner to compensate the tenants for any loss that has occurred. The matter is entirely one between the former owners and the tenants.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet come to terms with James Foy and Mark Foy for the purchase of their properties in West Mayo?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board made an offer for the purchase of
    930
    the estate of Mr. James Foy which has recently been accepted. The Board's offer for the purchase of the estate of Mr. Mark Foy has not been accepted.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board intend to distribute amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the district the large tracts of land now held as eleven months' tenants by Mr. James Cowan and Mr. Richard Sweeney in Knockrow and Burriell, county Mayo, on the estate purchased from Lord Clanmorris; and whether these lands, comprising about 700 acres, are required for the relief of congestion in the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The lands referred to are not included in the estate of Lord Clanmorris purchased by the Congested Districts Board.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has now had inquiry made into the claim for an old age pension put forward by Mrs. Sullivan, Breahig, near Waterville; and can he state what decision has been come to?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 30th June. There has been no subsequent appeal in this case.

    Civil Servants (Retirement).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) if the provision in the Government of Ireland Bill enabling Civil servants to retire voluntarily, i.e., under the statutory conditions of retirement, has been inserted in the Bill to meet the cases of officials' who, although not removed from office or who may retire by permission, may find their positions during the transitional period distasteful; (2) whether he will state if it is now the policy of the Government to give Irish Civil servants the same terms on retirement as those proposed in the Bill of 1893; and (3) if he will state on what grounds Civil servants who may retire under the statutory conditions of retirement are offered in the present Government of Ireland Bill, considerably smaller pensions than were offered to the same class of officials in the Bill of 1893 and in the Irish Councils Bill, 1907?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The provisions of the Civil Service scheme in the Government of Ireland Bill were discussed at length in

    931
    Committee, and if the hon. Member will refer to the Debates of the 9th December, 1912, he will find that I explained fully the principles on which the scheme was based, both as respects voluntary and compulsory retirement and the reasons for not adopting the scheme of the Bill of 1893. It is not proposed to make the change which the hon. Member suggests in the second question.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in another place Lord Crewe said he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this unfairness?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, I believe that is so.

    Fishery at Louisburgh (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked whether the local constabulary have received official directions to keep constant watch by night and day over the river at Louisburgh for the detection of poachers; and whether it is the duty of the constabulary to act as water bailiffs for the Marquess of Sligo, the owner of the fishery?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to both paragraphs of the question is in the negative. It is, however, the duty of the police to enforce the fishery laws when any breach of those laws come under their notice.

    Welsh Central Board of Education.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the judge and counsel in the Welsh Central Board of Education case at Swansea Assizes; and whether the Board of Education proposes to take any steps to put the affairs of the Welsh Central Board of Education into proper working order?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the criticisms of and accusations of carelessness in the affairs of the Central Welsh Board made by Mr. Justice Atkin; whether he will make a special inquiry into the ad ministration of the Central Welsh Board; and whether he will issue Regulations which will render it less easy for such irregularities as have recently occurred to occur again or such temptations placed in the way of junior officials?
    Mr. PEASE: I have seen the remarks of the Assize judge which are referred to in both questions. Until the Welsh Central Board have had a full opportunity of considering the matter and taking action thereon, I am unable to say whether any action on my part will be necessary.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask whether the Board of Education is going to consider this matter?
    Mr. PEASE: I do not yet know whether any action will be necessary.

    Roads in Ireland (Classification).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether any steps are being taken to secure a classification of roads in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the Road Board are now considering the matter.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    BUCKINGHAM PALACE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, when the Conference on the Irish question has finished its labours, any portion of its proceedings will be officially published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not intended that anything further should be published.

    VOLUNTEER FORCES (ARMY PENSIONERS).
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether an Order has been issued from the War Office, or from any of those responsible for the command of His Majesty's Forces in Ireland, forbidding Army pensioners from taking part in the drilling or organisation of Volunteers in Ireland; and, if so, whether such Order applies in the case of General Richardson and the officers of the Army who have been associated with the Ulster Volunteers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter part does not, therefore, arise.

    SEARCHES FOR ARMS AND AMMUNITION.
    Captain DONELANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what instructions have been issued to officers of the Customs and Excise in Ireland as to searches for arms and ammunition in packages consigned by

    933
    train from one part of Ireland to another; will he lay a copy of all the instructions issued under the Arms Proclamation upon the Table; is he aware that two Customs officers, accompanied by five policemen, on Thursday last entered the station of the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway at Arklow, and there searched a package consigned from Dublin to a grocer in Arklow, but found no arms or ammunition; can he say whether since the issue of the Arms Proclamation any similar search at a railway station in the four North-Eastern counties of Ireland has taken place as regards any consignment of goods from another part of Ireland; and why special activity is shown outside these counties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is that no such instructions as those referred to have been issued to officers of Customs and Excise in Ireland. I have no information as to the incident at Arklow, but I am making inquiries. I am assured that it is not the case that the officers of Customs and Excise show greater activity outside the North-Eastern counties than inside them. If my hon. Friend supplies me with information to show that the assurance I have received is not justified by the facts, I shall cause the strictest investigation to be made. The Government realise that if any distinction be drawn in the administration of law according to the political opinion of those who offend against its provisions, all confidence in the administration of law in this country would disappear.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on whose instructions Customs officials inspect packets going to Ireland at Holyhead and again at North Wall, and charge 4s. for each inspection?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will look into the matter.
    Captain DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who gave the assurance to which he refers in his answer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have received that assurance from the head of the Department in this country. They have made inquiry, but if my hon. Friend will let me know of any particular case where there has been a departure from the principle I have laid down, I will be pleased to look into it.
    Mr. GINNELL: There are numerous cases.

DUBLIN DISTURBANCES.

  ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER SUSPENDED.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the following question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he is in a position to give the House full information as to the shocking occurrences in Dublin yesterday, and whether he can give the names of the officials responsible for the proceedings which led to the collisions which took place between the people and the military and the police; by whose orders the military fired on the people; whether the Riot Act was read, and whether any magistrate was present?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police telephoned to the Under-Secretary's Lodge about 2 p.m. on Sunday that arms were being landed from a yacht at Howth, and that he had already communicated with the constabulary and coastguards. The Under-Secretary arranged with the Assistant Commissioner to meet him at the castle, which the former reached about 2.45. He then sent for the Assistant Commissioner and the District Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the latter of whom came at once, and told the Under-Secretary that a large body of men had left Howth carrying the arms which had been landed. The Assistant Commissioner did not appear at the Castle at all, having gone to consult the military. The Superintendent of the Dublin Metropolitan Police came from the office to say that the Assistant Commissioner was sorry to say he was unable to stay and see the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary endeavoured to find where the Assistant Commissioner was, and in the meantime prepared the following Minute, which he sent to the office of the Dublin Metropolitan Police:—
  "Chief Secretary's Office. Dublin Castle.
  Assistant Commissioner.
  As regards the steps which you have taken on Your own responsibility to deal with the arms landed at Howth this morning. His Excellency is advised that forcible disarmament of the men now marching into Dublin with these arms should not in all the circumstances be attempted, but the names of the men carrying arms should, as far as possible, be taken and watch should be kept to ascertain the destination of the arms illegally imported. His Excellency cannot authorise any further steps in this matter at present.
  (Signed) J. B. D.
  27.7.14."
  The military were requisitioned by the Assistant Commissioner entirely on his own responsibility, and for the purpose of preventing the National Volunteers marching into the city, which he was satisfied could not be prevented unless the police were supported by an armed force of some kind. The Assistant Commissioner has been suspended pending an inquiry.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: He ought to be hanged!
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Ministers ought to be hanged.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are the murderers.
  Mr. BIRRELL: About 1 p.m. on Sunday a yacht landed arms at Howth, which were received by a large number of men, exceeding 1,000, who set off to march into Dublin through Clontarf. At Clontarf they were met by a body of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and 160 men of the King's Own Scottish Borderers. The police tried to disarm the men in front, which was done with a struggle. The casualties appear to have been three Volunteers and two soldiers, one of whom was shot through the knee, and another through the ankle, and one policeman. The soldiers did not fire.
  The soldiers then returned to their barracks, and an attack was made on them with missiles by an angry crowd, principally in Bachelors Walk, between O'Connell Bridge and the Metal Bridge. Major Haig, King's Own Scottish Borderers, took over command in Talbot Street, and was himself struck five times with missiles. Major Haig, in front of column, expostulated with mob, who were impeding soldiers; as he was speaking, several soldiers in rear of column, becoming exasperated, fired without orders. Thirty-one rounds in all were fired almost simultaneously. Officers succeeded in stopping the firing immediately, but casualties, amounting to three killed and thirty-two injured, had already occurred. A considerable number of the soldiers had by this time received severe injuries.
  A full inquiry into the conduct of the military will be held at once.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: As this is a matter which cannot be dealt with by question and answer across the floor of the House, I beg to ask the leave of the House to move the Adjournment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member would postpone that for a moment as there are some other questions?

  VOLUNTEER FORCES.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland whether it is a fact that on Saturday last 5,000 armed men, with five machine guns, marched through the main streets of the city of Belfast; whether these men were members of the Ulster Volunteers, whose object is to prevent the operation of constitutional law in Ulster; whether General Macready, the military magistrate, was in Belfast on Saturday; whether any orders were given to the police or to the military to hold up the Ulster Volunteers, and to demand the surrender of their rifles and machine guns; and, if not, why not; whether it is a fact that the police stopped the traffic and kept the streets clear for the march of the Ulster Volunteers; and whether, and if so, what reason can be assigned for the differential treatment by the authorities of the Ulster Volunteers in Belfast, as compared with their action in regard to the Irish Volunteers in Dublin yesterday?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is the fact that on Saturday last 5,000 armed men or thereabouts, with five machine guns, marched through the main streets of the city of Belfast. These men were members of the Ulster Volunteers. General Macready was in Belfast. No orders of any kind were given to the police to hold up the Volunteers or to demand the surrender of their rifles and machine guns. It is not a fact that the police stopped the traffic and kept the streets clear for the march of the Ulster Volunteers. I think that the answer which I have already given to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) answers the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

AUSTRIA AND SERVIA.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I rise to ask the Foreign Secretary a question of which I have given him notice: whether he would communicate any information to the

937
House as to the situation which exists between Austria and Servia?
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The House will, of course, be aware through the public Press of what the nature of the situation in Europe is at this moment. I think that it is due to the House that I should give in short narrative form the position which His Majesty's Government have so far taken up.
Last Friday morning I received from the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador the text of the communication made by the Austro-Hungarian Government to the Powers, which has appeared in the Press, and which included textually the demand made by the Austro-Hungarian Government upon Servia.
In the afternoon I saw other Ambassadors, and expressed the view that, as long as the dispute was one between Austria-Hungary and Servia alone, I felt that we had no title to interfere, but that, if the relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia became threatening, the question would then be one of the peace of Europe: a matter that concerned us all.
I did not then know what view the Russian Government had taken of the situation, and without knowing how things were likely to develop I could not make any immediate proposition; but I said that, if relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia did become threatening, the only chance of peace appeared to me to be that the four Powers—Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain, who were not directly interested in the Servian question—should work together both in St. Petersburgh and Vienna simultaneously to get both Austria-Hungary and Russia to suspend military operations while the four Powers endeavoured to arrange a settlement.
After I had heard that Austria-Hungary had broken off diplomatic relations with Servia, I made by telegraph yesterday afternoon the following proposal, as a practical method of applying the views that I had already expressed:—
I instructed His Majesty's Ambassadors in Paris, Berlin, and Rome to ask the
938
Governments to which they were accredited whether they would be willing to arrange that the French, German, and Italian Ambassadors in London should meet me in a Conference to be held in London immediately to endeavour to find a means of arranging the present difficulties. At the same time, I instructed His Majesty's Ambassadors to ask those Governments to authorise their representatives in Vienna, St. Petersburgh, and Belgrade to inform the Governments there of the proposed Conference, and to ask them to suspend all active military operations pending the result of the Conference.
To that I have not yet received complete replies, and it is, of course, a proposal in which the co-operation of all four Powers is essential. In a crisis so grave as this, the efforts of one Power alone to preserve the peace must be quite ineffective.
The time allowed in this matter has been so short that I have had to take the risk of making a proposal without the usual preliminary steps of trying to ascertain whether it would be well received. But, where matters are so grave and the time so short, the risk of proposing something that is unwelcome or ineffective cannot be avoided. I cannot but feel, however, assuming that the text of the Servian reply as published this morning in the Press is accurate, as I believe it to be, that it should at least provide a basis on which a friendly and impartial group of Powers, including Powers who are equally in the confidence of Austria-Hungary and of Russia, should be able to arrange a settlement that would be generally acceptable.
It must be obvious to any person who-reflects upon the situation that the moment the dispute ceases to be one between Austria-Hungary and Servia and becomes one in which another Great Power is involved, it can but end in the greatest catastrophe that has ever befallen the Continent of Europe at one blow: no one can say what would be the limit of the issues that might be raised by such a conflict, the consequences of it, direct and; indirect would be incalculable.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that this morning the German Emperor accepted the principle of mediation which he has proposed?
Sir E. GREY: I understand that the German Government are favourable to the idea of mediation in principle as between Austria-Hungary and Russia, but that as to the particular proposal of applying that principle by means of a Conference which I have described to the House, the reply of the German Government has not yet been received.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what business will be taken after eleven o'clock to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Money Resolution of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company Agreement, and the remaining stages of the Osborne Estate Bill.
Perhaps I may inform the House that' in consequence of the circumstances which have arisen with regard to which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. John Redmond) has already submitted a proposal to call the attention of the House to them, we feel that it is impossible to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Amending Bill to-morrow, but I will make a definite statement to-morrow as to the day on which it will be taken.
To-morrow we shall take the Colonial Office and the Board of Education Votes.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say why it is not possible to proceed with the Amending Bill to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: As we all know, there was a meeting of the Irish Members arranged for to-day which was to consider this matter. These unfortunate occurrences which have taken place in Dublin naturally have preoccupied their attention, and we do not think it fair to them, or to the rest of the House, to take this Bill to-morrow.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Does that answer mean that the policy of the Government must first be directed by the Nationalist party?
The PRIME MINISTER: The policy of the Government is to secure something in the nature of a settlement, and the circumstances which have arisen have necessarily impeded the attainment of that end.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think these circumstances point to the urgent necessity of proceeding immediately with the Amending Bill; and may I also ask how many men the Government wish to be killed in Ireland before they come to a settlement?

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I rise to ask the permission of the House to move the Adjournment, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the serious events in Dublin yesterday, and the loss of life consequent upon them, and the conduct of the officials responsible for those events."
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [SIXTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £483,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I hope that it will be possible for the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us more time on this Vote in view of the circumstances which have arisen, and the fact that our time to-night will be limited. There are many of use who wish to make strong criticism on the general policy of the Admiralty, and it is hardly possible for us to discuss that between now and 8.15. I think it would be most unpatriotic under the circumstances abroad for anyone to make a drastic criticism showing up the weak points in our naval policy at the present moment.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I support the appeal made by my Noble Friend? The First Lord of the Admiralty will quite readily understand that there is a good deal to be said in reference to Admiralty policy, and as to other parts of the Government's policy, from a critical point of view; and my Noble Friend, and I think the House generally, will feel that, at a moment like this, when the clouds are very dark—although we all hope, some of us perhaps with great confidence, that trouble may be averted—so long as those clouds are there, it is undesirable in the interests of the country as a whole that any criticisms should be offered upon the naval or general defensive powers of this country. My Noble Friend has suggested that if this policy is adopted the Government might afford some other opportunity, supposing happily we have peace and there is no continuation of the present serious condition of things. I am aware that the ordinary obligations of time make it difficult, if not impossible, to give the same opportunity, but I think it would be possible for the Government, in some other way, to afford opportunities for the Opposition and the Committee generally
    956
    to express their views with regard to the naval policy, even though it is compulsory to obtain the Vote within the necessary time to comply with the law. I make this suggestion on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has been obliged to leave the House, and I do it in all sincerity, not that we are not prepared to make our case or unwilling to make it, but because we hold very strongly that, at a moment like this, there should be but one voice in this House and in the country, and that that voice should not be one of criticism or of fault-finding but of the unanimous support of His Majesty's Government in conducting negotiations and operations which are always difficult and which may be fraught with the gravest consequences to the peoples of Europe. It is solely with that object that I support the appeal of my Noble Friend to the Government.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is quite possible that the Committee may not unanimously desire to go into general questions of naval policy to-day, but, though I might be inclined to share the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in that respect, I think there are questions relating to the Admiralty which might well be taken to-day. There are large labour questions which will arise in connection with this Vote, among them the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), which was discussed on the last occasion. I would suggest it would be possible to clear off those questions before 8.15, and postpone questions of policy to another occasion.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think after what we have heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite, one is entitled to call attention to the fact that discussion on the matters referred to by him would come up on Vote 8, and therefore it will not be absolutely necessary to go into those questions now.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I quite appreciate the line of argument taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), and we all agree that it would be very undesirable at this moment to go into general questions of Imperial policy; but there are matters, apart from Vote 12, upon which we agreed to give the general discussion, which would arise on Votes 13, 14 and 15, to which the objection the right hon.

    957
    Gentleman has raised does not apply. They are non-effective Votes, and there are several Amendments to them on the Paper. A number of questions arise on those Votes which I think we might very well be able to discuss. We will take Votes 13, 14 and 15, and postpone Votes 8 and 12 to another day for general discussion
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If Votes 13. 14 and 15 are obtained, will any other Votes be taken?
    Mr. GEORGE LLOYD (Staffordshire W.): Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us a whole day for Votes 8 and 12?
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I do not know whether the Prime Minister has considered this question in connection with the proposal for giving a day on Imperial defence.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already stated that.
    Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to my question?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: On Votes 13, 14, and 15, matters connected with labour questions cannot be raised, and, if we postpone the main general discussion, cannot the labour subjects be taken now?
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. GRETTON: I have a suggestion to make which might be for the general convenience of the Committee, namely, that we should take Vote 12 to-day on the understanding that certain questions which hon. Members wish to discuss should be discussed and that subsequently we can take the Debate on the general policy on Vote 8.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): As the Committee well knows we have got to have money to pay our way with. We must have enough to carry us on for a week or ten days till the next day in Committee, and, therefore, I would respectfully suggest that we might be allowed to get Vote 12 as well as Votes 13, 14, and 15, and that on Vote 8 there shall be an understanding that the discussion shall be of a general character. That would, indeed, be very appropriate, because Vote 8 touches all the great issues of naval policy. Vote 12 will enable special discussion relating to those labour
    958
    questions in which hon. Members on this side take an interest. If that arrangement commends itself to the Committee I am sure it will be satisfactory.
    Mr. LONG: We do not want to squabble about the particular Votes taken, nor to have a Vote initiated on which we should not be able to take our part, having expressed the view which I have already expressed, but I think there should be a clear understanding that any Votes taken to-day are Votes which are necessary for purposes of public policy, and which will not raise questions of Imperial policy, and that the general discussion over the wider and larger subjects should wait for Vote 8 on a subsequent day.
    Mr. G. LLOYD: Am I to understand that we are to get a whole day for the general discussion on whatever day it is taken?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think this arrangement requires my assent from the Chair. It is an extension of the usual general discussion. The Committee will recollect that when we were discussing Vote A it was agreed, with the assent of the Chair, that the general Debate should be resumed on Vote 12, and the present arrangement, I lake it, is to extend that arrangement further to Vote 8. Under the special circumstances of to-day I have no hesitation in giving my assent to that proposal.
    Mr. BARNES: I desire to mention a few matters—
    Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order. May I ask what is the Question?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question I read out as I came into the Chair.
    Mr. BARNES: The questions in which we are specially interested in this Debate are questions of wages and the conditions of labour generally in the dockyards and in the Fleet. I do not know whether I should be in order in discussing the conditions of labour in the Fleet on this Vote, but at all events I desire to refer to the conditions on shore. If in order, I would confine my observations to something that might be said with regard to the training and conditions of seamen, but first of all I should like to speak about the wages of labourers in the dockyard towns. I am appreciative of the fact, and I am extremely thankful to say that we have got

    959
    very considerable advances during the last few years, I think the years covered by the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara), and I may scarcely add that I am not going to say anything which would harden his heart to-day in regard to some further advances. There have been concession of wages amounting, I believe, to three shillings per week granted to the labourers since the present Government came into power. While I am glad of that, I am going to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he should continue his welldoing and go ahead and grant a further advance, and even if he granted the further advance he would still be behind the contractors, and, what is perhaps a better comparison, behind the pay of the men in the service of the municipal authorities in the dockyard towns. I had occasion, the other day, to see some men on these points, and I had given to me a copy of a Petition, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman has also received, with regard to the wages of the labourers in those towns. I have here some supplementary evidence given in support of the Petition, and that contains statements as to the pay of the municipal employés. The Government labourers are paid at the rate of 23s. per week. That is common to all the dockyard centres, and is the rate of pay of all the labourers in the employment of the Admiralty, except in Haulbowline, and for some reason which I have never been able to fathom, the labourers in Ireland at Haulbowline are paid 1s. less per week than the labourers on this side, or 22s. as against 23s. If I were an Irish Member I should be disposed to demand that the pay at Haulbowline should be the same as the pay on this side. I do not know whether there is anything to justify that 1s. per week less.
    Apart from that, and even if the Haulbowline men were brought up to 23s., that pay is by no means what it ought to be. Although there are various reasons which might be urged, and probably I shall give some of them before I sit down, in favour of increases being given in rates of pay to mechanics, especially boiler makers and rivetters, and people of that sort, yet I am more concerned to-day in raising the base line and the granting of something like a reasonable decent living wage to the ordinary labourers. Those labourers have
    960
    23s. per week, and let me tell the House what is paid by the municipal authorities in those same towns to their labourers. In Chatham, the municipal employés are paid 28s. 3d. per week, except the carters who get 26s., being thus 5s. 3d. and 3s. respectively, more than the wages paid by the Government. The Portsmouth local authority pay 26s. and 27s. The men start at 24s., and after, I think twelve months, the Portsmouth Corporation pay them 26s. and a few months afterwards, they are paid 27s. Thus, in the chief naval port of the country the labourers employed by the Government get 3s., and in some cases 4s. less than the amount paid to the men employed by the Portsmouth Corporation. In Devonport the Corporation pay their men 26s. or 3s. more than the Government men. Perhaps the most striking position of all is that in regard to the boys who I am told, have had no increase in their pay, but are receiving exactly the same now as they were thirty years ago. I refer to the yard boys. That, I am given to understand, is the case, and notwithstanding all the increases of wages that have occurred. In this connection it must be remembered that the standard of education and the age at which the boys are taken into the Government service are higher now. Boys used to be taken at thirteen years, but you cannot get boys in now under fifteen. Those boys of fifteen years of age with a fairly good smattering of elementary education receive the magnificent sum of 6s. per week, rising at twenty years of age to 16s. per week. If they were mechanics then, there would be something to justify the lower rate of pay, but they are simply yard boys not learning any trade.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Apprentices.
    Mr. BARNES: I question if an apprentice gets 16s. per week. The boys of whom I speak are not apprentices. They do not get the advantage of some supplementary education by the authorities, and are merely yard boys. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some alteration and considerable improvement should be made in the pay given to those boys as well as to the labourers. Let me deal also with a matter which has often been spoken about here, and that is, as to the rates of pay of rivetters and people engaged generally in those operations corresponding to those which are called

    961
    boiler-making and ship-building in outside dockyards. The case was put to me that those men are getting very considerably less, and I am told that the piece-work rivetting pay is 30 per cent. and in many cases much more than 30 per cent. less than is paid by the yards outside. I have here piece-work rates showing that, whereas 13s. 4d. per 100 rivets is paid in the ordinary shipbuilding yards, in the dockyards you pay in some cases only 6s. per 100. I have explained to these men that the conditions are altogether different—that the Government profess to give more regular employment. But I am told that there is not a great deal in that, that the men have been taken on at the dockyards and not retained for any great length of time, and that, at all events, good trade unionists as many of them are, and primarily concerned in maintaining the standard rates of wages as paid elsewhere, they would take their chances of the fluctuations of employment just the same as the men do in the shipyard centres, with all that that involves.
    I wish also to say a word on my usual topic—the training of the boys and artificers in the Navy. I should like to be clear on one or two points that were in question when this subject was last discussed. With regard to the boys, I then put in a plea that the rating of what is known as boy artificers should be recruited in such a way as to give a wider selection. Up to that time boys had been selected in some way or another by inspection by certain officers of the Admiralty, subject to certain qualifications, one of which was that the boys should have served two years in a secondary school. I pointed out then that it was not every working man who could give his boy the chance of serving two years in a secondary school, but that, on the contrary, the average working man could do nothing of the kind; and that inasmuch as this was a valuable privilege—that is to say, the boys are given a chance of going into the Government service at fifteen or sixteen years of age, with the opportunity of having a splendid education provided at the Government expense; they are given, in addition, a chance of physical culture which the outside boy has not and cannot get—that all this was of considerable value, and therefore it should not be given to a small class of people unless it was absolutely consistent with the interest of the public service that it should be so limited. I do not think it is consistent with the public
    962
    service that this requirement of two years' service in a secondary school should remain as a qualification for entrance as a boy artificer.
    I do not want in any way to lower the standard of educational requirement. If the Admiralty want boys to pass a certain educational test, well and good. I do not say anything against that. But it is quite another thing to say that a boy shall not only go through an educational test, but also satisfy the authorities that he has passed two years in a secondary school. I gather that there has been some alteration since the matter was last discussed. It has never been stated on the floor of the House, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the precise character of the alteration so that there may be no doubt about it. I believe that even now there is some provision that at least one year shall have been spent in a secondary school. I want to press the right hon. Gentleman that, in order to make the field of selection as wide as possible and to give the largest possible number of people the opportunity of availing themselves of this valuable privilege of getting free education for their sons and starting them in life with a trade in their hands, all that should be necessary is that the boy should pass the educational test set before him, and that there should be no provision about attendance at a secondary school or anything of that sort. I think that that is a very reasonable suggestion, and I hope it is one in which I shall be supported by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford) and many other Members who want the best possible boys to enter the Service, and at the same time want those boys selected from the widest possible area.
    I turn now to a very valuable concession which has been made by the Admiralty in respect to artificers. There has been a great deal of complaint.—I think justifiable complaint—that the artificer class have not had the opportunity for preferment that they ought to have had. The artificer class have performed the duties imposed upon them with regularity and efficiency, and there has been no complaint as to their disciplinary spirit or anything else. But the artificers have made complaints, and on many occasions when those complaints have been made to the authorities they have not had the sympathetic attention which, I think, they might have had. There has, however, been one very valuable concession made quite recently by

    963
    the Admiralty. Here, again, I want full effect given to that concession, so that the largest possible number of men may share in it. The Admiralty have now agreed to the initiation of a new class of officer to be called Mate E. The difference between this Mate E, who is going to be really an engineer-lieutenant, and the old lieutenant, who was promoted from the ranks of the artificer class, is that, whereas under the old conditions the artificer had to be somewhere about forty-five or fifty years of age before he could possibly be made a lieutenant, under the new conditions it is proposed to select certain men from the artificer class at about thirty or thirty-two years of age, and these men are to be given further supplementary education at the Government expense and made straight away into engineer-lieutenants. That is a capital provision. The best feature about it is that the selection is to be made at a comparatively early age, so that it gives a man the opportunity of associating with the other men in the wardroom on equal terms before he gets over the transitional process.
    But here, again, the Admiralty seem as though they cannot do a thing generously or whole-heartedly, and I will make another suggestion, which I hope they will carry out. The provision is that a man must have eight years' service, and he must not be over thirty-two years of age. Let us see how that works as between the boy artificer and the man who comes from the ordinary workshop, and has had his trade given him at the expense of his parents. The boy artificer comes into the Navy at sixteen years of age, and from that day he has all his training—theoretical, academic, and otherwise—at the expense of the nation. He is no burden at all upon his parents. At twenty or twenty-two years of age he goes on full pay as an artificer, and at thirty-two years of age he has had sixteen years' service in the Navy. Presumably, before he reaches thirty-two years of age, he is qualified to pass all the tests which I am told are rightly imposed by the Admiralty for promotion to the rank of Mate E. Take the other men, who come from the ordinary workshops—boilermakers, carpenters, engineers, and all sorts of mechanics. Such a man joins the Navy at an average age of twenty-three or twenty-four; therefore, at thirty-two years of age he may have served the eight years' qualifying period or he may not.
    964
    If he joins shortly after twenty-four he cannot possibly qualify for Mate E, while if he joins at twenty-three he has a margin of one year only. I wish to suggest either that the eight years' period should be shortened in the case of men from the ordinary workshops or that the age limit of thirty-two should be slightly raised. It may appear that I am now somewhat inconsistent, because I said just now that the chief thing in favour of this new scheme was that it applied at an early age. I still think that, but, after all, one year added to thirty-two would not make a great deal of difference in that respect, whereas it would make considerable difference in the margin of the man who joined the Navy at twenty-three years of age. Moreover, if there is to be any advantage given to one man as against another, I submit that it ought to be in favour of the man from the workshop, because he has not had the chances of an education such as that which is provided for these boy artificers. I am not saying anything against that at all; I think it a very good thing that the best education should be given. But the ordinary mechanic from the workshop has, in most cases, had only the ordinary elementary board school education; he is not up to passing technical and theoretical examinations, and consequently any additional education that he has he gets himself after he has entered the Service. Therefore, I think it is extremely to his credit if he puts himself in the position of passing the somewhat severe technical examination imposed by the authorities as the price of going in for promotion to Mate E.
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give these points his serious and generous consideration. I have put them just as they occurred to me, having had to speak unexpectedly. As I have said, I am most concerned about the base line of wages in the dockyards. We have made considerable advances during the last eight years, but 23s. per week is still a miserably inadequate, and I should say almost discreditable, rate of pay for the Government to give any body of workmen. Consider 23s. per week in a large town like Portsmouth or Devonport, where I am told the least rent payable is about 6s. or 7s. per week for a labouring man—and he cannot get much for that Under those conditions, with living in those large towns rising, as it does every day, with rent at something very nearly one-third

    965
    of this miserable pay of 23s., I say although we have got 3s. during the last eight years, that that 23s. per week is still far too low, having regard to the man's needs, to cover the ordinary decent requirements of a family. We must also have regard to the fact that without the resources of which the right hon. Gentleman has behind him, and with the ratepayers—as he knows—always nagging when there is any increase of rates, the municipal authorities in the dockyard towns are paying 3s. and 4s. per week beyond the dockyard rate. I might, if I were desirous, also compare the rate paid by the Government with the rates paid by private employers. Behind me is the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge). He has, I know, a great many enrolled in his union. I am not quite, but almost, sure of the figures when I say that the rate of pay of the men who are enrolled in the ranks of the union of which my hon. Friend is secretary, is from 50 to 60 per cent. higher than that paid by the Government. I might go to the shipyard centres of the country and cite the rates of pay there. I know-that the Government pay a rate based very largely upon their ideas of twenty and thirty years ago.
    The Government are slower to move than any other authority throughout the length and breadth of the country. While they have paid 3s. more during the last few years I venture to say that other private employers and municipal employers have picked up the rates a great deal more than 3s. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan), who has also a large experience of unskilled labour, being secretary of a union that numbers 130,000 odd, can tell a somewhat similar tale. It-is calculated, I know, that these men, very largely in consequence of the organisation of unskilled labour during the last few years—which is not shared in as it might be by the men employed by the Admiralty!—have had their wages put up a great deal; more than that given by the dockyard authorities during eight and a half years. Therefore, that is my first appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should give his serious sympathetic and generous consideration to the dockyard men, and pay them, I do not say rates equal to the municipal authorities—I suppose that would be asking too much!—but, at all events, I ask that something should be done towards picking them up to the same level. If a shilling more were given this year, as an earnest of picking
    966
    up the rates to the ordinary level of the municipal authorities in the near future, I, for my part, would be satisfied. I believe that that shilling would do a very great deal towards carrying comfort and hope into thousands of homes in these dockyard towns that are now dreary, dark and comfortless, simply because the Government authorities are not paying a sufficient wage. In addition to that point, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to the other points that I have mentioned, the chief of which is the desirability of the boy artificer being drawn from a larger class of the community, so as to give the largest possible number of people the advantage of those educational and other facilities given by the Government to boys. I trust, too, that in carrying out the principle of selection of the artificer class—with a view to their making themselves into lieutenants in the Navy—that at least as good an opportunity will be given to those men who are drawn from the workshop as is given to the boys who are trained at the Government expense.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Although, unlike hon. Friends behind me, I do not represent a dockyard constituency, nor like the hon. Members referred to by the last speaker, the hon. Member for Blackfriars, am I the secretary of a trade union, it may be that representations from an entirely disinterested quarter will have some little effect upon the Treasury Bench when they know, as I think some do know, that it comes from one who has gone through precisely the same kind of experience as that referred to by the hon. Member for Blackfriars, as between the wages that are paid by the dockyards and the wages that are paid under nearly similar circumstances outside—even allowing for steadiness of employment in the dockyard with a pension attached to the established men—there is no fair comparison in regard to the particular classes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars has referred. There is not a single one of the representations which he made which ought not to be supported, and which will not be supported, by anyone in any portion of the House who has any real knowledge of the subject. As regards the difference between the wages at the larger dockyard of Haulbowline, in the principles established as to the differential rate of pay, the great cost of living has not been quite fully taken into account by my hon.

    967
    Friend the Member for Blackfriars. With that exception—and it is the only exception—I believe that the appeal which he has made to the Admiralty is thoroughly and entirely justified. There can be, as I think, no good reason why there should be a difference in labourers' wages of something like 3s. per week between those employed in the dockyards and those employed under the municipalities. The municipalities perhaps have not such good arrangements for retirement as the dockyards have, but even allowing for that difference there cannot be so large a disproportion as 3s. between the two classes of employment. The hon. Member for Blackfriars appealed for 1s. per week.
    One shilling per week does not seem a large sum of money to hon. Members in this House, but a shilling per week makes a great difference in the weekly budget of the labourer. I was surprised, considering his opportunities, at the moderation of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I quite expected him to ask for perhaps twice as much. If he had done so he would not have been guilty of any gross exaggeration of the needs of the case. I sincerely hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty comes to reply that he will be able to give a favourable answer to the appeal. Let him not forget that the Board of Trade Returns have shown clearly and definitely that it takes 20s. to-day to buy the same amount of food and other things as 17s. 9d. purchased some eight or nine years ago. That it a fact which no one has attempted to deny, and which is shown by statistics issued by the Board of Trade. Turning to the point with which the hon. Member for Blackfriars concluded, I would like to say that there is a very great hardship indeed inflicted upon the young workmen who, being educated in the ordinary way in the workshop for practical knowledge, and perhaps at the night school or evening classes for theoretical knowledge, enters into the artificer class when his apprenticeship is finished. That young man has been educated at the expense of his father to a large extent, and at the expense of himself, and certainly he ought not to be put into a position of inferiority of opportunity compared with the young man who has been educated largely at the Government expense. Undoubtedly the boy artificer entering at sixteen and getting his trade taught him by the naval instructor and by the opportunities of the workshop is being educated very largely
    968
    indeed at the expense of the Admiralty. I do not desire for one moment to suggest that these opportunities should be reduced, but I do feel that the ordinary workman coming out of the workshop ought not to be placed in a less favourable position than the one who has been educated at the Government expense. That point, I think, should be very easily dealt with by a change of regulation in regard to the test. It is quite true—though I speak subject to correction—that the boy's period at a secondary school, which has been approved by the dockyard authorities, has been reduced. The length of time required is not so great as it used to be. But I would support the appeal that the test examination—the test of the length of time spent in the workshop in actual practical experience, and then upon the top of that the test examination for theoretical knowledge—ought to be sufficient to enable the artificer to be placed upon the same footing as the one who has gone into the Service through the medium of the Boy Artificer Class.
    I do not propose to refer in detail to the question of piecework in regard to the riveters to which the hon. Member opposite has called attention, except to say this, that if the figures he has given—that is 13s. 4d. for 100 rivets in shipyards outside—and I presume he refers to shipyards on the North-East Coast and on the Clyde—is to compare in any way with the 6s. per 100 in dockyards, then the disproportion is altogether too great. I quite admit that there ought to be taken into account, most fairly taken into account, not so much the steadiness of employment, but in addition the question of the pension to the established men. But when you do take all this into account to the fullest possible extent, it cannot possibly explain how it is that for work of the most exacting character, work which physically strains the men to the very uttermost, as riveting does, and for work which must be the very best—and the difference between a good and a bad rivet is only known to those who are practical men!—the disproportion should be so great. I cannot help feeling that the Admiralty may have been trading to an unreasonable extent upon the opportunity which pensions and steadiness of employment give them to get their work done perhaps cheaper than they are justified in doing in comparison with contract work outside. I speak, as I have said, from an entirely disinterested standpoint in supporting the

    969
    very reasonable representations made by the hon. Member who spoke first. He has put forward his case in a very powerful, clear and lucid manner, and I certainly hope the Admiralty will be able to make the conclusions for which he has so reasonably asked.
    Mr. JOHN MULDOON: I arise, not for the purpose of prolonging this discussion at any undue length, but for the purpose of bringing under the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty a question which I have frequently pressed upon him, and which it will be my duty to press upon him so long as the grievance exists. That grievance is that the labourers at Haulbowline are paid 1s. a week less than labourers are paid in any other Department of the Admiralty. I thank the hon. Member for Blackfrairs for his reference to this subject; and with reference to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I think he should be reminded of the fact that the defence put forward for the payment of 1s. a week less to the labourers at Haul-bowline has never been established. I have frequently brought this forward, and I have been always met by the same arguments in defence. They are three in number. One defence is that the cost of living at Haulbowline district is less than in other Government dockyard towns which have been mentioned. The other is that the cost of housing is less than in other Government dockyard towns, and the third is the weekly wages paid in outside employments in the locality. Now every one of these defences has failed, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether upon the occasion of his visit to Haulbowline, and when he talked this matter over with the men there, it was not shown to him that housing was as expensive in Haulbowline as in other Government dockyard towns in the country; and as to the cost of living I think it has been clearly established that the cost of living at Haulbowline is more expensive than in some of the Government dockyard towns in England. Then there is the question of outside employment.
    I submit that I have put an estimate before the right hon. Gentleman showing that the local authority—which is the best test in a place like Haulbowline, that is the Queenstown local authority—pays larger and better wages to its labourers than the Government in any Government dockyard. Though all
    970
    these three defences have failed, this anomaly and this differentiation still continues. I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he not feel that we have a real grievance so long as this state of affairs continues, and now the defences put forward for it have failed, I ask him how long is it intended it shall continue? A shilling a week, as pointed out, may mean a great deal for those employés at Queens-town. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take up this question again with a strong hand, and see that these labourers are put under the same conditions as the labourers in other Government dockyards. If I have to criticise the policy of the Admiralty in this respect, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Queenstown they are not unmindful of the fact that something substantial has been done for them by the present advisers to the Admiralty. They have made a new experiment there, and a very excellent experiment, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter firmly in hand and equalise the wages paid in the Government dockyard of Haulbowline with the wages of the other Government dockyards in the country. As I said to him before there will be no peace for him as long as this state of affairs continues, and what I attach more importance to, there will be no peace for myself so long as it continues.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I agree with the remarks made by several of the speakers this afternoon, and in what I have to say I wish primarily, and more particularly, to say a word about the labourers. The hon. Member for the Blaekfriars Division has given details with regard to the wages paid in the various dockyard towns, including Haulbowline, and he quoted figures to show that there is a difference in the wages to the disadvantage of Haulbowline. I have heard Debates upon this particular point in this House, and what I gathered was that there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion in the House whenever this point was raised, that no case has been made out for a differentiation in the wages between the labourers at Haulbowline and the labourers on this side. What seems to me more astounding is this that the wages to the labourers at Woolwich should be 25s. and the wages for the dockyard towns should be only 23s.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the Woolwich rate is the London rate.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I want to deal with that point because Woolwich, of course, as I understand, is within the London district. But there are circumstances surrounding the conditions of life of the labourers, particularly in Devonport and Plymouth, which indicate, to my mind, that the cost of living in those two towns for one point of view, is extraordinarily high, and particularly with regard to rent. From inquiries I have made the cost of rent, particularly in Devonport and Plymouth, seems to be extremely high. I have that information from one of the officers in my own union. In Belfast he was paying a matter of 10s. a week house rent. He has since gone to live in Plymouth, and he was unable to get a house under a rent of £40 per annum. There is another point that might be of interest to the Admiralty, and it is this: I do not know whether they have taken the trouble to make any inquiry as to the rate of wages paid by the various municipalities in this country. I think they ought to, because after all the Government holds itself up as paying a rate of wages that is at any rate better than that paid by the ordinary competitive employer. The same position is taken up by various municipal corporations up and down the country. We see such an enormous variation as the figures suggested by the hon. Member for Black-friars running from 3s. to 4s. a week, and I say this variation exists practically throughout the country with regard to all municipal corporations as compared with the wages paid to Government employés.
    I have some little knowledge with regard to the wages paid up and down the country, and I want to say this in order to emphasise the statement made by the hon. Member for Blaekfriars, that though the rate of wages in private employment is, I must confess, somewhat lower than the wages paid in the dockyard towns, still private employers of this country have shown themselves more willing to advance the wages of their labourers than the Admiralty. In the particular organisation with which I am connected, there are labourers in the Birmingham area whose wages were roughly only 18s. a week, and by one swoop tens of thousands of them were raised from 18s. to 23s., so that they got an advance in wages of not less than 5s. Besides that, the cost of rent in Birmingham is, in my judgment, from 1s. to 2s. a week less than in the dockyard towns. So that the wages paid to the labourers in the Birmingham area are as
    972
    good and certainly not less than that paid by the Government in the dockyard towns, and I am convinced that the conditions of life existing among the labourers in the Birmingham area are very much better than amongst the labourers in the dockyard towns. I know, of course, the cost of living has very materially increased, and personally I do not think that the advances so far given to the labourers in the dockyard towns give them any advantage whatever when the increased cost of living is taken into account as compared with the cost of living previous to that advance being given. Therefore I would suggest that these men are worthy of further consideration than they have received up to the present moment.
    5.0 P.M.
    After all we have got to consider the position of the labourers in this country. He has got his rent to pay; as a rule he has a wife and a family, larger than the ordinary family, to maintain. I think it is only a fair statement of the case to say that a labourer with 23s. per week has only the bare means of subsistence. There is really no margin upon which a man can work. The least little difficulty he gets into, whether in the shape of sickness or misfortune, hits him a severe blow from which it is very difficult for him to recover. It means he has to travel along under a load of debt, harassing both himself and his wife, and preventing him from giving a better chance to his children than ho himself has had. It keeps his nose to the grindstone, and prevents him making any advance in his business. It may be said with perfect truth that the labourers in other employments have a very much better chance of advancement than in the dockyards. There, of course, they have a chance of becoming what is called skilled labourers I give every credit to the Secretary to the Admiralty for that, although I disagree with the method. At the same time I think where you have in many of the industrial centres a number of private employers and firms there is a range of choice and opportunities that do not exist in dockyard towns, where the men can only work for one firm. There is no other firm in existence, except private firms, that sometimes do business with the Government by private contract. Therefore I think the labourers have better chances than the labourers of the dockyard. In any case there are many openings for men who are labourers with private firms for improving and bettering their position.

    973
    They have greater diversity of employment where there are a considerable number of private contractors and firms, and the men have chances of advancement which simply do not exist in dockyard towns. Therefore, I think there is someright to claim some improvement in the wages so far as these men are concerned from that point of view. There is another matter that should weigh with the Admiralty. After all, they ought to set some example to the private employers. Personally, I do not think they do. I think they may take this credit, at any rate, that possibly they are in the main as good as the ordinary employer who has some bowels of compassion with regard to the wages of his labourers. But I do not think they can establish a case that they are any better than the ordinary employer who has some little consideration. As a matter of fact, I know that there are thousands and tens of thousands of labourers in this country who are getting a matter of 6d. an hour for their labour and working fifty-three hours per week. That makes a real difference. It is true that these men work a larger number of hours than the labourers in the dockyard towns, but, whereas the one man takes 23s. home to his wife, the other takes 26s. 6d., and that makes a very considerable difference to the standard of comfort and the position which that labourer can occupy amongst those in his own district. Let me give a case in point. I have already mentioned Coventry, where the standard rate for all labourers is no less than 6d. per hour. There you have Government contractors, firms making motor cars and bicycles, and yet every one of those firms pay their labourers no less than 6d. per hour for fifty-three hours per week, making a wage of 26s. 6d. per week, and 27s. in London.
    I do not wish to labour this point, because I am sure it will be apparent to the Secretary to the Admiralty. After all, though it is true that these men work a few hours more than the men in the dockyard towns, we were told when the eight hours' day was given in the dockyard towns that it should not be used to the detriment of the men, and that it was intended to be given as an advantage to them. I wish to say that it is no advantage at all as things go—in fact, I have shown that it is a disadvantage to the men on the bottom scale. With regard to the shorter hours of labour, I would say that with regard to skilled men the shortening
    974
    of the hours of labour are an advantage because there is a margin between the wages they earn and the amount it takes to keep their families. I suggest that there is a fair and reasonable margin between the wages of the skilled mechanic and his cost of living, but when you come down to the labourer there is no such margin at all. As a matter of fact, the wages of the labourer are never sufficient to enable him to purchase the ordinary necessaries, decencies, and comforts of life. What it means is that there is always many things that the labourer and his wife and family have to go without that the man who is a skilled mechanic can get. It would, in a sense, be an advantage to the labourer if he were allowed to work fifty-three hours a week, or give some consideration which would place him not at such a great disadvantage as he is with regard to the wages paid in towns like Coventry. I know that there are thousands and tens of thousands of labourers in this country getting 6d. an hour for their labour. The men in the building trade get 6d., 6½d., and 7½d. per hour. It may be that there is a certain amount of skill in their labour, and it may be that they are not so regularly employed as the men in the dockyard towns. That may be so, but why should you, because there may be some speculative doubt, pay the man in the dockyard towns a less wage than the man in these other avocations?
    It may be that there is some variation in the regularity of their employment. I am not prepared to admit that that is the case, because anyone who is connected with the organisation of labour, apart from Government employment, knows that the men in the building trade may be employed in the building trade to-day and in the gasworks to-morrow, or in various other occupations where labour is casual; but, as a matter of fact, such labourers are very seldom out of employment for more than a day and some times only for a few hours. When trade is good, as a rule, these men are regularly employed in all sorts of occupations, and with the wages they receive I venture to say that, even with their irregularity of employment, they are, in my judgment, infinitely better off than the labourers in the dockyard towns. I suggest that the appeal put forward by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division is a very moderate and a very modest one. People sometimes suggest that hon. Members of this House who sit on these benches are always making extravagant

    975
    demands—why, heaven only knows! I contend that the argument I have used is a perfectly reasonable one, and one which nobody can refute in this House; and I think it is an argument that ought to move the compassion of men who are, at any rate, far above the ordinary wants and requirements of the men about whom I am directing my discourse. I ask that more consideration should be shown to these people. I think their lot in life is very hard. It is very narrow. They have a dull, hard, steady grind from the cradle to the grave, and a little compassion, as far as these men are concerned, would, in my judgment, be money well spent, and it would be expenditure that would bring great advantage, not only to the men and their wives, but it would enable them to give a better upbringing and a better education to their children.
    The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said something with regard to the position of the mechanician class. This is a matter upon which I have spoken very often before. I have not the slightest doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty knows as much about this matter as I can tell him, but nevertheless I want him to understand that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with regard to the complaints we have made with reference to the mechanician class. As I have said before the men who are artificers in the Navy are practically on parallel lines with the men who are engineers in the mercantile marine. The position I am putting is that the men in the mercantile marine have an infinitely better prospect through their service in the engineering line in the mecantile marine than exactly the same class of men have in the Navy. Neither I nor the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division can understand why this difference should be made, and so far as I have listened to the discussions, no Secretary to the Admiralty has ever been able to explain why there should be this disparity in treatment between two sets of men, who come from exactly the same source, and do exactly the same kind of work. I do not understand why this disparity should continue. I believe it is a matter of fact that although the wages in the mercantile marine are what one might fairly term good wages at the present moment, they are receiving an advance of wages which has become very general throughout the country.
    With regard to the artificer class I believe, as a matter of fact, their wages
    976

    remain stationary, and have remained stationary for close upon thirty years, if not over that period, and the same argument with regard to the cost of living applies to these men. Some of them have wives and some have families, and whatever argument there may be used with regard to the increased cost of living applies with just as great force to these men as to any section of mechanics there are in the country. Why cannot some consideration be given to these men. What is the difficulty with regard to these mechanicians, and why cannot their grievance be removed. Tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on the education of these men, and yet by this policy you are preventing the advancement of the artificers. I want to know why they cannot be given an advance of wages. Nobody has said anything about their services not being up to the mark. Nobody has suggested that these men do not give exceptional ability and good service whilst they are following their avocation in the Navy, and I suggest that the time has come when some consideration should be given to the wages paid to these men, and some improvement should be made in their position. In this matter I suppose the Admiralty is past praying for as far as the mechanician question is concerned. It will only be a question of time, as has been found in the case of the mercantile marine. The system has stood the test of time for many years past. A man who goes into the mercantile marine has not only to serve so many years, but he only goes into it after having passed so many years in which he has actually got to go to the Board of Trade and pass an examination in order to get certain certificates to enable him to act as an engineer in the mercantile marine. There is no difference between these two men, and one, after all, might just as easily perform the work in the mercantile marine as he does in the Navy. Therefore' it does seem to be unfair that these men should be working for the scanty, I might almost say, miserable, wage paid in the Navy as compared with the wages paid in the mercantile marine.
    There can be no doubt at all that there is a difficulty, and a growing difficulty, to get men from the engineering shops to take employment as artificers in the Navy. There is this difficulty, and it is admitted. As a matter of fact in the last Debate it was mentioned that another 10s. was to

    977
    be offered to these men in the Navy in order to get them. It is obvious that if reasonable inducements are not given to these men who serve their time in engineering shops, they are going to prefer the mercantile marine or prefer to stop even in the workshop, where at least there are chances of becoming foremen or managers of the various departments in many of the big private firms in this country. When all these things are compared I am assured that the men in the mercantile marine who have served their time in the different engineering shops of this country have an infinitely better prospect away from the Navy than in the Navy, and if those prospects were improved you would not only get a larger number, but you might even get a better class and a better type of men from the engineering shops to join the artificer rank in the Navy, and thus bring an increased proficiency and efficiency into the work in the Navy that might lead to better results than we have seen in the past. I know that this is a very sore point with the men of artificer rank in the Navy. We have pleaded, and pleaded in vain, for a matter of nine years for some little attention to be given to this question.
    We see a great change coming over the Navy to-day. In the old days it was coal only that was used to raise steam. Now we see a transformation taking place, and it seems only a question of a few years for further developments to take place. We can judge by the preparations that are being made to establish a supply of oil for the Navy under Government control. On every hand it is plain to those who take even a little interest in these matters that there is a great and vital change taking place with regard to the raising of steam for propulsion purposes in the Navy. In my opinion it will not be long before there will be very little coal used in the Navy, and when oil will take its place. In years to come the Navy will be carrying a huge staff of thousands and thousands of stokers, and there will be no fires to stoke, because steam will be raised by oil fuel. What the Government are going to do with the stokers passes my comprehension. This is a bigger question than is thought by many Members of the House. The tendency in the Navy is to bring more and more into use the knowledge of the skilled mechanic. The mechanic is going to be the one man upon whom the Navy will depend for its power to move. Of course, unless the Navy cannot move, it
    978
    will be simply like a floating fort. The-power to move and at great speed is a matter of vital importance to the Navy, and inasmuch as there is undoubtedly going to be a continuous growth in the-number of men skilled in the manipulation and repair of all kinds of mechanical appliances, and that upon them will depend great responsibility with regard to the movements of the vessels, surely it must be obvions that whatever attention is going to be given to the problems of the Navy, this section of men are at least worthy of some serious consideration. It will be worth the while of the Admiralty to go a little out of their way to give some consideration to the artificer class, to see if they cannot, either by an increase in their wages or an improvement of the conditions of their service in the-Navy, make them a better contented set of men than they are at the present time. I hope, therefore, that what has been said, both with regard to the wages of the labourers in the dockyard towns and with regard to the wages and conditions of the artificers, will be borne in mind, and that something at long last will be done on this question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I shall endeavour to keep myself within the confines of the lines laid down by you in the early part of the afternoon, but perhaps I should not to be out of order if I ventured, first of all, to call attention to the question of life-saving apparatus in connection with submarines. It will be within the recollection of Members that when the A7 sank in Whitsand Bay, there was a great deal of difficulty with regard to the salvage apparatus which was supposed to be very near at hand, but which in point of fact was very far off. I should like to ask whether there is any reason to suppose that in the near future there will be stationed at each port sufficient salvage apparatus to give certainty that in every emergency a lighter, at any rate, will be there in order that the lives of these men who spend their time in these submarines may not be sacrificed without every possibility of their being saved. Then I should like, on the subject of pensions, to say something about the Greenwich Age Hospital Fund. The right hon. Gentleman! knows as well as I do that the sum of money that is available from the Greenwich Hospital Fund for men who are eligible for pensions is not sufficient There are many old men who after becoming eligible have to wait from eight to

    979
    ten years before they are able to obtain what in fact many of them have a right to obtain many years before.
    I know that it has been decided by the Admiralty that the men have no actual right to these pensions, but at any rate a great number of them are under the impression that they have the right, and, even if they have no right, they are eligible at a certain age, and it does not seem quite fair to keep them waiting eight or nine years for their pensions when they might be given to them sooner if only another Grant was made from the Naval Fund. If you were to put a further sum upon the Estimates and apply it to the Greenwich, Hospital Fund, I think you would find that there would then be sufficient money to give these men their 5d. per day when they become eligible for it. "One might also say the same with regard to the men who are eligible for the further 4d. The Financial Secretary knows as well as I do that these men are kept a considerable time before they get their 4d. I know he has told the House on many occasions that every care is taken, and that each case is considered on its merits. I do not doubt that is so, but the fact remains that these men neither get their 5d. nor their 4d. in a great number of cases for a very considerable time, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can see his way to make a further Grant out of the Naval Funds for that purpose? I would like to say a word or two about certain changes made in the lower deck ratings. I quite understand that these changes were made, I do not say on a suggestion from this side of the House, but after a suggestion had come from this side of the House.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: From whom?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not think it is necessary to say from whom, but I think it must be apparent, at any rate, to anyone who sits on this side of the House, that on a certain day not long ago an Amendment was moved on the Navy Estimates in which it was suggested that the pay and status of the men on the lower dock should receive the attention of the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: By whom?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: By myself. I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here, because I should have liked to have said this to his face. Speaking
    980
    on the Navy Estimates last year, he promised, or rather, he led us to suppose, that he was going to do something special for the married men. He gave us to understand that the hardships of the married men were, in some way or other, to be redressed. I am afraid that has not been carried out. It has been found possible to meet the situation in the Army, but we are told, I do not know on what ground, by the First Lord, that it is not possible in the Navy. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary will explain why it was possible in the Army and why it is not possible in the Navy. I asked a question the other day with regard to the Australian Navy. I asked whether or not the Australian Navy did not find it possible to give an allowance to married men, and the First Lord replied that they did, and he was good enough to explain exactly what that allowance was. I will now put to him another question which no doubt he will be glad of the opportunity to answer. If it is possible in the local navy in Australia, how is it so impossible in the Imperial Navy? On this point the First Lord invariably prevaricates or says that since the rise in pay higher allotments have been made. What does that mean? Of course, a rise in pay would necessarily mean higher allotments. When a man receives more money, he has more money to send home. That is a commonplace, and we do not come here to be told commonplaces. At any rate, the rise in pay which was given by the Government to the lower deck was given to meet the extra cost in living, and it was certainly not given to solve the married seamen's problem. It is time that something was done for the married men, and the First Lord should endeavour as far as possible to redeem the promise he made twelve months ago. I was very much amazed, I must say—and I hope the Financial Secretary will convey to the First Lord what I am about to say—when the First Lord said in this House that he had been told that the men would spend the extra money in drink. I think it would be difficult to imagine a more spiteful insinuation. Who on earth told him that? I asked him for his authority, and he refused to give it me. Now I challenge him again to give me his authority—to tell me who told him that the men in the Navy would spend their extra money on drink?
    The First Lord, in the Memorandum which accompanies the Navy Estimates, directs our attention to the unsatisfactory recruiting for the electrical artificer, for

    981
    the armourer, and for the carpenter crew ratings. I am not surprised at that. All Members of this House who know anything about recruiting, or about the Navy, will know that the stagnation in promotion in the armourer and carpenter crew ratings is nothing short of a public scandal. It has been regarded for years that the electrical artificers deserve further attention. I believe there is a petition now before the Admiralty on the subject of their grievances. More than that, nothing has been done for the carpenter-lieutenants and the chief carpenters, and even the position of the carpenter himself leaves much to be desired. Take the case of the naval shipwrights. It is surely not too much to expect, after four years' service as a second-class shipwright, that he should be rated as a first-class shipwright, or after six years' service as a first-class shipwright that he should be rated as a chief petty officer! Then with regard to the chief and artificer engineers, it is a well-known fact—the First Lord must have had it brought to his attention before now—that the cabin accommodation for this branch of the Service is altogether insufficient. The promotion of the artificer engineer is exceedingly slow. I should like to ask that this question of cabin accommodation should in the future receive more attention than it has done in the past from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and I should also like to ask that promotion should be accelerated in the case of the artificer engineer.
    Then we come to the old question of the petty and mean policy of the Admiralty with regard to hospital staff. That has been brought before this House over and over again by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, and, up to the present moment, we have never had any satisfactory explanation from either the First Lord, the Civil Lord, or the Financial Secretary. They all seem to desire to burke the question. What about that free kit that we have heard so much about, and which has been so much advertised by the supporters of the Front Bench opposite? A free kit is all very well in its way, but what the men want are replacements. The Financial Secretary smiles. I know why. It is because I brought this to his notice the other day. What did he then say? He told me it would cost £370,000 a year for replacements. But what is £370,000 a year if, by spending it, you do something that pleases and satisfies the men in the Navy? You cannot have an efficient Navy
    982
    without a happy and contented lower deck. That is what I want to see, and it is in order that it may be brought about I am anxious that everything should be done for the men which, in reason, can be done. The spending of £370,000 in replacements would be a step in the right direction. The First Lord talked about the concessions as not to be taken as finally exhausting the good will of the State. I am sure the good will of the State is a very long good will, but I should very much like to see more of it extended to the lower deck. Just a word or two about the dockyards. We have heard some very interesting speeches from the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I listened to them with great interest. I notice that those hon. Members have left the Chamber.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Not all of them.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: And they will not have an opportunity of listening to what I have to say. Directly they finish their speeches they go out of the Chamber, instead of listening, as I think they should, to the Debate from start to finish.
    Mr. CROOKS: They do not want your instruction.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is not a question of instruction; it is one of common interest. I should like, first of all, to pay my personal thanks to the Financial Secretary for accepting so many of the suggestions which it has been my privilege to make during the last four years, but there are many reforms which have yet to be carried out. We have large national yards, and I do not think we make enough use of them. There are hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway opposite who will, I am sure, agree with me that more ships should be built in the national yards. The Admiralty are far too fond of using private yards for work that might and I think should be done in the national yards. I asked a question the other day on this point, and I was told it would be perfectly easy to make new slips if necessary, or even to improve the old slips.
    Mr. W. THORNE: They might roll their own armour plates as well.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have no objection to that. Let them do whatever work they can. What I want is that work should be given them to do. The ships, too, might be laid down much earlier in the dockyards than they are, and that would be a great benefit to the men. What

    983
    we want to see is construction going on all the year round in these yards, and a reform in this direction would obviate the frequent discharges to which I have so often called the attention of the First Lord. I have no doubt that when the Financial Secretary comes to reply he will tell us something about the conversations that have taken place between himself and the First Lord and the admiral-superintendents of the various yards with regard to these discharges. I think he told the House not very long ago that some settlement had been arrived at by which these charges would not occur in the future.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; certain discharges were contemplated, and we re-surveyed the field of operations and made alterations which rendered those discharges unnecessary, but I cannot say there are never going to be any discharges in the distant future.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his correction. I certainly was under the impression that the conversations which had passed between the admirals, superintendents, and himself had resulted in the laying down of some principle by which discharges in the future would be avoided as far as possible.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: And so they will be.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to know if any principle has been laid down. I should be sorry to hear it said that none has been laid down. Again, I have to congratulate the Financial Secretary or, I should say, the Admiralty upon introducing establishment into the Works Department.
    Mr. CROOKS: You opposed it in connection with the county council.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: We are not talking about the county council here.
    Mr. CROOKS: You voted for the abolition of direct employment by the county council.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing establishment into the Works Department of the dockyards. Whatever the hon. Member opposite may say, I have been a persistent advocate of this during the four years I have been in this House. I think the Financial Secretary will bear
    984
    me out in that. If I am not correct, perhaps he will rise in his place and say so. With regard to the establishment generally, there is a great deal of room for improvement. In 1906, when this Government came into power, the proportion: of men on the establishment to men employed in the dockyards was 18.8. In the last year the proportion went down to 14.9. and that comparison was the more marked because the number of men employed had very greatly increased. In my opinion, the bigger the Navy the bigger the establishment should be. I recognise that the Admiralty have done a good deal in that direction, especially in following out that principle this year, as there have been very considerable additions to the establishment. Still, I am very far from being satisfied that the proper proportion has been reached. So much for the question of establishment. I have a word or two to say about the hired men. In the dockyards the great proportion of the men employed are engaged under the name of hired men. They work just as hard and just as well as those who get on the establishment. It is a case of one being taken and the other left. The man who gets on the establishment becomes entitled to a pension. He who remains a hired man only gets a gratuity, and that fact at the present moment is causing a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in all the yards in the country. It ought not to be difficult to devise some scheme to meet their case, especially as it is well known to the Admiralty that the men are quite ready and willing to do their part in the matter. On the last occasion on which I spoke on this subject, I suggested that the Admiralty should assist the men with an actuary, so that they might put forward an actuarily sound scheme. I do not find that that suggestion has been followed out, although the Financial Secretary at the time said he would be very pleased to do it.
    During the year the Dockyard Members' Committee—a Committee of this House consisting of Members representing dockyard towns—have received a great number of deputations, and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, as Chairman of that Committee, will, I have no doubt, bear me out when I say that during that time we have written many-letters to the Admiralty on the question of the daily life and daily employment of the men in the dockyards. We have from time to time received replies, sometimes

    985
    satisfactory and sometimes unsatisfactory, but I do not propose now to go through all the letters we have written or the answers we have received. I should like to say, however, that much of the matter that has come to our notice has also been brought to the notice of the Admiralty through petitions presented by the men themselves at the different yards. To many of the petitions no reply has been received. I am aware the Financial Secretary has said that he will do his best to hasten the replies, but month after month goes by and the men do not get an answer. I would like, therefore, to press upon the Financial Secretary that the time has arrived when replies should be given. There are one or two points which perhaps I might be allowed to mention—points upon which replies are needed. For instance, there are the leading men in the Works Department: they asked to be established as leading men and not as mechanics. It is not a great request, but still they have got no answer.
    Then there are the storehousemen in the Works Department. They are receiving 42s. per week, and they ask to be established as storehouse-men, and not as ordinary labourers. Again, that is not a very great request, and surely it is not necessary to keep them waiting a year for an answer! These storehousemen think they are inadequately paid. The minimum wage of the assistant storehousemen is on the same scale as that of the labourer whom he supervises. That, again, is a small point, but it is one that should be inquired into. Then you have the inspectors of trades. They also want some attention. They should have their salaries increased according to the position in which they find themselves. They are officers, and their position as such should be more clearly defined. Then the joiners' case wants overhauling. I am told nothing more can be done for them. I very much regret to hear it, but I trust when their petition comes to be answered we shall see that their case has been overhauled. We had before us the chargemen, whose position differs very "lightly from that of the men under their charge. That, again, does not seem right, and it is a matter which should have the attention of the Admiralty. That is a matter which ought to be seen to at a very early date. There is also the case of the ex-dockyard apprentices. They ask that they should be allowed to count their hired service from the age of
    986
    sixteen for pension or gratuity. That privilege is given to the yard-boys, but not, apparently to the ex-apprentices. That is a matter we have brought before the Admiralty on more than one occasion, but they have not seen their way to accede to the request. I am very much afraid that it is not so much the Admiralty as the Treasury who are responsible. I suggest that the Treasury and the Admiralty should meet together and see whether they cannot grant this very reasonable request. The case of the riggers is another just case for an advance in wages. The same applies to the establishment engineers and the kindred trades, and also to the yard craft. Where is the report as to the yard craft? The Financial Secretary told me some time ago that they were inquiring into that case and were going to report very soon. I suppose the report has been made, but we have heard nothing about it, and no one knows anything about it. The time has come when these reports should be made public and more accessible at a much earlier date than is the case now.
    The case of the labourers is a very pressing affair. Here you have men who are paid 23s. a week, who cannot possibly live in comfort, or bring up their children in comfort, or keep their homes in comfort on so small a wage. It has been suggested this afternoon that they should receive a shilling rise, and I think that increase ought to be given. The wages of the labourers in the dockyards should at least be placed on a level with the wages paid by the corporations in the dockyard towns. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) himself raised that question, and there is no need for me to labour it. I would point out to the hon. Member that when two years ago I moved an Amendment to Naval Estimates asking that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into this very question, among others, and he was desirous of seconding that Amendment, when we came to a Division the hon. Member did not vote for it, and, in fact, only three Members sitting on the Labour Benches voted for a Royal Commission or an inquiry at all. I am glad, however, to find that they are now converted and are really desirous of some inquiry being made into the status and wages of the labourers in the Royal dockyards. In regard to the skilled labourer and his minimum wage of 23s., I contend that the skilled labourer should not be placed on the same footing as the ordinary labourer. He is

    987
    placed on that footing because his minimum wage is 23s., which is the same in the case of the ordinary labourer. I am told that is only for a probationary period, but it very often happens that the probationary period extends into the year. The Admiralty would be well advised if they did away altogether with a probationary period. I fear I have detained the Committee too long with what must appear to them to be rather wearisome information, but it is most essential that these points should be raised on behalf of the working men of the country, because they are also important to the country as a whole. Finally, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any information with regard to the inquiry promised by the Prime Minister into the future relations of the State with the men employed in the Royal dockyards. That was the inquiry for which I asked two days ago, and from which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite ran away. I understand that the Prime Minister has now decided that the time has come when that inquiry should be held, and I should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what form that inquiry will take, and whether it is to be a Royal Commission or some other form of inquiry?
    Mr. HASLAM: The hon. Member who has just sat down made a very interesting speech, so full of suggestions, that were the First Lord of the Admiralty to endeavour to carry them out in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would be very much occupied with them in the future. I wish to direct attention to a point raised by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), and to express my admiration of the very temperate language in which his speech was couched. If Members on the Labour benches were to advocate their cause in the tone he adopted, they would get more than by asking for extravagant things. The hon. Member asked for an advance of a shilling a week for the lowest-paid workmen in the Admiralty dockyards. It is better to spend money in advancing the wages of the lowest-paid workmen even than by increasing those of the higher paid workmen, for the one reason that when low-paid workmen are paid higher wages their work is more efficient, and they are enabled to bring up their families in greater comfort, while the nation as a whole, instead of losing, is
    988
    economically a gainer by the transaction. I know there is a limit to all things, but I do not think we have reached that limit with a wage of 23s. or 24s. If the claims are put too high, the Admiralty, or whatever office is requested to advance wages, is placed in a difficult position, because the men, seeing the request in the papers for a large advance, think they have been badly treated when a smaller one is made. Having regard to the enormous amount which is spent by the taxpayers on the various Government Departments, advances cannot be large, but must be gradual and must be considered most carefully, in view of the other demands on the Departments. The hon. Member for Blackfriars Division said that one of the reasons given for not paying dockyard employés so large a wage as is paid to persons engaged in civil occupations is that persons employed by the Government are more permanently engaged, and therefore, in the long run, they get, throughout the year, more remuneration than the ordinary workman. No doubt that is true. I understand that workmen engaged by the Government also have other advantages, and I should like the Financial Secretary to give us some information as to what those advantages are. I should like him to tell us whether there is any method of calculation upon which the Admiralty pay their wages, and whether there is a scale of percentages, either higher or lower than those which are paid in the the neighbourhood in civil occupations, which is based on the extra advantages enjoyed by men who work under the Government. I should like to emphasise again the advantage of advancing the wages of the lowest paid workmen. Not only is it an advantage to the men, but the Government and the country as a whole are gainers by that increased remuneration.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. F. HALL: The whole of the speeches made this afternoon has dealt with the conditions of labour in the Navy, and in the circumstances the point I desire to bring forward is perhaps specially applicable. I am not bringing forward the case of Henry Plant on the question whether vaccination is necessary or not. I am entirely in favour of these men being vaccinated, because I believe it is a preventive against small-pox. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not taking up the position of an anti-vaccinationist in regard to the matter. The circumstances

    989
    with reference to this man are exceedingly distressing. A young man under nineteen years of age joins the Navy, after a most searching examination has been made by medical men on behalf of the Navy in Birmingham. This case has been brought prominently before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. Bird), and I dare say that Members of the Committee have, at some time or other, received pamphlets or information dealing with it. I have been in communication with the Admiralty on the matter, and hoped that there would have been no necessity to raise the question this afternoon. I am not suggesting that the Admiralty have not been sympathetic in this case, but I am not satisfied with sympathy. This unfortunate man cannot go into a shop and say. "I am, unfortunately, recovering from a disability, are you in a position to give me something because of that?" The man has to face the world with this terrible disability, and I am desirous that the Government should do something in this case. The Government say they are perfectly satisfied that the disease from which he suffered, and which necessitated his having his left arm amputated, was not caused through vaccination. It was necessary before ha signed on for twelve years that he should pass a thorough medical examination, and they gave him a clean bill of health. He joined the Navy on 1st September, 1911, and in the middle of the following month it was found that he was suffering from some complaint and he was ordered into Haslar Hospital. He was informed that he was suffering from influenza, but after he had been under the doctor's care for two or three weeks they said it was not influenza but rheumatism. Then another diagnosis was made, and he was asked when he had been vaccinated. Taking that question, I presume into consideration and the fact that he had never been ill before, he attributes his present condition and the consequent operations to his compulsory vaccination. Eventually, after being for months in hospital, and after five operations had been performed upon him, he was practically turned out into the world to seek his living. The Admiralty do not seem to have taken any notice of him at all after he was discharged from the hospital. A letter was written to the First Lord in November last year, and on 24th December, after having carefuly considered the contents, the letter was answered after
    990
    six weeks delay, and rather an extraordinary statement was made to the effect that the complaint and the operations were necessary owing to some fault of the mart himself.
    That is a very serious charge to make, and those who were looking after the man's interests took it up and communicated immediately with the. Admiralty. Whoever wrote that letter did not seem to realise the enormity of the statement which was made in it. I hasten to do the Admiralty justice. After their attention was drawn to it, they replied at once that they were satisfied under the circumstances, that that statement should not have been made. I cannot help thinking that the Government, like everyone else,. ought to be very careful in their correspondence to see that statements, are not made which are derogatory to the character of any man, because after all a man who is placed in this category has not got much goodwill and has not got much in the way of assets, and surely you ought to be very careful before you make any statement which is detrimental to the interests of a man in that way. Therefore, I trust that at all events the Admiralty will see that instructions are given to those who conduct their correspondence to-see that in future statements of this nature are not thrown about, because of course the Admiralty and the House must realise-that it is detrimental, not only to the men themselves, but to the manning of the Navy. What is the Admiralty going to do in this case? I, and I believe several other Members, have communicated with them, and the House is indebted for the case being brought forward to the hon. Member (Mr. Bird). The Admiralty have said they will give this man £50. There-is no responsibility on the Admiralty, but they are magnanimous in consequence of the man having signed on for twelve years, and having been admitted as a second stoker in the Navy. I should like to draw attention to a little pamphlet that has been issued, entitled "How to join the Royal Navy." I believe the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of laying down in that book the terms of service, and I have received information from the Navy, that because he was such a short time in the Service and had to be invalided out, he is not entitled, not only to superannuation but to compensation in any shape or form. In this Book I find this:—
    "Men disabled or invalided from the service are-eligible for pensions or gratuities, according to the

    991
    circumstances of the case and the nature of the injury. Life pensions may he granted, irrespective of length of service, to men invalided for severe injury contracted on duty.
    Physical and educational tests.—All candidates, before being accepted, are subject to a strict medical examination by a naval medical officer to ascertain that they are free from any physical defect."
    I maintain that after a man has passed the examination of the doctor, after he has been admitted into the Navy, the Navy is liable, irrespective of the length of term of service. Had it been that a man is only entitled to compensation or superannuation after a stipulated length of service, it ought to be laid down in the Book that is issued.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The governing words there are "if the injuries are sustained on duty."
    Mr. HALL: I will read this once more. I have gone through it very carefully.
    "Men disabled or invalided from the service are eligible for pensions or gratuities according to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the injury. Life pensions may be granted, irrespective of length of service, to men invalided for severe injuries contracted on duty."
    That is life pensions. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that these are two different things altogether. Life pensions are dependent upon a man having received injury while on duty. This man cannot be shelved, and cannot be thrown on the human scrap-heap in this way. You are desirous of obtaining men for the Navy. The British Navy is looked upon, as it should be, as a good means of men rising to better positions. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I was not reading the true meaning . If they are put into two different clauses and practically into two different paragraphs, the men understand that if under certain circumstances they have to be invalided, at all events they are going to receive some compensation. If the Admiralty is going to say that this man can go to the workhouse, he has to be kept somehow. Surely it is not necessary to do that. In the Admiralty you have plenty of light jobs. I have raised this question before, and I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman. We cannot deal with the case on these lines. I think you will admit that if these operations were necessitated by one of the Regulations of the Navy that the man should be vaccinated, and if in that way he contracted a disease which necessitated his arm being taken off, the Admiralty is liable. I think the
    992
    Admiralty is legally and not only morally liable. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny it, so I take it he acquiesces. I have been a member of the London County Council, and I have had cases brought before me in which there has been a difference of medical opinion, and I have always said I believe my own officer. Our own officers give their opinions without any bias, but if there is a question of one medical man thinking one thing and another something else, it is only reasonable to have an independent medical authority, and if he says there is a reasonable excuse for a man having raised the question that his illness was in consequence of an operation that he had to go through, the Admiralty will have no answer to that question.
    I have asked the right hon. Gentleman if he will agree to an independent medical man of high standing being appointed, and if the opinion of such medical man is in favour of the man's contention that the disease perhaps occurred in consequence of the vaccination, then, under these circumstances, you will assume your liability. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask that that should be done. It is the same as is done by the London County Council when they have similar cases. It is the same as is done by the Port of London Authority, and by all large municipalities. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to do that, I will make another proposition. There are heaps of men required in the Department. A man with one arm and two eyes is as well able to act as timekeeper and to see that men are attending to their business as any other man. If you are going to say that a man with one arm is, perhaps, not in the best of health, and that if you take him into the Service you may be assuming some liability, I would draw attention to the fact that when an examination took place it was shown that this man was in perfect health. He was in the Territorial Force. His father and mother, two brothers, and three sisters are alive, and no symptoms have been shown in the family of tubercular disease. Therefore, I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether, so far as he is concerned, he is prepared to do one of two things—either to agree to refer the case to an independent medical authority or, better still, to say, "In the Admiralty we have heaps of places to be filled, and we will try to do something for this man." I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say

    993
    that, so far as he is concerned, he will try to find some light employment for this man. I do not ask him to find it to-day. There may not be a vacancy at present, but I ask that this unfortunate man will be placed in a position in "which he will be able to earn his living, and that he will not be thrown on the human scrap-heap to seek help in other ways.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I have been brought into contact with this unfortunate case, and having had many opportunities of inquiring into the circumstances I am bound to say that it is one of the most distressing cases I have ever known. I wish the circumstances were such that the man was able to demand full compensation for the injury he has sustained. But having looked into all the circumstances in company with the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. Bird) and others, I cannot see that such compensation can be obtained. We have approached the Admiralty on the subject. In the first instance, we saw the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary, and since that time my hon. Friend and myself have consistently and persistently seen the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am able to testify that his sympathy is perfectly manifest. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman, while denying all legal responsibility, has been most anxious to recognise moral responsibility, and to do all in his power for this man. He has met the case to some extent, but I do not think that what he has done is enough. I know that he is striving to do what the hon. Member (Mr. F. Hall) has urged him to do, namely, to provide some light employment for this man, so that he may have an opportunity of earning his livelihood. In the conversations which have taken place, assurances have been given by the right hon. Gentleman that he will continue his attempts to secure such employment for the young man. If he succeeds in that, although this is a very hard case for the man, I think the House will be pleased that the best has been done that is possible in the circumstances. I do not think anyone can suggest that, after what the Admiralty has said, there can be any legal claim. I do not think the moral claim has been met, so far, but if the right hon. Gentleman will give the assurance publicly which has been given privately that he will not cease in his endeavours until he has provided light employment for the man, I think the case will have been fairly met.
    Mr. BIRD: I take a somewhat different line from the hon. Member opposite, because he disclaims any—I do not say absolute legal right, but it appeared to me—
    Mr. G. THORNE: I did not desire to enter into the legal question. I assumed for the moment the position taken by the Admiralty on the basis of the legal claim being denied and only the moral claim being recognised. I thought the case might be fairly met in the way I indicated.
    Mr. BIRD: My point is that this unfortunate man has never had any opportunity of substantiating his claim from the legal point of view. He is almost entirely without resources, and whatever means he has had in order to live during all this weary time he has been waiting for some recognition of his case have been provided by his friends and by outside charitable sources. My complaint against the Admiralty is that they are too ready to accept the diagnosis of their own medical man as absolutely final. That may be right or wrong, but we all know that medical opinion is very liable to drift into error in such a serious case as this. I think the Admiralty would have been only acting fairly if they had placed the case before some independent doctors and allowed them to give an opinion as to whether this man's trouble arose from vaccination or not. I desire to unite with my Friend in bearing testimony to the sympathetic way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has behaved throughout. The First Lord of the Admiralty has also acted sympathetically. I recollect one evening he spent a long time in the private room of the Parliamentary Secretary endeavouring to see if some way could be found out of the difficulty. Since then the Admiralty have made a grant of £50 to the man. If they had supplemented that by finding some light occupation for him, then this Debate would not have been necessary. I say as a man who has had control of a large manufacturing business that where there is a desire to find some light job in a large undertaking, such as a dockyard or an arsenal, that job can be found. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think the officials could find a job for this man if they really desired to do so. I therefore do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will get up and say that he will make some real honest attempt to find relief for this poor man

    995
    and save the House from being croubled again with one of the most distressing cases that ever came under my notice.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I desire to support tire appeal which has been made by the hon. Members who have spoken. It does appear to some of us that this man has been rather badly treated. In consequence of being vaccinated, he has lost his arm. I feel convinced that there are many light jobs in the dockyard for which he would be suitable. He has received £50 from the Admiralty, but that is quite inadequate. I hope that after what has been stated the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the case, and try to find this young fellow a job at the earliest opportunity. It appears from the Debate that has taken place this afternoon that the Admiralty have got a good deal to answer for. It has been said that the Admiralty is one of the worst departments we have to deal with. It is common talk in the House that, so far as other departments are concerned, they are easier to deal with as regards the men working in the departments. But when we have to deal with men in the Admiralty, we have a great deal more difficulty in getting matters looked into.
    Dr. MACNAMARAindicated dissent.
    Mr. W. THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am telling him what is said by Members of the House of Commons. These things are talked about in the smoking room and other parts of the House. I wish to raise a question in relation to the attendants working at Yarmouth Naval Hospital. That question has been brought to the right, hon. Gentleman's notice for a great length of time. A petition was sent to the Admiralty about six months ago asking that the wages of these particular attendants should be raised. The wages are extremely low. The reply received was that if they took into consideration rations and other privileges which these men receive, their wages are on all-fours with the wages paid in different parts of Yarmouth. So far as I have been able to judge—I have tried to find out what are the wages paid in Yarmouth—the wages are a little lower there than in some other towns. The wages these men receive are inadequate for the work they perform, and the number of hours they are employed. They work on the average eighty hours per week. In some cases they work longer hours. Once
    996
    a week they have to work thirty-six consecutive hours. I think that is too long to work consecutively. When at Yarmouth last night I was assured by the men in question that all they are in a position to take home to their wives and families is not more than 14s. 6d. per week. Out of that they have to pay rent, and how they live I do not know. It is true that a few weeks ago a small concession was made to the men by reducing the hours by two per week. The Parliamentary Secretary has promised that he will try to persuade the authorities to add another man to the staff with the view of reducing the hours of labour and making the conditions a little better than they are at present.
    Even then it is absurd for the Admiralty to take up the position that, in consequence of the rations and privileges which these men receive, their wages are on all fours with those of a skilled labourer. How, in the name of common sense, can you expect a man with only 14s. to take home to his family at the week-end to maintain himself and his wife and children? It is an economic impossibility. Rents in Yarmouth are not any cheaper than in other parts of the country. As a; rule, in places like Yarmouth and Blackpool, where you have visitors, especially in the summer time, rents are very much higher than in other towns. In Yarmouth rents are not very low, and I have no hesitation in saying that these particular men have to pay a rent of at least 7s. per week. That leaves them 7s. to provide necessities for themselves and their wives and families. No one can say that that is living at all. It is only mere existence. In towns like this, when representatives of the men meet those who act for the Government Departments, what they say is, "Look at the advantage which the wives receive in consequence of receiving boarders in the summer time." I deny the right of Government Departments which employ labour to take advantage of a situation of that kind. It is all very well for the Admiralty and other Departments to say that the rations and other privileges make the wages equal to those paid to outside labour. If you took a vote of all the men working in the arsenals and dockyards as to whether they would have the full trade union rate of wages and the abolition of all privileges, the men would decide in favour of having the full wages and letting the privileges go by the board. It is about time that the Government took up this question, wiped out all privileges,

    997
    paid the trade union rates of wages, and recognised the trade union hours of labour. If this were done, the men would be very much more satisfied than they are at the present time, and it would do away with these endless Debates every year in connection with the Admiralty, the War Office, and other Departments. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some assurance that he will do all he possibly can to rectify what I may call the outrageous grievances from which these men are suffering at the present time.
    Mr. HOHLER: The matter to which I wish to refer has been touched on by the hon. Member who has just sat down, by the hon. Member for Blackfriars, and, on this side of the House, by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. I realise with the hon. Member for West Ham that these Debates are annual on account of the existing system, and in my view they will occur again. I still hold the view, which I expressed on a previous occasion, that this Committee should recognise that the method of petitions is entirely antiquated and out of date. No doubt these petitions were excellent things before labour was organised as it now is. Outside the yards matters have marched far in advance of petitions. So long as I have the honour to represent my Constituents I shall ever urge that they should be clear in every petition which they put forward that they desire a Conciliation Board to deal with these questions. That is the fitting tribunal for the purpose. Not long ago an hon. Member opposite said that there was such an infinity of matters to raise in connection with the various trades employed that it would take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the First Lord of the Admiralty a long time to deal with them. I agree. But, after all, that only shows his want of knowledge of what are the vast numbers of trades employed in the various dockyards. What is really required is what was done in regard to the Post Office the other night. The Government were asked to appoint a Committee to deal with it, who might determine the matters at issue between the Post Office and their employés. That was refused, but protests from both sides of the House were raised in regard to the matter, and then, although the representative of the Post Office had absolutely refused, yet, on the second day of the Debate, the danger of a Government defeat on the Holt Report became so obvious that the demand was at once conceded. It was said in the
    998
    course of that Debate—I think I am right in saying from the Government Front Bench, and I know from other quarters of the House—that the proper way of dealing with the interests of the growing numbers employed by the State was that these questions should be submitted to a Conciliation Board, consisting of two representatives of the men, two representatives of the Department in question, and an impartial president appointed by the Board of Trade to deal with these matters. That, in my judgment, is the only satisfactory and proper method. I have gone into this matter with the trades in question in a multiplicity of cases in which the skilled labourer and the casual labourer are receiving lower wages than those which are paid to men who are working outside the yards, and who may or may not be trade unionists. I will take an illustration. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty this afternoon gave the wages of the labourers employed at Woolwich Arsenal as 25s., and he gave the figure as 23s. in other dockyards, except Haulbowline, where I think he said that they were 22s., and he said that these wages were equal to the district rate. That means, I understand, that 25s. is the trade-union rate for labour in London.
    Mr. W. THORNE: No; it is not.
    Mr. HOHLER: If it is not, then I think I may safely say that the trade-union rate for ordinary labour in London is in excess of 25s.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Hear, hear!
    Mr. HOHLER: That only makes more marked the contrast in the wages paid in the dockyards and those paid in London. It is very easy to shift the responsibility, and to say when you make an appeal for one particular trade: "Give me the rate in the district." It may be, having regard to the large number of industries which you have in a dockyard and the great variety of trades, that you cannot within, say, 10 or 12 miles, give a similar rate. You have to go to London or Erith, or somewhere along the terminus, and then they say: "Oh, that is a different district." That is not a fair way of dealing with it. They should deal with these men as a body of men receiving the same general pay. When you go into the question of cost of living, I have found as the result of inquiry, that apart from rent—and I admit that in that respect London is a little dearer—the cost of living is cheaper in London than in

    999
    Chatham and other dockyard towns. There is no good reason why you should pay 25s. in Woolwich and only 23s. in Chatham. These men are interchangeable; they move to and fro as and when the demand for employment arises. Therefore, what the Committee should say is that this matter should be dealt with finally by a Conciliation Board, with representatives of the trade and the department and somebody appointed as an impartial arbitrator to deal with it. When we hear, as we constantly do, the statement that we have not time to do our business, and yet year after year in each Department the case of Government employés has to be considered upon the Estimates, and this question of wages is raised, surely we are not fit to deal with it The hon. Member opposite who got up is quite ignorant of these details, yet forsooth, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has to go into each one of these things. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that I shall never speak of him with anything but respect, but of course, he cannot speak in these matters with the same authority as a Conciliation Board. No doubt he constantly has heard sympathetically these petitions, and has been satisfied from the evidence which the men have adduced that they are not fairly paid in comparison with the rates paid outside. Take boiler-makers, fitters, electricians, or any other occupation, and you will find that the rates of wages are too low. These men are interchangeable. Under the rules of their union they have to travel for work wherever work offers. They can show you, I think, from these returns which are published monthly, that the rates of wages in other places where these trades are employed, are really considerably more than those which the Government pay. That is a state of things which ought not to exist.
    I press upon the Admiralty that we should remove these things from this House, so that it should not occupy its time with them. This will be satisfactory to the men, and will be satisfactory to the Department concerned. These petitions are never satisfactory, for the reason, I suppose, that when the Admiralty present the case to the Treasury they are met by the Chancellor, who is in a parsimonious mood, and will not give a farthing, or says to them, "Compromise it," or some official of the Treasury does this. And this goes on year after year, and we have
    1000
    precisely the same thing whichever Government is in power. We ought, in by judgment, to deal with these things in a sensible, businesslike manner by a Conciliation Board, before which they can be thrashed out and disposed of, whether it be the case of the labourer, the mechanic, or the artisan. Take the skilled labourers; how does their pay compare with that in other yards? Take the electrician. All your electrical Departments are really run by skilled men. At Chatham they do the work very efficiently. They are not paid on that basis at all. That is substantially the position. You hear these complaints time after time, and the men are thoroughly justified. I can give my testimony to the entire accuracy with which they have presented their grievances to me. I cannot, in this House, go into details of a shilling here or a shilling there, but the broad principle for which I contend is, that we ought to get this matter dealt with, once for all, by establishing a Conciliation Board on the lines which we have indicated. If you got this combination I am sure it would be a satisfactory thing to everybody, and be a credit to the country. We are often told that His Majesty's Government should be model employers—this is not a party question at all—and I submit that whatever Government is in power they should see that from time to time these questions are being adequately dealt with. I wish to give an illustration in regard to one or two points. I take the Naval Store Department, which is illustrative of one or two other Departments that are in precisely the same condition as this. Will it be believed that the men of the Naval Store Department forwarded a petition in relation to a grievance with regard to their pay and promotion in 1912, and that this question has been going on since then, or even earlier. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mildmay), in 1912, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty:—
    "Whether any conclusion has been come to as a result of the promised consideration by the Lords of the Admiralty of assistant naval store officers?"
    To that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Lambert) replied:—
    "The Admiralty have been unable up to the present to find any general solution that commends itself to other Departments employing officers of similar grades. They have, however, been dealing with the situation administratively by giving officers in the Department affected the opportunity of transfer to vacancies in other Admiralty Departments, where promotion is likely to be more rapid. Certain expansions of establishment and unforeseen casualties have also affected the rate of promotion. The situation has thus been, considerably ameliorated."

    1001
    I called attention to this question either this year or last, in a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who courteously replied, in substance, that he could not do more than refer me to the answer which had been given by the Civil Lord in 1912. I do not know who is responsible, but I do ask whether anything could be more discreditable to a Government Department than that they should get a body of men to serve them well, and who have to complain about their pay and stagnation in promotion for two long years, during which time they have been held up. Really, it seems to me too bad, and it is all owing to this absurd system of petitions that we have got to deal with. Will it be believed that some of these men, owing to the present stagnation in promotion, have to wait for advancement from eighteen to thirty years, ten years to seventeen years, and from nineteen years to twenty-seven years? What did the First Lord tell them? He told them that something has been done by way of removing them to other departments, yet in the other departments a man, waiting for promotion, may have somebody foisted over his head. I do submit that something ought to be done. I want an answer on the question of petitions. I wonder whether we shall be told that this matter is still under consideration, or not yet acceded to, as we have so often heard? In my mind, the position is not at all satisfactory, and a complete and thorough change is needed. The wages in the great dockyards should not be below either the rate in the district, say, of Chatham and Portsmouth, or the trade union rates.
    The absurdity is that you vote millions for the building of "Dreadnoughts," and included in that are trade union wages. An hon. Member, speaking on this point, said that the matter would take the Admiralty such a long time. But the Department of the Admiralty has capable officials—the Director of Works, the Director of Dockyards, and others, who have served an apprenticeship, who are familiar with the details of the employment, and who could rapidly deal with these matters. Yet you swallow the construction of "Dreadnoughts" in connection with which proper wages are paid, while in the dockyards you will not pay the employés the amount which men doing the same work outside are paid. That is entirely wrong. I have advised the men that in every petition they forward as to
    1002
    grievances they should make it a point that those grievances should be removed from the Board of Admiralty and submitted to a Board of Conciliation to be dealt with. In regard to the ratings all the men realise that there has been an advance of pay. Of course they ask for more, and so does everybody, and I hope they will get it. I, however, want to say a word or two with regard to certain ratings. These are the ratings of the plumbers, coopers, blacksmiths, and painters. Those ratings are in the class of artisan ratings; the men are mechanics, and of a class who are well-paid outside; yet in the Navy they are the worst paid class. What they really ask is that they may at least receive promotion to the position of chief petty officer. Why cannot that be granted? At present they cannot rise beyond the rank of petty officer. They also ask why they cannot be allowed to wear the artisan uniform which is worn by other artisans in the Navy. I press that point upon the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I cannot see why these men, who have served the Crown well, should not be raised to the rating of chief petty officers. These men have put forward their case, and, though I do not wish to impute what may seem a slightly unworthy motive, it would appear that it has not been dealt with because they are not numerically strong. That is probably why they may have been overlooked, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give his consideration to the matter.
    7.0 P.M.
    Another matter I desire to raise has reference to the sick-berth stewards, whose rise in ratings is exceedingly slow, and they have to wait seventeen years to reach the rank of chief petty officers, as compared with eight years in other ratings. Another point I should like to dwell upon is this: I remember some two years ago that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his opening speech upon the Estimates, told us that he was going to take seriously in hand—I will not say that he used the word "seriously"—the travelling expenses of the men, and that he was going to do something about it. Two years have passed—at any rate one year—and we have not heard another word about it. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me in which pigeon-hole there is a scheme, or is there any scheme at all? They are spending their money meanwhile, and I would like to know what the Department are really doing and what has happened in regard to this scheme,

    1003
    what steps are being taken, and whether the matter is under way. I represent a constituency in which a large number of sailors reside, and I have been immensely struck by the bad conditions in which widows and children are left. I know that the men of His Majesty's Navy are greatly desirous of founding some pension scheme, and I would ask the Admiralty to give serious consideration to that problem. The Department have the means, and they could at least give some actuarial basis on which a scheme could be worked out. The men in my Constituency did me the honour to hold an interview with me, and I am satisfied from what they said that they would be willing themselves to make voluntary contributions towards this end. Surely the Admiralty could meet them on those grounds. We know that pensions are deferred pay, but we also know that many men who have served for years are unable, out of the pay they receive, to make provision in case of their death for their widows and children. I do ask that this may really receive serious consideration. I do not believe that it would be much of a charge to the State while it would be of great benefit to the men who would be willing to assist. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may, on voluntary lines, work out some scheme with a view of seeing whether or not it is possible to relieve this constant poverty which we find suddenly entailed as the result of losing men who have served for several years in the Navy. There is also the case of the draughtsmen who are drawn from the mechanics, and who are not so well paid as some of the mechanics from whom they are drawn. There is also the case of the inspectors and chargemen. We have drawn attention to these matters before, but we could get nothing done. I trust that the ventilation of my views on these matters may lead to something being done on business lines, and by business men in order to have the requests of the men legitimately considered, and dealt with to their satisfaction.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I have to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having considered the applications which have reached him from the torpedo factory at Greenock. There are three points in connection with that factory to which I desire to call his attention. The first is as to the cost of living in Greenock.
    1004
    The Board of Trade prepare an index number showing the cost of living in each district. The rents in Greenock have increased very considerably through the extra activity in shipbuilding and through the erection of the torpedo factory. When the Parliamentary Secretary visits Greenock during the course of the next few weeks, I trust he will take that fact into consideration. The second point is when will the extension of the torpedo factory be completed, and may I ask if it can arrange that when workers are engaged that as far as possible men employed in the district should be selected so as to stop further congestion in Greenock and the surrounding districts. The third point which I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman is the serious position of the housing condition in Greenock. As he well knows ever since the factory was erected, the question of housing has become very acute. In 1910 when the factory was erected, overcrowding existed, and to-day from 1,400 to 1,700 people are employed in the factory, and those with their families make a population of about 7,000 people. The total increase in the population of Greenock during the last ten years has only been 7,000 people, so that we have in connection with this one factory, an increase of population equal to the total increase for ten years. Private enterprise has quite failed to meet the housing position in Greenock. During the last four years several schemes have been tried, and one and all have failed. Workmen in Scotland are averse to owning their own houses. Many of the men employed at this factory have their own houses in Woolwich, and have been unable to sell them, so that it is only natural that they are very averse to buying and owning other houses in Greenock. I desire to place that point before the Parliamentary Secretary. As he well knows, the Housing Bill presented to this House provides for certain sums to be set aside for the housing of Government employés. In conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig), I desire to urge that the case of Greenock may be considered equally with that of Roysth. The case for Rosyth is a case for the future. The claim of Greenock is overdue, and we trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a favourable answer to this definite request.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for

    1005
    Chatham (Mr. Hohler) about the position of the men who think they have a safety valve, and some chance of being attended to by their petitions. I find no fault with the Parliamentary Secretary, for since he has been there he has instituted the system of seeing the men and discussing matters with them, and really getting into his head what they want. My complaint is that year after year in this House Members on both sides bring before the Committee what are real grievances with regard to the men and their wages without result. We know that the Admiralty is handicapped very much by Treasury decisions, but I think my hon. Friend has put forward an excellent suggestion. These petitions may not be answered for two or three whole years, which is most unsatisfactory. The men would rather receive promptly the reply that the petition was not acceded to than to have their hopes raised and get no reply for two or three years. I would suggest a Conciliation Committee, with representatives of the men of each Department, as the case requires, when they asked for more wages or thought they were not fairly treated, and with a representative of the Admiralty and an arbiter. That would be a definite businesslike arrangement, and the men would get the reply within the year. The first necessity is to have the petitions answered promptly, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have some sympathy with this suggestion.
    I quite agree with the hon. Member for Blackfriars as to the importance of getting the boys from as large an area as possible for the artificers' department, and I also agree with him that the artificer-lieutenant and artificer-mate are not on a fair footing and ought to be put on it. An hon. Gentleman opposite brought forward a suggestion which I think is very sound, and that is that in all these questions of wages, the principle ought to be to raise the wages of the lowest paid people first. They are often least in a position to defend and to fight for themselves. If the wages are raised in the lowest department, then it becomes natural to deal with the higher department. I plead for the poorer people, the unskilled labourers, and that class of person who gets very low wages. I agree with the statement made by my hon. Friend that the dockyards, as a rule, do not pay the wages that are to be got outside. That ought to be adjusted, but the principle I particularly want to impress on
    1006
    the right hon. Gentleman is that the lowest paid men should be the first dealt with in the consideration of the question of wages. I do not now bring up again the question of widows' pensions and other matters of that kind to which I have previously referred, and with which I believe the right hon. Gentleman has some sympathy. I believe there are altogether about 140 departments to be dealt with. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory answer as to the question of petitions and the Conciliation Board and the prior treatment of those who are paid the lowest wages.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I am responsible for labour questions at the Admiralty, I may now deal with the points raised. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Holder) and the Noble Lord (Lord O. Beresford) do not think very much of the system of hearing men's petitions.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Of not answering them.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take matters in the order in which they are mentioned. The hon. Member for Chatham thinks that the system of petitions is absurd and antiquated. That is not my opinion at all. I should doubt whether there is any employer of labour in this country or any public Department which has any machinery approaching our own for enabling the men to come before a representative of the Board and state their case. I should doubt whether there is anything like it in private or in public. The Noble Lord says that we want a Conciliation Board. Let me deal with the system which has been attacked and the machinery of which is supposed to be antiquated. In the first place, as regards personal and local questions, this is the machinery:—
    "All matters of a personal character, whether relating to the conditions of service, rates of wages or other subject of complaint or request, must in the first instance he submitted by the petitioner [that is by the workman] to the responsible immediate local officers. In the event of a workman not being satisfied with the result of any representations to his more immediate officers, appeal may be made to the Admiral or Captain Superintendent, as the case may be, and in the last resort the matter may be placed directly before the Board of Admiralty in a petition.
    "In making these local representations"—
    dealing with these personal local matters, the scheme provides—and I call particular attention to this—
    "the employés concerned may seek such assistance as they may desire, and, in any case in which the responsible local officer may consider it to be desirable to accord an interview to the employe's or employé concerned, such employés or employé may, if they so desire, be accompanied by a person chosen by themselves to assist them to state or argue their case."

    1007
    And it is the fact that they do ask the assistance, and very able assistance it is, of trade union secretaries and others who go with these men and state the case locally. That is the local treatment of personal small matters, but that is not to deprive any class, or section, or individual of the right of direct access to the Board of Admiralty. The scheme provides that
    "Each year an opportunity will be afforded for the employés to present petitions and requests or statement of grievances to the Board of Admiralty These representations should, in the first place, he placed on paper, and be forwarded through the local officers on or before a date of which notice will be given."
    This year I suggested to the Board, and the suggestion was approved, that they should take six great classes of workmen, and invite them to elect representatives to come to London and present the "case, as it affected those classes, for the yards as a whole. We selected the labourers and skilled labourers, shipwrights, fitters, boilermakers, clerical staff, and drawing office staff. The representatives were elected, and came to London, and with them came also persons not in our employment, nominated by the employés representatives, to the extent of half the deputation in each case. Our own employés were paid their ordinary time wages, railway fares, and subsistence allowance. I spent six days with those six classes in London. Finally, in respect to any class which did not send representatives to London, or any individuals, or any local aspect of some matter which requires local treatment, the scheme provides that I should go to every naval shipyard, see the men themselves, and hear everything that is outstanding. The idea of a conciliation board may be alright; I will not discuss that now; but I have a right to say that I am very glad of the opportunity of coming face to face with these men, and to hear the story of their lives and what they do with their wages. It is a very good education for me, at any rate. As I say, I should think it is not possible to find a private employer, or another State Department, which has such an effective system for dealing with these matters. In addition to meeting the representatives of these six great classes, I have already been to a number of the yards, and still have to go to Portland, Sheffield, Deptford, the West India Docks, and Greenock.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentlemen going to extend to other Departments
    1008
    the system introduced in connection with the six classes to which he has referred?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is the first year we have tried the system. We have begun with these six classes. There is nothing of the Medes and Persians about it, and I am seriously considering whether we ought not to bring some other classes to London in the same way. Take the store house staffs. I am not sure whether they do not represent a class large enough, with sufficiently varied interests, to be allowed to send representatives to London. But I must not be taken to be committed to that. I will consider very carefully how the system works, and whether we ought to increase the number of classes. Last year, in pursuance of the system which I have described, I heard 454 deputations, and' this year I have already heard over 300. This is the system which is described as being "antiquated," "out-of-date," and "absurd." It, at any rate, enables me to get the absolute views of the men in the most minute detail.
    Mr. BARNES: The main complaint is in regard to the delay in replying.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am going to deal with that. We have 55,000 employés, representing over 100 different classes of workmen, spread over many establishments and departments. Therefore the Committee will see that this is a very considerable task for anybody to undertake. I should like to say, particularly in view of the general tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), how much I appreciate the general goodwill and good temper which characterises these interviews. It is a great satisfaction to me, at any rate, to know that, generally speaking, the utmost cordiality subsists between these men and myself. They have-not got, and they do not get all that they think they are legitimately entitled to, and they do not forget to let me know it. But they do so with complete good temper, and, what is more, with a frank acknowledgement, which has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes), of what has already been done towards meeting their demands. What has been done? I will take the increase in the rates of wages between the 1st January, 1906, and 1st. October, 1913. I do not think that the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kin-loch-Cooke) is responsible for all these

    1009
    matters. There are one or two odd things that we do for which he is not responsible. Shipwrights' flat rate has gone up 3s. 6d. a week; joiners' flat rate by 2s. 6d.; plumbers', 2s. 6d.; sailmakers', 3s.; riggers', 2s.; bricklayers' predominant rate, 2s. 6d.; painters' minimum rate, 1s., maximum rate, 6d., and a special rate of 35s. 6d. introduced; smiths' minimum rate, from 28s. to 36s.; apprentices' final rate, from 14s. to 15s.; boilermakers', coppersmiths', fitters,' founders', and patternmakers' predominant rate, from 36s. to 38s.; skilled labourers' minimum rate, 3s. a week; labourers' minimum rate, from 20s. to 23s.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Unskilled?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. W. THORNE: The men whom I mentioned are not included in that.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Asylum attendants get less than that, but they get certain considerations beyond the flat rate of the men who get no consideration at all. With regard to the labourers, many appeals have been made from all quarters of the House. They are the lowest paid class of labour, and I shall represent in the proper quarter the views that have been ex pressed. I can give no undertaking, but I will certainly represent the view of Members in all parts of the House as to the desirability of carefully considering whether 23s. is the furthest we can go in regard to unskilled labourers. Attention has been called to the fact that at Haul-bowline the labourers get 22s., as against 23s. in other yards. That is so. The broad position taken up is that we must pay to the labourers a rate which com pares favourably with the rates paid out side the yard. I would challenge the hon Member to prove that unskilled labour in and about Haulbowline—
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The difficulty is that "while in the case of every other yard there is similar work with which a comparison can be made, at Haulbowline there is none. Therefore, it is very difficult to get a comparison, and I do not think the condition is quite fair.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They get the same rate as in other yards in regard to every form of labour except unskilled. I am dealing now solely with the unskilled labourers. The Noble Lord will not tell
    1010
    me that you cannot find unskilled labour in and around Haulbowline. There is a great deal of it, and, by comparison with the rates for that, certainly 22s. is at least as defensible as the 23s. paid to unskilled labourers elsewhere. Nevertheless, here again I will take careful note of the views expressed and represent them in the proper quarter. I say, finally, in regard to these rates, that the value of the increases which I have mentioned to the Committee, and others with which I will not trouble the Committee, amounts to £250,000 a year—that is to say, on the number now employed, the wages bill in the Royal yards is £250,000 more year by year than it would have been if these increases had not been made. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division referred to the yard boys. These boys are deserving of our consideration. We have done this much for them: we have made provision that they shall go to school at night, so that they may get some chances on the way. It is true that their wages have not been increased, but we have extended the-system of apprenticeship to this extent: In the Works Department we have introduced a system of apprenticeship, so that the boys may become joiners, stonemasons, and members of other trades. Certainly it would ill become me not to be constantly solicitous about the condition of these poor boys. With regard to boy artificers, my hon. Friend said that in addition to the educational test there ought not to be a sort of class test, that there ought to be no reference to the secondary school in which the boy must have been for a year, and that the boy ought to be given a chance of getting the education necessary for his training anywhere. What do we do? The Regulation now provides:—
    "Candidates are expected to have educational attainments at least equal to those of boys who enter by open competition. They should have spent at least one year in a school providing education of a secondary or higher grade elementary type, but"—
    Here is the suggested alteration:—
    "if, in any case, an educational authority is fully satisfied that the candidate, although he may not satisfy the above condition, has the necessary educational attainments as the result of attendance at an evening continuation school"—
    That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars asks about—
    "offering higher instruction, or otherwise, special application may be made to the Admiralty for this condition to be waived."
    Therefore, if my hon. Friend has followed me, he will see that the candidate need not attend a secondary or a higher elementary

    1011
    school if he reaches the necessary standard at a night school. If he does that he is just as much qualified as others.
    Mr. BARNES: There is the further stipulation that he shall make special application to the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Really, I do not think that that is a very great hardship.
    Mr. WILKIE: You are explaining now the care the Admiralty take in the training of their apprentices. I should like to ask, if that is the case, how, in some of the yards, you are taking in men who are not trained?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend ought to give an illustration of that. Our regulations are quite severe and strict enough, and any man who comes in has to give proper evidence that he is what he pretends to be. We make inquiry wherever necessary, in cases of that sort, and where a man comes in and pretends that he has his lines and all the rest of it. In all cases where we suspect fraud or where a man is not what he pretends to be, a close and careful investigation is made.
    Mr. WILKIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have had to take cases into Court before we could get redress? We have taken parties into Court who have not served an apprenticeship, or are not qualified?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That may be. I believe that is a fact; but as far as we can we see that our regulations are carried out. But with great respect may I say I was not on that point, but on the point of Boy E.R.A.'s. The matter raised by the hon. Member for Blackfriars as to making a special application to the Admiralty I do not think is a great hardship, but if the hon. Member will confer with me I will see whether or not that regulation can be modified. In regard to delays in replies to petitions. The suggestions of delays is a serious matter, but may I point out that last year we issued the wage replies—the great bulk of them, not all—on 9th May, and the increases of wages came into force on 1st June. The general replies were issued on 29th September, and this volume which I hold in my hand is the bulky volume which deals with them.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: What I complained of was that there are some departments that have waited long for a reply.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am coming to the complaint of the Noble Lord. On 29th September of last year we issued the replies which I hold in my hand. We asked for new petitions to be sent by April of this year. We received the new petitions in April. I have already described what we have done as to the new petitions in London, Haulbowline, Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Sheerness. I have spent a considerable amount of time in each case, but there are still some cases to deal with. I certainly hope that we shall get the general replies out before the date which is at the bottom of this volume, that is the 29th of September. That will be within twelve months. I do not know with what reason people can ask us to go beyond that. That is the annual review in which matters are dealt with in great detail. If you give an annual review of the conditions of service of the men you employ, I think you give them as much as can be asked for in reason. The Noble Lord referred to some petitions sent in in 1912, which he said have not got replies. Take one case, that of the yard craftsmen. The petitions came before me in 1912. The matter was a very complicated one. There were a great many different classes of men to deal with, considerable differences of hours, and varieties of methods in each yard. I suggested to the Board the advisability of appointing a Committee, which they did. A conscientious and careful investigation was made. The Committee finished their Report at the close of last year. I got it at the beginning of this. The Board has now about completed its consideration of this Report, and I hope that the replies to the men will appear in the ensuing edition of this document, which will be issued, as I have said, before 29th September. I do not think that after a recital of those circumstances that the Noble Lord will think that there has been undue delay: the Noble Lord is fair enough to admit that my explanation puts an entirely different colour upon the matter.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: But other Departments have been attended to. Why not the ones I mentioned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes, there has been Departmental consideration, but in some cases delay has taken place; not that we desire delay, but we desire to survey the matter fairly, and look into it with circumspection, and it may take time before we are able to make the reply.

    1013
    But I say we certainly hope to get the replies out before the date of last year—that is 29th September. As to the question of establishment raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Devonport, we added more than a thousand men last year. We contemplate adding 1,500 in 1914–15, and in all probability by the end of the financial year, 31st March, we shall have reached the percentage of about twenty—higher than the percentage mentioned by the hon. Member. We shall in all probability make some further additions in 1915–16.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Any maximum?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not giving a maximum, but, at any rate, by 31st March next there will be about the number I have indicated—10,000. Then the hon. Member referred to the Greenwich Hospital age pensions. We have this year £107,000 available. Previously to last year we had £100,900, which means £6,100 a year more. The number of new awards—that is to say, pensions which were made during 1913–14—were age pensions, 1,266; and increased age pensions, 87; a total of 1,353. The total numbers now in force at Greenwich Hospital of age and increased age pensions on the 31st March, 1914, was: Age pensions, 3,857; and increased age pensions, 5,760; making a total of 9,617. By the change which we have made for the transfer of naval age pensions to Greenwich Hospital Funds and of the increased provision for Greenwich Hospital age pensions, the average age at which the latter are awarded has been gradually reduced from sixty-four in recent years down, I am glad to say, to fifty-seven. It will go up again. The large influx of men from the Seamen Pensioner Reserve which is now taking place must inevitably have the effect of raising the average age at which the awards can be made.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not quite recently that this has come down to fifty-seven?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The age would be about sixty-four when I took up my present post. With regard to married men's separation allowance, I must remind hon. Members that in December, 1912, we increased the sailor's pay by something like £340,000 a year—which is a consideration! Although there is a separation allowance in the case of married women on the strength in the Army, you can hardly compare the Army with the Navy in this matter. You must survey the whole field
    1014
    with regard to the Army in the one case and sailors in the other before you are able fairly to assess their respective values. The hon. Member for Devonport, if I recollect him rightly, said that the First Lord of the Admiralty had said somewhere that if the wages of the seamen were increased the men might spend the extra money in drink.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, no. What the First Lord of the Admiralty said in this House was that he had been so informed.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think what my hon. Friend said was, that some people had said so, or might say that it would be so spent. However, we will leave it at that. Then the First Lord gave some particulars as to the increase in allotments, showing what the sailor had, to a large extent, done with the increased pay. The allotments now in force involve some very interesting figures. They number 75,000; that is to say, 75,000 Post Office orders go out at the beginning of every month to the mother, or wife, or relatives of the sailor. Since the increase of pay in December, 1912, there has been an increase in allotments of 15,000. That is a very remarkable fact. In reply to the Noble Lord, let me say I am here enforcing the observations of my right hon. Friend the First Lord. More than that, since the increase of pay there has been an average increase of a shilling in the amount of the various allotments, and I am glad to bear testimony to the lesson that points to. Reference has also been made to a suggested pension scheme for the hired men, and this matter, I know, is exercising the minds of these men very greatly. At present they go out at sixty or sixty-five with a gratuity. They have no pension. The gratuity works out at a week's wage for every year of service. Even if they get forty years of service to count for the gratuity, the amount will only carry them along for a year or a little more, and that leaves them some years before they are eligible for an old age pension. Therefore, they are greatly concerned. They have been for several years trying to get something in the way of a pension scheme, so as to tide over the period referred to. I have had to point out that I can give no assurance that the State will assist that because there are many considerations, and especially the money consideration involved. I have asked them to let me see their scheme, and I will give an undertaking

    1015
    that it shall be actuarily examined to see how far it is workable, but it must be self-supporting.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will you pay for that?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly the Treasury will. I do not quite know whether I have the sanction of the Treasury, but it is a comparatively small sum, and I think the matter must rest there.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can we have a definite answer as to the saving apparatus in the submarines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have many points to deal with, and I am taking the main point.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I will raise it again.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham referred to the sick attendants at Yarmouth. He made representations to me and changes were made. We propose to appoint a further attendant which will reduce the hours worked slightly below those worked at the Norfolk County Asylum and the Norwich City Asylum. Asylum, attendants work long hours, but they are not actually engaged in any particular work all the time. This further attendant will reduce the hours of work.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the question of an advance of wages? They have had no advance for thirty years.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can give no undertaking, but I will look into the case. They get less than the rates of those I mentioned but they get other things, uniform and so on. I will consider the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock referred to the question of housing. As he knows Clauses 2, 3, and 4 of the Housing Bill now before the House would give an opportunity for considering whether it might be necessary to assist with further housing accommodation. Although the Bill has only immediate application to Rosyth and Crombie, as far as I am concerned I do not see why we should not seriously consider whether the housing at Greenock might not be also considered. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton referred to the case of Henry Plant. I am very sorry for young Plant,
    1016
    and I am considering what can be done for him. According to the evidence before me three things are quite clear, namely, that these misfortunes would have befallen him whether he joined the Navy or not, that they would have befallen him whether he was vaccinated or not, and that there is no evidence in the medical testimony before me to connect the poor lad's illness with the vaccination. He joined the Navy on 29th August, 1911; he was vaccinated on 26th September, 1911, and the result was noted on the medical history sheet as "perfect." The vaccination took its normal course and there is no evidence of any sort of irritation arising out of the vaccination, and a number of other men were vaccinated at the same time with the same vaccine, and in every case the result was satisfactory.
    I see that in one of the communications Plant says that the vaccination took all right, and that the sores went away. On 18th October, 1911, Plant went sick with influenza. On 19th October he was admitted to hospital and when there complained of pains in his left shoulder at the point where the vaccination took place. The surgical exploration or operation took place on 4th November, and it revealed the fact that he was suffering from a diseased bone of the left arm. He was discharged and invalided 16th February, 1912. The certificate shows disease of the bone, periostitis, not attributable to the Service. I will say this, that young Plant's conduct sheet shows that he obtained the mark "very good" as to character both during the short period which he was on the books of the "Victory" and the short period he was on the books of the "Renown." The poor lad went back to Wolverhampton and the disease appears to have developed, and he was admitted to the Wolverhampton Infirmary and on 9th July, 1912, his arm was amputated, and later on further operations were necessary on the right arm and left leg. And he left the infirmary at the close of 1912 or the beginning of 1913 It is asserted throughout that his distressing condition—and certainly it is distressing—is the result of the vaccination, and that view is strongly endorsed by the Anti-Vaccination League.
    Mr. F. HALL: I hope I made it perfectly plain that I did not bring it forward on that.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman was very careful to say that he did not bring it forward on behalf of the?

    1017
    Anti-Vaccination League. Now I am advised by our medical staff that the disease of the bone was osteo myelitis, an inflammation of the bone and marrow which occurs in young persons frequently as a sequela of acute diseases such as scarlet-fever and influenza, and leads to blood poisoning and the formation of secondary abscesses in other parts of the body. It is frequently a fatal disease, and not infrequently leads to the amputation of limbs. The medical testimony is emphatic that the disease was due to constitutional reasons following upon influenza, and in no way connected with the vaccination. In the statement issued by young Plant to Members of the House he says:—
    "I am quite willing to be examined by any doctor."
    The hon. Member who spoke opposite asked, "Why do you not have him examined by someone else?" I am not anxious to make a point against the poor lad. But neither he nor his friends have sent us any medical testimony designed to rebut the evidence of our experts. He was ten months in Wolverhampton Infirmary under close observation. We have no testimony from them to the effect that the disease was in any way attributable to vaccination. About a year ago my hon. Friend behind me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton brought the case under my notice. I will say this: Both hon. Members have been most solicitous about the case all the time and made many representations to me. The matter was placed fully before the First Lord and myself, and after casting about in every direction as to what could be done, and looking carefully into the case, we were eventually able to move the Treasury to grant Plant as an act of grace a gratuity of £50, not by way of compensation at all., but as an act of grace. He refused that and said he was entitled to an amount by way of pension or gratuity equal to what would be granted if he lost an arm on active service. I should say that earlier this year the hon. Members for West Wolverhampton and East Wolverhampton, and other hon. Members, suggested that we might try to find some light employment for him. And on 29th April I instituted an inquiry in all the yards to see if some light work could be found for him. Reports were received from all to the effect that there was nothing there to offer at that time. The hon. Member opposite says we have lots of light jobs and light work. That is not so. There are lots of men in every yard, men
    1018
    of long service who have been invalided for injuries received on duty, and we are very anxious to find light jobs for them. Plant's service was only 139 days. He was invalided for diseases not attributable, as far as my belief and knowledge goes, in any way whatever to his service. If hon. Gentlemen leave the matter in my hands—I do not want to raise hopes unduly—I will certainly give an assurance that I will do everything in my power to find a light job for this young fellow, because although we have no responsibility, I recognise it is very deplorable that one so young should be brought to this state, and I shall certainly do everything in my power to secure that he should have some light employment.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there is something to show that this disease came after influenza? I draw attention to the fact that after the man was admitted as a stoker, and if illness followed through influenza, the Admiralty surely should do something. I only call attention to that point.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member is prepared to leave the matter in my hands, I will do everything I can to find a light job for Plant, but beyond that I cannot go.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I want to say a few words, because I have several hundreds of dockyard men in my Constituency, upon points that have been put before me. The right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to say he interviewed a large number of people in the dockyard. We are all well acquainted with the vigilance and care which the right hon. Gentleman shows in acquainting himself with the feelings of the men, but I am bound to say I have not heard a single member of my Constituency say, though they speak with the greatest respect of the right hon. Gentleman in interviewing these men, that any improvements followed from these interviews. The complaint they make is that though he is very gracious and courteous he does not grant their request. I am bound to say that actions speak louder than words, and although the right hon. Gentleman devoted a lot of time, quite unnecessarily in my opinion, to proving what we all knew before, that he was very vigilant, he did not combat the contention that the Government in the dockyards are not paying their men so well as outside employers.

    1019
    I will give a case in point. It is quite clear that the corporation is paying just the same class of men some two or three shillings a week more than the dockyard is paying to unskilled labourers. As taxpayers, we are anxious that due economy shall be observed in the salaries of employés, but we must enter a protest against the Government Department paying its employés less well than outside employers. We want the very best men that can be obtained in our dockyards for the efficiency of the Navy and for the credit of the State, and therefore we feel that, not only in the interests of the men, but of the Navy, the remuneration given should not be less than that of private employers. With reference to Devonport, the cost of rent and food and coal is 3 per cent. higher in Devonport than in Chatham and in Portsmouth, and yet there is a flat rate for unskilled labour m each of those places. The situation is made worse by neglect in reference to the building of houses. We all know that building has been greatly deterred, and houses have not been provided at anything like the rate in force a few years ago. Consequently rents are going up, and, although the right hon. Gentleman has made out a good case and has given some attention to the grievances of the men, after all, the increase he has given does not equal the increased cost of living and the increased rent, and therefore these men are really worse paid to-day than they were six or eight years ago. The right hon. Gentleman did not give a sympathetic reply to their case, and I hope he will consider that these men ought to be treated as fairly as men in outside employment.
    With regard to the ordinary labourers, they are very anxious that they should have an opportunity of becoming skilled labourers, instead of skilled labourers being employed from outside through the Labour Exchanges. The men who have been employed by the State ought to have a preference to any outside man, however good he may be. Some of the deputations that have come to me have pointed out that they think that certain men employed as train attendants and engaged in working dredgers and harbour defences, and in the dockyard department on punching machines ought to be classified as skilled labourers. I think their request is a reasonable one and well worthy of consideration and examination by the right
    1020
    hon. Gentleman. I think we ought to afford facilities for the men to build up a little pension for themselves and their families in their old age. A deputation pressed this matter on me very strongly, and I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would give the matter consideration. These men are quite prepared to make the necessary-sacrifice, but they do feel that it is of great importance instead of receiving gratuities when they leave their employment that there should be co-operation with the State so as to build up a little pension for them in their old age.
    It has been suggested that there should be a joint board to arrange the price for piecework composed partly of employés and partly of officials of the Department. I understand that this system prevails in private yards, and that it has resulted in very amicable relations and given great satisfaction to the men. I am sure the Admiralty desire to avoid anything like friction with their employés in this direction, and there should be co-operation between the workmen and officials of certain Departments so as to arrange the price to be paid generally for piece-work so as to establish a comfortable and a just way of dealing with this matter. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to go on, not only with his courteous interviews which he so readily gives, but also to give a reply to the petitions sent to him from time to-time a little more quickly than has hitherto been the case. I am satisfied that after the inquiry which he is making into certain Departments he will find that in several classes of dockyard employés the Government are paying their men less well than private employers outside. I am sure the taxpayer does not want that, because it causes dissatisfaction in the dockyards, and it is destructive of securing-the very best efforts the men can put forth in doing the work of the country. I desire on the part of my Constituents to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done. At the same time I think that a case is made out which is unanswerable for going further than the right hon. Gentleman has done, having regard to the great increase in the cost of living and rent, and he will have to go further before he has dealt justly with this important branch of the Service.
    Mr. WILKIE: I desire to add my appreciation to what has been said by previous speakers in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has done in the dockyards.

    1021
    Where we have been able to make out a very strong case the Secretary to the Admiralty has met fairly the question put before him, and he is entitled to take credit for what has been done. I would point out, however, in reply to his statement that the Admiralty are paying £250,000 more in wages than in 1906, that outside shipbuilders are paying more than that, as for instance the Admiralty are only paying their shipwrights 38s. whilst outside firms are paying 43s. and more. They are also paying a higher rate for work done through the contractors, and why should they not pay their own employés as well as they pay the men through the contractors, and really be the model employers which they say they are. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to remedy the grievance as to overtime. I wish to point out that in some yards the Admiralty are entering men as skilled mechanics who have not served their time and who are not qualified men, and that is an injustice to their own apprentices. I wish to press these two or three points upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will give them consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    HALF PAY AND RETIRED PAY.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,003,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    NAVAL AND MARINE PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,605,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."

    CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £399,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee to sit again tomorrow.

SUPPLY [10th July].—REPORT.

  Civil Service and Revenue Departments-Estimates, 1914–15.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,737, be granted to His. Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending: on the 31st March, 1915, for the Salaries-and Expenses of the Department of His-Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  Resolution agreed to.

DUBLIN DISTURBANCES.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a matter of the utmost gravity. Involved are, not only grave legal and constitutional questions, and not only the question of the impartial administration of the law between different sections of His Majesty's subjects, but, I am sorry to say, questions of human life. In this matter blood has been shed and life has been lost, and it seems to me that unless the most definite and drastic steps be taken to-prevent a recurrence of events of this kind disastrous consequences must certainly ensue. It is a difficult task, as I think Members in all parts of the House—men of fair mind—will acknowledge, for me to deal with this matter without some vehemence and heat, but I shall endeavour to do so. I shall deal only with the facts as they are known to me, and, indeed, as they are admitted by the public documents that have been read from the Government Bench; and I shall endeavour to do so, as far as it is possible for me, in a perfectly judicial spirit. Some years ago the Arms Act, which forbade in Ireland the importation of arms and the bearing and carrying of arms, was repealed, and, as a consequence, when the Ulster Volunteers were established they found that there was no law against the importation of arms and the carrying of arms in Ireland. The only necessity was to comply with the law dealing with the licence for the carrying of arms, and ever since the Ulster Volunteers were established the arming of this body has gone on quite openly. The police attended the drilling of this body; the police reported to the Government the drillings.

  1023
  and the arming of this body; the newspapers in this country reported from day to day the steps being taken for the purpose of arming this force; and, further than that, the leaders of this force themselves, I will not say boasted, because I guard myself against using a single offensive word with reference to the Ulster Volunteers or any political opponents as far as I can, but they stated quite openly in the newspapers, in their speeches outside, and in their speeches in this House that they were arming. This went on quite openly for a very considerable time.
  Finally, after the work of arming this force had been largely completed, according to the statements of its leaders, on the 4th December, 1913, last December, a Royal Proclamation was issued forbidding the importation of arms into Ireland. From the very first moment there were grave doubts as to the legality of that Proclamation. In an action which took place in the Courts in Belfast, the result was against the legality of the Proclamation. The Crown appealed from the Court in Belfast to the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, and, while the Proclamation was there upheld, the judges were divided in their judgment, and this Proclamation at this very moment when we are assembled here is the subject of an appeal, which is about shortly to be heard in the Court of Appeal in Dublin. My Friends and I were never in favour of the issue of this Proclamation. [A laugh.] I am sure hon. Members do not intend to treat this subject with levity, and I do ask them, unless I transgress, and I shall not as far as I can help it transgress, to listen with some patience to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My colleagues and I were never in favour of this Proclamation. We regarded it, and we made our opinions known as a futile proceeding, and as an exasperating and an irritating proceeding. We knew, everybody knew, perfectly well that it could be, and would be evaded. When the Lame episode occurred we, I may say, realised the terrible risks and the terrible dangers which proceedings of this kind entail. When the Government announced their decision of not taking any immediate proceedings against the Larne gunrunners my colleagues and myself entirely approved of their action. Before that action was taken we had made our view known, and we thought, after all that had happened, that it would have been a
  1024
  futile and an exasperating and a useless proceeding to enter upon a series of prosecutions in connection with that transaction; and, if people hold that the Government were wrong in not prosecuting the Larne gun-runners, for my part I share the responsibility with them. I was against them taking any prosecutions at that time, but we again urged, as we had urged over and over again, upon them the desirability of the withdrawal, or at any rate the suspension, of the Proclamation. Finally, I felt it my duty to put upon record my view upon this matter, and on the 30th June I wrote the following letter to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I said:—
  "I have to ask you to bring the following statement before the Prime Minister as to our view in regard to the Arms Proclamation. We are strongly of opinion that it should be withdrawn or suspended pending the decision of the Court of Appeal, and for the following reason:

  (1) The legality of the Proclamation is open to serious doubt. It was upset in an action in Belfast. On the appeal to the Court of King's Bench the judges were divided, and the senior judge of the three expressed himself strongly against the legality of the Proclamation. Notice of further appeal has been given. In the meantime, the Government is enforcing the Proclamation in some parts of Ireland, and leaving themselves open to innumerable actions at law.

  (2) The Proclamation has been an entire failure in Ireland. The evidence of this failure will he found in the article of the military correspondent of the Times of this date"—

  a remarkable article, which I dare say every Member of this House read at the time—
  "and the general description of the situation contained in that article is, we believe well founded. We believe the statements that arms are largely being sent into Ulster are true.

  (3) Meantime, in the South and West of Ireland, not only are the most active measures being taken against the importation of arms, but many owners of vessels are harassed unnecessarily.

  (4) The effect of this unequal working of the Proclamation has been grave amongst our people, and has tended to increase both their exasperation and their apprehensions.

  (5) The apprehensions of our people are justified to the fullest. They find themselves, especially in the North, faced by a large, drilled, organised, and armed body. Furthermore, the incident at the Curragh has given them the fixed idea that they cannot rely on the Army for protection. The possession of arms by Nationalists would, under these circumstances, be no provocation for disorder, but a means of preserving the peace by confronting one armed force with another, not helpless, but, by being armed, fully able to defend themselves.

  Finally, we want to call your most serious attention to the grave and imminent danger of a collision between Nationalists and police in the effort to import arms. The police in the South and West might not be so passive as they were in the recent affair at Larne, and there might be serious conflicts, and even loss of life, and from this day forward every day which the Proclamation is enforced as strictly as it is now against the Nationalists brings increased danger of disastrous collision between the police and the people."
  In that document I made a formal record of the representations that we had been making for some time past upon time

  1025
  question to the Government, and the concluding paragraph which I have just read exactly describes what happened yesterday in Dublin. What happened there? A boatload of rifles was landed at Howth, about eight miles outside Dublin. In the landing of these rifles no blow of any kind was struck, and most of the guns, and I believe the ammunition also, was sent away by car—by conveyances of some sort—from the Port where they were landed. The Volunteers who were present—it is stated there were about 1,000 of them—each got a rifle and proceeded to march back with the rifle the eight miles into Dublin. When they had gone six miles of the eight on the road to Dublin, they were met by a force of police and soldiers; and the "Times"—I quote the "Times" especially because it will not be regarded as in any way prejudiced on my side of this controversy—the "Times" Special Correspondent in to-day's issues says:—
  "The men then formed up and started to march home. Many police marched with the men and cheered them heartily. Those who had gone on ahead found tram-loads of Scottish Borderers, and the leaders therefore hurried back, and when the two opposing forces met they were ranged up across the road facing one another. Assistant Commissioner Harrel ordered the leaders to hand over the arms, but was informed, in reply, that in Ulster men with rifle" were marching every day in the streets, but that if he wished for the names of the responsible persona he might have them at once. He emphasised his determination to take the rifles, and said the soldiers had ball cartridge, and that he intended in case of need to order them to use it. He then ordered a bayonet charge and several Volunteers were wounded in the arms. Others fired in return on the military, and two soldiers were removed wounded. The Metropolitan Police were ordered to remove the rifles, but they refused to obey. These police were removed under arrest by the soldiers. It was a ticklish moment. Mr. Harrel then called for a conference with the Volunteer leaders. Orders were quietly given that the Volunteers with rifles should disperse and disappear through the city, while the front ranks kept a solid front to disguise the manœuvre. While this was being executed one of the Volunteer leaders held Mr. Harrel's attention in close conversation. An inspector then came up and said that all the Volunteers except the first two lines had disappeared. These then turned right-about-face, broke ranks, and made after their friends."
  What rifles were captured were taken from the front ranks. The rest of the rifles were safely removed in the city of Dublin by the Volunteers. I have been reading the Irish papers which have just reached the House. I find a very important report of a conversation between one of the leaders of the Volunteers and Mr. Harrel, in which Mr. Harrel said to him:—
  "This is an illegal proceeding."
  This gentleman, whose name was Mr. Figgis, replied:—
  "There is only one illegality about the whole matter, and that is the actual gun-running, for which I am willing to hold myself entirely responsible. I am
  1026
  willing to give you my name and address, and surrender my person if you desire, and if you think an illegality has been committed. These men who were carrying arms were only doing what men have been doing in Belfast City for the last three weeks under the observation of the police. If you are willing to arrest me I am perfectly willing to go with yon, but, if you do so, I demand these men shall be permitted quietly to disperse."
  Mr. Harrel said:—
  "I must have these guns,"
  and Mr. Figgis replied:—
  "There are boxes of ammunition, and it is not likely these men will allow their rifles to be taken from them. If there is any violence, you will be responsible."
  Mr. Harrel then said:—
  "The military with me have ball cartridge, and we intend, if necessary, to use it."
  I assert that no such attempt to disarm a body of Volunteers has ever been made during the many long months that have passed in Ulster, and it is really ludicrous when you consider the state of things here. To-day I saw in one of the leading London morning newspapers a picture which I have in my hand of a large body of Ulster Volunteers marching in Belfast on Saturday last, each man carrying his rifle, and escorting five machine guns through the streets. In the very next column of this same issue of the same paper there is an account of Mr. Harrel requesting the police and soldiers to disarm the Volunteers marching along the road from Howth to Dublin.
  I ask who is responsible for this monstrous attempt to discriminate in the administration of the law between various classes of His Majesty's subjects in Ireland? Apparently, according to the account given by the Government at Question Time, one subordinate police official is responsible, namely, Mr. Harrel. Mr. Harrel is second in command of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Where was his superior officer? He was in Ireland. According to my information he was in Dublin. Where was he? What is his responsibility? That superior officer is Sir John Ross. We have had experience of Sir John Ross in the past. In the recent riots in connection with the Larkin movement in Dublin, Sir John Ross proved himself a thoroughly incompetent officer, and, as a result of what happened at that time, he ought to have been removed from his post. He is totally unfitted for a responsible position such as he occupies. He is a well-known political partisan. I say it is not sufficient for the Government to suspend Mr. Harrel; they should suspend his superior officer. If Sir John Ross was otherwise engaged and did not know what

  1027
  was going on, as he ought to have known, as soon as he learnt it he ought to have taken the action the Government have now taken about Mr. Harrel—he ought to have suspended Mr. Harrel. I say the Government ought to suspend Sir John Ross because he did not suspend Mr. Harrel. What were Mr. Barrel's proceedings? He heard that there was some gun-running going on at Howth, and he instantly requisitioned the police and the military. I understand that legally he is one of the people entitled by Statute to requisition the military when they are necessary to support the police. We would like to have some evidence of the ground upon which he went when he requisitioned the soldiers in this case. His power over the military seems to have been very large. A mere hint from General Paget that in some imaginary contingency in the future it might be necessary to ask on behalf of the civil power for assistance from the military led to a very remarkable episode in the Curragh Camp. But this subordinate police official in Dublin apparently has the legal power and the actual power, by raising his finger, to bring the troops into requisition.
  I want to know whether, before taking this serious step, he took the advice of the Irish Executive. There is an Irish Executive in Dublin Castle—[HOST. MEMBEBS: "No, no!"]—but apparently, to such a state of impotence has the British Government been reduced under the Union in Ireland that a subordinate police official is able to call in the soldiers without even informing the Executive of his intention to do so. He did not inform the Executive. When the Executive heard of it—I do not know how they heard: perhaps it was by chance—the first thing they did—I am now going to say what the Chief Secretary said at Question Time—was to send for this police officer to come to them. Did he come? Not at all! No, he was otherwise engaged, and he disobeyed the summons of the Executive and went gaily on with his work. Then the Executive, having ascertained fully what was on foot, drew up a Minute, which was read at Question Time by the Chief Secretary, directed to Mr. Harrel telling him to desist, saying that they disapproved of what he was doing, and ordering him to stop. But the orders, of course, arived late, and the mischief was done. I say that under these circumstances Mr. Harrel is directly and personally responsible for all
  1028
  that has happened. Happily, in the conflict which took place at Clontarf between the Volunteers and the soldiers, nothing of a very serious character occurred. [An HON. MEMBER: "Soldiers were shot!"] The soldiers did not fire on the Volunteers at all, and, according to the information supplied to me, which I hope the Chief Secretary will confirm, the Volunteers did not fire either. There were two revolver shots, I am told, that were fired, not from the Volunteers, but from the side—a side-street or somewhere at hand—and they struck two of the soldiers. The soldiers were ordered to charge with the bayonet. They did so, and a number of Volunteers were wounded, and the matter, in that way, ended. The Volunteers went away, taking their rifles with them; the soldiers returned back to the city of Dublin.
  As inevitably happens in these cases, rumours of a thousand tongues were at work in the city of Dublin, and before the small contingent of soldiers reached the city on their way back the city was aflame with all sorts of unfounded and exaggerated accounts of what had taken place. It was said that Volunteers had been fired at, that numbers of them had been killed, and the soldiers found when they got back to the city that they were surrounded by an exasperated and excited crowd. I am happy to say that from the moment they left Clontarf until they got up to their barracks the Volunteers had nothing to say to the transaction. In the conflict which, unfortunately, took place in the streets of Dublin, there was no Volunteer present at all. So that what the Volunteers apparently did was this: They were marching quietly along with their arms; they met the soldiers and the police, who demanded that they should give up their arms; they refused to give them up, and after, apparently, a small conflict, the Volunteers marched away, keeping their arms with them, and from then until the end of the deplorable transaction the Volunteers may be left out of it altogether. There were none at all present in the streets during the conflict that took place subsequently with the police. The soldiers were surrounded by the ordinary street crowd. They were passing some of what might be called, perhaps, the lower streets of the town—the Liffey Street, and streets like that abutting on the quay, and were surrounded by a crowd of men, women, and children, who had heard, of course, this rumour which had spread like wildfire that they had fired on and killed a

  1029
  number of Volunteers. The soldiers were then assailed. They were assailed apparently in a most deplorable way, and nobody regrets it more heartily than I do. They were assailed with missiles of various kinds. It is a happy thing for me to be able to say that no single soldier at that time was seriously injured, according to my information, not one. The soldiers, however, fired upon this crowd.
  We were told by the Chief Secretary they they received no order from their officers to fire. His statement means this: That goaded by the cries of the crowd and by the missiles thrown at them, a number of the men, losing their heads suddenly, turned and fired. Mark that that presupposes that they were marching through the streets of Dublin with their rifles loaded with ball cartridge—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—when, as everybody knows, who is at all familiar with the action of troops in dealing with riotous mobs, the first thing that happens in such cases is that the soldiers are told to load. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never!"] I think so, and I have always understood that the mere fact of ordering troops to load has often been itself a deterrent to a riotous crowd. In this case apparently they were marching to the City of Dublin with ball cartridges in their rifles. If these men under these circumstances turned and fired on a motley crowd of men, women and children, they undoubtedly did a cowardly thing. But I am happy to think in this connection that no soldier was hurt, and no one feels more deeply than I do that this is not the place to judge these men. These men are liable for whatever crime they have committed to the civil authorities, they are liable to the military authorities, and they must be judged by these authorities. They must be fairly judged and they must be fairly punished. [Laughter.] When I say they should be punished I mean if they have committed any crime. Do let hon. Members do me the simple justice of saying that I say this is not the place to judge these men. They must be judged by the civil authorities and the military authorities, and if they have been found quility of any crime they must Le properly punished.
  But really the responsibility rests upon those who requisitioned the troops under these circumstances. So far as the troops are concerned, I deplore more than I can say that this has occurred—this incident calculated to breed bad blood between the Irish people and the troops. I deplore
  1030
  that. I hope that our people will not be so unjust as to hold the troops generally responsible for what no doubt, taking it at its worst, was the offence of a limited number of men. Let me say to the Prime Minister, as Secretary for War, that in the best interests of peace and in the best interests of the Army itself, no matter what the merits of this thing may turn out to be, I respectfully suggest to him that this regiment should be removed from Ireland. Generally let me sum up what I ask from the Government. First of all I ask that Sir John Ross should be suspended and put upon his trial at once. Secondly, I ask that there should be an immediate inquiry by impartial persons whose names ought to be disclosed at once, to-morrow if possible, into all the facts of this deplorable occurrence. I ask that a full judicial and military inquiry in addition should be held into the action of the troops, and that proper punishment should be inflicted upon them if they are found guilty. I suggest, in the interests of the Army, and in the interests of peace, the removal of this regiment from Ireland, and I ask, finally, for the revocation of this Proclamation, which, as long as it stands, will be a constant source of risk and danger. I ask that the law shall be administered impartially, and that what is regarded as lawful in Ulster shall not be regarded as a crime in Munster, Lednster or Connaught. I ask that so long as the Ulster Volunteers are allowed to arm and drill and march with fixed bayonets and machine guns, Nationalist Volunteers must be given the same freedom, and I conclude by saying, let the House clearly understand that four-fifths of the Irish people will not submit any longer to be bullied, or punished, or penalised, or shot, for conduct which is permitted to go scot-free in the open light of day in every county in Ulster by other sections of their fellow countrymen.
  Mr. HAYDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward with eloquence and with, I think, great judgment very much the question that he put to me at the close of the ordinary questions on the Paper to-day, and I think the reply that I gave to that question to some considerable extent answered some portion, at all events, and to me the most material, of the speech to which we have just listened.

  1031
  I informed the House, after stating the reason very shortly, but still sufficiently, that the Government had directed the suspension of Mr. Harrel pending the inquiry. The significance of that was, of course, obvious to everyone. I can only say for myself, personally, that I would fifty times sooner, whatever the personal consequences might be to myself, be here to-night supporting the action of Mr. Harrel, if I honestly could, than, as it were, recognising, as I do recognise, and as I am obliged to recognise, in my opinion at all events, the great mistake that he has made. Mr. Harrel is well known to me. He, furthermore, is the son of one of my most intimate friends in Ireland, a colleague of mine on the Congested Districts Board, and a person who, as anyone who has any knowledge of Ireland knows, is a most valuable and efficient public servant, who in all kinds of positions in Ireland, and actually as head of the men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, has played a great part. It is therefore no pleasure to me, it is a painful duty to me, who have already been obliged to communicate to the House that in our judgment he committed such an error of judgment as requires that he should be suspended from his office, and that an inquiry should be directed as to his conduct in this case. The whole trouble, the deplorable circumstances, the loss of life, the bad blood, the ill-feeling between troops and civilians is all due, everyone must admit, was his action, right or wrong, to the demand by the Assistant-Commissioner that he should have the assistance of the military in this matter. But for that we should probably have had no trouble at all, or, at all events, none of the melancholy incidents of yesterday would ever have occurred. Therefore, the question is, was or was not the Assistant Commissioner justified in invoking the services of a small body of military to enable the police to take the proceedings, which he thought necessary for them to take, against men walking along the road from Clontarf into Dublin? I put that to the Opposition, and I ask them as men who have themselves been responsible, who, as they think, may again be responsible for public affairs, and who, at all events, have the responsibility of men who recognise that the Executive has to act—I ask them, do they approve, or can they approve, of what was done, or do they think that we are justified in
  1032
  saying that the officer who took this action should be suspended? I do not ask the House in any way whatever to have any doubt as to my position or the Government's position in this matter. We think there was an astonishing lack of discretion shown by this gentleman, of whom I wish to speak as well as I possibly can, knowing him as I do. I say he showed a great lack of discretion when he requisitioned 160 soldiers to come to the aid of the police, and in taking upon himself a duty which he knew perfectly well had not been undertaken by the Government in other parts of Ireland. He knew that, rightly or wrongly—and that is not the issue before the House at present—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is!"] It may be in some minds, but that is not the issue. He knew that he had undertaken to do what the Government, rightly or wrongly, had not taken upon themselves, and I am perfectly prepared to defend the action of the Government on grounds of public policy. Rightly or wrongly, they had not taken it upon themselves to interfere with the Ulster Volunteers in carrying their arms about with them, in drilling in the open and avowed fashion which they all have done, and as everybody knows they have done. They have been seen doing it. They have never denied doing it. They have done it in every one of the nine counties in Ulster, and I want to know what difference there is in one road in Belfast, or Monoghan, or Tyrone, and a road that leads from them into Dublin.
  9.0 P.M.
  I believe as to that there is some doubt whether the action of these men, having landed their weapons—whether, when they reached Clontarf, five miles away, and were making their way in the direction of Dublin, they were committing illegalities or not. That is a question which does not arise, because, as I say, that having taken the course we have deliberately done in Ulster and Belfast, there is no reason whatever for us to raise the point as to whether these men were or were not committing illegal actions. It is very doubtful whether they were. At all events, everybody must recognise that to discriminate between Volunteers in one part of Ireland and Volunteers in another part is a thing it is absolutely impossible for any Government to do. It may be said that we ought to have taken violent action long ago to suppress the Ulster Volunteers. [HON; MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

  1033
  You say that, but we did not do so, and it is, therefore, a consequential act of ordinary justice that we should not attempt to take proceedings, the legality of which may be doubtful, and, at all events, which we were estopped from taking by our action in Belfast, Ulster, and other parts of Ireland. I regret to have to pass this preliminary condemnation—for it is only a preliminary condemnation—on Mr. Harrel, whose act I cannot honestly say I regard as otherwise than an extraordinary act of indiscretion, the consequences of which have been what we all know, and what I hope we all deplore. That act should be made the subject of close and careful scrutiny, and in the meantime he should be suspended from the office that he holds.
  With regard to his chief, Sir John Ross, I confess that when I first heard the news this morning of what Mr. Harrel, or the Dublin Metropolitan Police, had taken upon themselves to do, I had very little doubt in my own mind that the suspension of Mr. Harrel should have been accompanied by the suspension of Sir John Ross. I have received from Mr. Harrel a communication in which with characteristic courage—for' his courage cannot be doubted—he took upon himself the whole responsibility for this matter. That being so, in the first instance, it seems to me right that my suspension of him should be confined to himself. I have since communicated with Sir John Ross to ascertain from him whether it be a fact, as I am led to suppose by Mr. Harrel, that he really had no responsibility whatever for this matter, and, if so, whether he, since he knew of it, associates himself with the act, and if so—[Interruption.] I think it is only right and proper to say that the original view which I first had as to the two officers together, one the chief and the other the subordinate, was! that both should be included in the same suspension—
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a communication from Mr. Harrel. Is there any objection to read it to the House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I think there is a strong objection, inasmuch as Mr. Harrel is suspended pending an inquiry into the whole proceedings. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I condemned him. I suspended him in consequence of his having, in my judgment, committed a great breach of discretion,
  1034
  and pending that suspension there will be an inquiry into his conduct, and in that suspension Sir John Ross will be included if it appears to me the fact that he himself is equally responsible for the act which has required the suspension of Mr. Harrel. I was very glad to notice what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the soldiers. It is most important that you should distinguish what took place at Clontarf, which is the boundary of the municipal city of Dublin, and where the Volunteers with their rifles proceeded along a road when stopped by the police being drawn across it—it is most important to distinguish what took place there, and what took place subsequently when the troops were withdrawn from the police—all their duties being over, and the police having separated from them—and were simply making their way back to the barracks.
  At Clontarf the whole thing arose from the action of the police. The police crossed the road and forbade the Volunteers to proceed any further, and in a scrimmage they appear to have been successful in possessing themselves of some twenty or twenty-two of the rifles which were in the possession of the foremost members of the Volunteers. The soldiers, if I may make reference to a report without now being required to produce what will be made the subject-matter of a complete inquiry, made no complaint whatever against the action of the Volunteers. They had no reason whatever to believe that these two lamentable shots which were fired, one of which injured one soldier and the other injured another, were fired by the Volunteers at all. [An HON MEMBER: "Who fired them?"] How can I answer the question who fired them? In the belief of the soldiers they did not proceed from the Volunteers. That, I think, ought to be a matter for congratulation to everybody, particularly to every Irishman. But for that lamentable occurrence, which I deeply deplore, the interference and the incidence at Clontarf might be said to have passed over without any very great remark. The Volunteers, remaining in possession of their arms, dispersed. The police were taken off and made their own way back, and the soldiers, only 160 of them in all, relieved from having been requisitioned in this manner to support the civil force, were making their way back to their barracks. They made their way back for a mile or two, as far as I can make out, without

  1035
  any interference. But as they approached Amiens Street Station and the streets near thereto they were made the victims of a gross attack. Here I will read the whole of one report which I have received from the Brigadier. It is short, and I think in justice to the soldiers that it should be read:—
  "The reason for troops being sent out was personal request made to me by Assistant Commissioner Harrel of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, for the assistance of military to seize arms illegally being brought into Dublin, as Volunteers carrying arms"—
  an occurrence that is long familiar to many hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  "were reported to be 1,000 strong at least, all armed with rifles, fixed bayonets, and then marching on Dublin. I had to act at once, and dispatched the nearest troops available. No time to make other arrangement. Officer commanding Scottish Borderers informs me, so far as he can form an opinion, the National Volunteers who brought in arms from Howth and then dispersed, were in no way concerned with dangerous and savage mob which attacked the Scottish Borderers on the way back to barracks. Practically all officers and men were hit, and eighteen men are so seriously hurt as to be either in hospital or unfit for duty this morning. This includes the two men wounded by revolver shots. I am of opinion troops acted with great forbearance and self-restraint under circumstances of great provocation. Charge at Clontarf with bayonet. No order to fire given."
  That means given at Clontarf. Nor was, as I informed the House earlier this afternoon, any order to fire given by the commanding officer, then commanding, where the later incident occurred, and where the lamentable loss of life happened, there being three lives lost and thirty-one persons more or less seriously injured, though I hope, with these three deaths the loss of life is at an end. Therefore, we have to distinguish carefully between the two incidents, the attack by the mob on the soldiers, which was made as the soldiers were making their way back to barracks, and the incident at Clontarf. There was no question there of the soldiers aiding the civil force. There was no mob no faction, and no contention whatsoever for the soldiers to pacify. They were simply making their way back to barracks, where, in consequence it may be of the reports to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, an angry mob of a violent kind did attack them. Therefore, I do honestly hope that in the interests of the soldiers, and in justice to the soldiers, it will not be said that, whatever occurred, the soldiers fired upon a defenceless mob. The mob were the attackers. They made a serious attack on a very limited number of soldiers; they surrounded them in all particulars, and hindered their passage to their barracks.
  1036
  Those, at all events, are the circumstances as to which full inquiry will have to take place. With reference to the removal of the Scottish Borderers from Dublin, that is a matter which I shall refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who is also Secretary of State for War, who will per haps take into consideration what is pro posed to be done, and will do all he can. I say that the whole fons et origo mali was the intervention—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Of the Government.
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the opinion of the Noble Lord the Government is the origin and foundation of all evils. [Interruption.] What occasioned all this trouble and dispute and ill-blood and ill-feeling was the wholly unnecessary intervention of the military in this matter. If that had not been done, this Adjournment would not have been moved, and we should not be here discussing this question now. And, therefore, I say, in all honesty and depth of conviction, that it is right and proper that the person or persons responsible for requisitioning the military in this matter should be made a subject-matter of inquiry, and that, pending that inquiry, he or they should be suspended from the offices which they occupy. That is the view which I present to the House, and I shall be very much surprised if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly those connected in any way with what is going on in Ulster, would attempt in any way to distinguish between the two cases of interference which would be justifiable in one case, when it has not been made in the other.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Let me say at the outset that I appreciate, as I think the whole House did, the temperate way in which a case about which he must feel very strongly was presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have only one comment to make, if I may even venture to put that, on his statement of the case. I think that he was not fair to the soldiers for the information which we have just received from the Chief Secretary, and I would remind him and the House also that it is surely drawing too big a conclusion to assume that the soldiers were marching with loaded rifles, for obviously it was in their power if they had the cartridges to insert them at a moment's notice, and this is probably what was done. I have listened to many speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, which

  1037
  surprised me, but I never listened to any speech or read any speech which seemed so amazing as that to which we have just listened. There are two perfectly distinct questions which arise in connection with the subject which we are discussing tonight. The first of these is the incident with which previous speakers have dealt, and important that is indeed, for I do not at the moment, at least, recall any occurrence of the same kind which was more deplorable than the one which happened yesterday. That is therefore very important. But the other question which arises is to my mind far more important, and that is that the conditions under which the Government of Ireland is carried on to-day have made such an incident possible, and in my opinion have made such incidents inevitable in one part or other of Ireland. I shall not say much about the incident itself now; nor indeed shall I occupy much of the time of the House. But in the first place I should like to draw the attention of the House to what the Chief Secretary considers justice to men who are serving under his orders.
  Take, first, Sir John Ross. I really think that when the Chief Secretary reads in cold blood what he has said on that matter, he will himself be ashamed of it. What did he say? He said, not merely that if Sir John Ross shared the responsibility he would also suspend him—with that I should find no fault—but that he would put the question to Sir John Ross, "Do you associate yourself with what is done?" A more utterly unjust thing it is impossible to conceive. If that question were put to any man in the position of Sir John Ross, if he were a loyal man, what answer but one could he give to that question? Of all men to make a suggestion of that kind the last, I think, should be a Member of the Government. It would be quite natural that the Prime Minister, or the head of any Government, should be asked whether he had responsibility for something done or said by his colleagues, and in his case he must accept it. But would any Prime Minister, unless he felt that his colleagues had been disloyal to him, or he were disloyal to his colleagues, if he were asked whether he associated himself with what was done, give any answer but one? Let us turn to Mr. Harrel. I do not think that the method adopted by the Chief Secretary is one which is likely to secure for any Government efficient and loyal service
  1038
  in the future. What does he do? He tells us that he is instituting an inquiry into the action of Mr. Harrel, and, before that inquiry takes place, he condemns him in language stronger than I have ever heard applied to any servant of the Government. He condemns him in advance.
  When I asked him if he would read to the House the communication he has received from Mr. Harrel, he says, "No; the subject is a matter of inquiry." He cannot give Mr. Harrel's defence because the subject is sub judice, but that does not prevent him from condemning him beforehand. I quite recognise the truth of what the Chief Secretary said, that what was done was very serious, and I shall certainly not be prepared now to say that it was not right to suspend Mr. Harrel. I do not say that. My own position is this, and I think it is a position that the House ought to adopt: We ought to keep an open mind until we have more knowledge of the facts than has been communicated to us up to the present. Let us take, for instance, the ground on which the Chief Secretary condemns him. It is that Mr. Harrel must have known that similar acts were being done in Ulster, and, therefore, obviously it was not right for him to interfere with them in Munster or Leinster. But there is a preliminary question. I understood that all over the South and West of Ireland the Government and the police were stopping the importation of arms. If so, had not the police instructions to carry out that operation? And the preliminary question which this House has a right to ask the Chief Secretary here is: Did he tell the police that since such things had been done in Ulster, they were to be permitted in the rest of Ireland; if not, was this gentleman doing other than acting in accordance with instructions which had been given to him? But there is something else which I should like to ask the House to consider in reference to the answer which was read this afternoon. It is perfectly incomprehensible to me, the whole incident. This is what happened. Mr. Harrel telephoned to the Under-Secretary and the message reached him at two o'clock. He went, as I understand, to the office in Dublin Castle at once, and he expected the Under-Secretary to join him there.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Expected Mr. Harrel?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; Mr. Harrel expected the Under-Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will read

  1039
  the passage to him. The Under-Secretary could have reached the place in a quarter of an hour at the outside. He took three-quarters of an hour, and when he got there the head of the Irish Constabulary said, not that Mr. Harrel had not come, he said: "Mr. Assistant Commissioner was sorry to say that he was unable to stay and see the Under-Secretary." He had been there. This thing, if it were to be stopped at all, must be stopped at once; there was no time to lose. Therefore, he must take the responsibility of either making up his mind that he would not interfere or that he would take action at once. There is something more in this connection. The Government in Ireland adopted a method which commends itself to many people, and finds favour with the Government, and that is the hunting out a scapegoat to save themselves. What did they do? They wrote a precious Minute. They could have found out with perfect case where Mr. Harrel was. [An HON. MEMBEE: "No!"] Why not? They knew where the incident was taking place, why could not they have sent a motor car with the message and given it to Mr. Harrel? It was perfectly easy. Remember, the officer in command of these troops was not at their head at first, but Major Haig was able to reach them quite easily. Why could not the message from the Under-Secretary have been sent to Mr. Harrel in exactly the same way? What happened? They wrote a Minute to save their own precious skin, and they sent it to the office where they knew Mr. Harrel was not, instead of sending it to Mr. Harrel where he was. They have evidently learned the lesson which is taught them by those on that bench—they like to "wait and see." They were not sure that Mr. Harrel would not be successful; in that case they would let him do it. If he turned out to be unsuccessful, there is the Minute; he is to blame; we have nothing to do with it. But there is something else in connection with this business. I have the report from the Press Gallery. I will not read the Minute, but this is the end of it:—
  "(Signed)", J.B.D.' the Under-Secretary, 27th July, 1914."
  Is it a mistake?
  Mr. BIRRELLindicated assent.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That part, of course, falls away and I will say no more about it—but it is one of the mistakes which ought not be made—and, remember, this is not
  1040
  the report of the Press, this is the report that was sent to the Press by the Chief Secretary. That is all that I will say about the incident except this, that I thoroughly agree with all that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. Redmond) about the regret-tableness of this from every point of view. It has raised in its acutest form, what every well-wisher, either of the United Kingdom or of Ireland, would wish to avoid—it raises the old feeling of hostility and hatred against the British Army in Ireland. I turn to the other and far more important aspect of this question. How is it possible that such things can happen? There is only one answer. It is because the Government have abrogated authority in Ireland and have ceased to govern. You cannot declare in one part of Ireland that "we will do nothing, and we will allow the law to be openly broken," and expect that it will be obeyed in another part of Ireland. I entirely agree with every word that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford—every word; and I go further, and I say that I do not blame in any shape or form the Nationalist Volunteers for what they did yesterday. Ulster Volunteers would have done the same. It is not a subject on which we can blame them. We would have all acted as they did if in their place. But what about the Government which allows those things to be done and takes no step to put it down? An hon. Member below the Gangway said it is the fault of my right hon. Friend. I share it, and at the proper time, which this is not, I am prepared, and I shall be prepared again, not only to justify it but to declare in our sincere belief no other course was open. What has that to do with it? It is not the fact that the law is broken which brings the law into contempt. It is broken in all countries. What brings the law into contempt is that it is broken with impunity. It is the Government and the Government alone is responsible. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, and it was received with cheers in all quarters of the House except the Treasury Bench, is there an Executive in Ireland. That is a natural question, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman told us not so long ago that the real Chief Secretary was the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). There was an Executive then, at all events, and now, apparently, it does not give the same satisfaction. I say there never has been a case,

  1041
  to the best of my belief, in the history of any country where a Government has deliberately refused to carry out the law and yet continue to hold office. They had at the very outset of this business two courses open to them. When they found, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford pointed out, that men were openly drilling to resist the Government, the Government, I think, had only two courses open to them. They were bound then to say to the hon. and learned Member: "In the bargain which I have made with you I have undertaken—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!" and HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—more than I can carry out. That was one of them, and the other course was to say, "I intend to carry out our policy, and I shall put down any illegal act which is directed against that policy." That was their proper course if they meant to carry it out. In my belief nothing could be more criminal, if they really meant to carry out their policy, than to allow this force to grow day by day and week by week with the knowledge that when they came to deal with it it would be infinitely more difficult than it was at the beginning. That is obvious, anyone must see. What did they do? At the beginning they poured contempt on the movement; it was wooden guns and all the rest of it; then the gun-running at Larne took place, and we had another tone. The Prime Minister said this:—
  "In view of this grave and unprecedented outrage the House may be assured that His Majesty's Government will take, without delay, appropriate steps to indicate the authority of the law and protect officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their duty."
  He did not do so, and we now know the reason. The hon. Member for Waterford told us he informed him he did not approve of it, and that was the end of it, of course. When that happened, I put it to any hon. Member in any quarter of the House, if any Government could hope to retain the respect and confidence of any section of their supporters, they were bound, if they thought they had the power and sanction of the people, to assert the authority of the law; and if they doubted it, their one course was to go to the people. I know that on the benches opposite that is considered the last word in defeating the democracy, and they passed a resolution only the other day that they will forgive the right hon. Gentleman anything except an appeal to the people. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member, if they are not going to assert the law in one part of Ireland they have no
  1042
  right to do it in another, absolutely none. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying, "If you allow it in Ulster, you must allow it in Meath," and the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps feeling that a Division might be taken against him, at once adopted the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he wrote to the Government, or, at all events, told them—[An HON. MEMBER: "Wrote!"]—that the one way of preserving peace—this is such a gem that I wrote it down—was by constituting one armed force to set against another.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is your own policy!
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will quote the words:—
  "Furthermore, the incidents of the Curragh have given them the fixed idea that they cannot rely on the Army for protection. The possession of arms by the Nationalists under these circumstances, will not be a provocation of disorder between the two populations, but a means of preserving peace."
  Mr. BONARLAW: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for confirming what I said. I admit that is quite fair. But what does it mean from the point of view of the Government? It means that there is no (Government; there is anarchy in Ireland; and the proper course—and the actual result, according to what the Chief Secretary has said—is that you should withdraw all pretence of governing Ireland, and leave these two forces to preserve peace with each other. We are now a stage further. This incident, which has simply borne out what everyone with any knowledge of Ireland saw must inevitably come in one part of Ireland or another, has only one effect upon the Prime Minister, which is, "If we are to get a settlement, let us delay it a little longer, and put off the Amending Bill." And the reason he gave for it exceeded anything I have ever heard for its frankness. He put it off because he could not have sufficient communication with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Surely he has had time enough for those communications! The one thing which the Government have never done—and it is the direct cause of the bloodshed yesterday—is that they have never been able to make up their mind as to what the proper policy is and risk their fate upon it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is a master—indeed, a past-master—in superlatives, especially in the

  1043
  vocabulary of vituperation. Every speech to which he refers is the most amazing specimen of ineptitude he has ever heard in the whole of his Parliamentary career. When I suggested, as I did to-day, that it was a reasonable thing, in view of the lamentable occurrences which were reported yesterday and this morning from Ireland, that the Nationalist party, containing three-fourths of the representatives of the Irish people, should have an opportunity to-morrow, free from these perturbing considerations, of consulting as to the Amending Bill, the right hon. Gentleman says, "That is only another in stance of your gross subservience." I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentle man's example. In the few observations with which I shall trouble the House I am going to deal with the serious matters which ought to engage our attention and which are relevant to this Motion. First of all, let me say one or two words—and I say them as being, for the time being, the incumbent of the office of Secretary of State for War—in regard to the action and conduct of the troops. The troops were requisitioned—the officer in command of the troops was requested to supply them by an official, the Assistant-Commissioner of Police, who has a statutory right to call upon him to do so, and he did nothing more than his duty when he complied with that request. The troops, I think it is now conceded on all hands—I did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest otherwise—the comparatively small body of troops, 160 men in all, of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, obeying that requisition, went to Clontarf, and although an unfortunate fracas, but not of a very serious kind, there took place, at which it is admitted two shots were fired, not by the Volunteers—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] The evidence is all the other way. Two shots were fired and a soldier was wounded. It is not suggested, I think, in any quarter that the soldiers exceeded their duty or did anything beyond what they might reasonably have been expected in such circumstances to do. That incident came to an end. The soldiers' duty in support of the civil power had terminated. They were returning to their barracks, unescorted by the police, in the ordinary way, when in consequence, as it appears, of unfounded and exaggerated rumours circulated in Dublin, they were assailed with great violence—with so much
  1044
  violence that, according to the reports that we have, not a single officer or man escaped some slight bruise or wound, and something like eighteen or twenty are sufficiently seriously injured to be in the hospital to-day. Moreover, it was with the very greatest difficulty that they were able to make their way along the narrow street to the barracks, which were their ultimate destination. No one regrets more than I do that under these conditions shots should have been fired. They were fired without order. They were the acts of individual soldiers. A deplorable loss of life ensued. Under the whole of these circumstances, I do not think the House and the country will come to any other conclusion than that the soldiers were exposed to very great provocation, and that what happened, much as it is to be lamented, is not a fitting subject for condemnation, nor does the hon. Gentleman ask that condemnation should be passed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did!"] I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he regretted the incident—[An HON. MEMBER: "He called them cowards!"]—I understood the hon. Member to regret the incident, both because it might create bad blood between some part of the people in Ireland and the British Army.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I do not like to be misunderstood in this matter. I detailed what was reported to me as the version of the occurrence. I did not say that I was prejudging the case. I said that that ought to be decided by the proper authorities, who should investigate the matter; but I said that if the version which was given to me were correct, then it was a cowardly thing to fire upon the people. I did not denounce these men as cowards. I do not know whether they are guilty or not. I said most distinctly I was not here to judge them; and that they ought to be judged by the civil or military authorities.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That was the sense in which I understood the hon. Gentleman. I think that he will find the version to which he referred is an incorrect one. But at any rate a full inquiry will be held, and from that inquiry I feel, no doubt, that the soldiers will emerge with credit to themselves and the Army to which they belong. The right hon. Gentleman attacked with very great vehemence—I might almost say with virulence—the right hon. Gentleman who

  1045
  sits beside me (Mr. Birrell) as to the attitude which he has adopted with regard to his own subordinates, Sir John Ross and Mr. Harrel. I have had considerable experience, perhaps a larger experience than any man in this House, of being taken to task for the actions of those who were my subordinates or my colleagues—an almost unique record. I do not want to speak with anything like self-complacency, but I do not know that, on the whole, I have been successfully charged often with failing to respond to obligations of chivalry and loyalty to those associated with me. Speaking with that experience, and having listened most carefully to all that my right hon. Friend beside me said to-night, I cannot see any foundation or justification whatsoever for what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said. Let me give an illustration.
  He said it was most unfair to put to Sir John Ross—Sir John Ross who is the official superior of Mr. Harrel—to put to Sir John Ross—presumably he was in Dublin at the time, and he was certainly officially responsible for the action of the police—the question: "Do you or do you not associate yourself with Mr. Harrel?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite such an expression of indignation about the unfairness of such a question. It is a question put to me once a week. I do not complain. I do not regard it as an imputation upon my honour. I do not complain of the unfairness of those who put it. It is one of the commonplaces of political controversy, and I will add of political justice. If persons stand in the relation of superior and subordinates, the superior may fairly be asked—nay, be bound—to answer the question whether he does or does not associate himself with the action of those under him. [An HON. MBHBER: "He ought to be asked!"] The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend has condemned Mr. Harrel in advance. Nothing of the kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did!"] No; may I explain? What my right hon. Friend did was this: He pointed out that upon the facts so far as we know them Mr. Harrel was guilty of a most regrettable error of judgment; an error of judgment which led to these deplorable consequences; that that error of judgment, as it appears upon the facts stated—and admitted up to the present time—was sufficiently grave, not only to justify, but to require, his suspension for the time being from his
  1046
  official functions, but that the ultimate judgment must depend upon a further and fuller inquiry. What is unfair about that? It is a course, I venture to say, which, when you have regard to the very responsible position which Mr. Harrel occupies, and the difficult and delicate conditions with which he has every day to deal, which any and every responsible administrator in this country must inevitably, under the circumstances, adopt.
  I do not want, I need not say, to prejudge the case of Mr. Harrel, but as the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to labour it, I must just point out two or three significant, and, as it seems to me, most material facts. In the first place, when these communications took place between; Mr. Harrel and his official superiors, the arms had already been landed at Howth. In other words, the Proclamation which makes the importation of arms illegal had already exhausted itself. [Laughter.] I assure hon. Gentlemen that I am not talking nonsense. The Proclamation is a Proclamation against the importation of arms. It is quite true that Custom officers have the right when goods, arms, or other Customable articles are unlawfully landed, to search, and the right of prosecution. I am not aware that they have the right of seizure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says so, but I am not aware of it. I am certainly not aware that the police have it. We have acted consistently with the view of the law in all our proceedings in Ulster, as hon. Gentlemen opposite very well know. The right hon. Gentleman read a passage from a speech or an answer of mine some weeks ago in regard to the original gun-running adventure in Ulster, in which I said that "appropriate steps would be taken to prevent the violation of the law." Those steps were taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"l Certainly those steps were taken, and the result of their being taken and taken impartially—[Interruption.] I hope I may be allowed to proceed, we cannot carry on debate with irrelevant comment, and as a result of those steps being taken—and impartially taken all round the coast of Ireland—taken as against intended importations which were destined for Unionists and for Nationalist Volunteers alike—the number of arms that have actually reached the shores of Ireland in violation of the Proclamation since that time has been comparatively insignificant. In

  1047
  fact, I think that this is the first time that anything on so substantial a scale has taken place. From that day to this the Government have carried on with absolute and rigorous impartiality their determination, so far as it was possible, to prevent the importation of arms. That being the case, and the action of the Government having, rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—throughout been determined upon these lines, this gentleman took an entirely new departure, for he not only set out himself with his own police, but, still more, he requisitioned the military to assist him in the attempt, not to prevent the importation of arms, but after the arms had been landed, and were in possession of those who had taken possession of them, and who were then at a point some six miles distant from the place of importation—that being the distance from Howth to Clontarf—in order to seize these arms and deprive the persons who had them of them. That is a thing that was never done before, and he had no authority to do it, and before he could have any authority to do it, and before he did it he ought, at least, to have got the express permission of his official superiors at Dublin Castle. We now know he did nothing of the kind, but on the contrary. I am not for a moment suggesting that he deliberately evaded the communication of his superior officers. Nothing of the kind, but the fact that communication was broken down, and we know the superior officers expressly recorded their opinion that no such action was legal or possible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bonar Law) spoke of the Minute of Sir James Dougherty as one of the most deplorable things he had ever heard. Here is a Minute written by an executive officer who is not here to speak for himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is Sir John Ross here; is Harrel here?"] I am going to speak for him.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are you going to speak for Harrel? [Interruption.]
  The PRIME MINISTER: Here is an executive officer of the highest position in the hierarchy of Dublin, and when these facts are brought to his notice he deliberately recorded—after consultation with those who advised him, and speaking, of course, in the name of the Lord Lieutenant—his opinion that this step ought not to be taken. What does the
  1048
  right hon. Gentleman say about that? He says it is a Minute of theirs—I do not know whom he means by "theirs"—to save their own skin. This Minute was written by Sir James Dougherty to save whose skin? When was it written?
  Viscount HELMSLEY: When was it written?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a disgraceful insinuation. [Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] First of all the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests that it was sent to an address where Sir James Dougherty knew it would not find him—that it was deliberately sent to a place where Mr. Harrel was not to be found—and then the Noble Lord says the date was affixed. That is what I said was disgraceful.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That, I think, is unfair. I gave the date when it was communicated to the Press by the Chief Secretary.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman withdraws it, but still this insinuation is persisted in by the Noble Lord.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says my conduct is disgraceful, but what I meant was whether that Minute was written in time to communicate with Mr. Harrel in order to stop what they considered to be illegal.
  The PRIME MINISTER: [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and Interruption.] It was written and sent at a time when in the ordinary course it should have been received. It was sent to his office.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They knew he was not there.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Other people were there, and they ought to have transmitted it to him. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman makes that point. It was sent to the office where the officer ought to be, or where he ought to have left his address. I am speaking now of the Minute of Sir James Dougherty. I said he did what was perfectly reasonable. He wrote a Minute, and he sent it to the office of the person for whom it was intended. If that person was not at his office, the persons there ought to transmit it to him. Sir James Dougherty did everything a man could reasonably or possibly do in the circumstances. I apologise for

  1049
  dealing with these apparently small details, but one cannot allow charges of that kind to pass without examining them.
  10.0 P.M.
  I have just two or three words more to say with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the close of his speech. He said this question was an illustration of what he called our abdication of the government in Ireland. Well, Sir, I confess I look upon this matter of the importation of arms—I will not say it is trivial or insignficant—as of comparatively minor importance. The most important thing about it is that so long as the prohibition is maintained it should be impartially applied in every part and as between every section of the Irish population. But what is far more important than this comparatively trivial matter of the importation of arms is the general attitude of the Government and of the Opposition to the maintenance of the authority of the law. That is where the real crux of the question comes in. Our difficulties, I agree, in governing Ireland under existing conditions are very great. They are due partly, and as I believe mainly, to the inherent viciousness of a system under which you seek to govern a people that you do not understand by a Parliament which is imperfectly equipped to deal with their special problems and interests. That difficulty of long standing is about, we hope, soon to be removed. That difficulty in these latter years has been immeasurably enhanced, has been enormously exaggerated by the language and attitude of those who sit upon the Front Bench opposite, who have proclaimed as part of their political gospel violation of the law as a cardinal virtue, and who are yet perpetually claiming a better title than ourselves to govern the country and the Empire. It is there that one of the roots of our difficulties in Ireland has lain. Until we once more come to an agreement that in this country, and wherever the British Crown and the authority of the British Parliament are, at any rate, nominally supreme, wherever they are even nominally supreme, that fundamental respect for law, so long as it remains law, and for law so long as it becomes law and as soon as it becomes law—until we come once more to a common agreement on that point, I warn those right hon. Gentlemen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—who are looking forward with such ardent and pleasurable
  1050
  anticipation to succeeding us on these benches, I warn them that they will find the government of Ireland an impossible task.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The speech of the Leader of the Opposition has dealt with things quite separate though necessarily interconnected subjects, namely, in the first place, the action of certain officials in Ireland and the action in this House of the head of the Irish Administration, and in the second place, with certain broad principles of government which filled the latter part of the speech of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. On the first of those points I must honestly say that I think the right hon. Gentleman did not make a successful case. The charge against the Chief Secretary was that, on the information which we have, and which he has communicated to the House, he has not given that support to his officials in Ireland which is the prerequisite of every successful Government. The Prime Minister brought before us his own case, and we listened on this side of the House with sympathy for the pathetic picture he drew of an unfortunate head of an administration having weekly to take upon his own shoulders a responsibility for all the wild utterances. I must say that no human being has ever suggested that the Prime Minister was lacking in loyalty in carrying out that onerous task. He has done it year in and year out, and he has received in the past our warmest sympathy. We know the heavy burden that must have been thrown upon him, and we have persistently admired the admirable dexterity with which he has dealt with one difficult situation after another, certainly without sacrificing his loyalty to his colleagues, and with as little other sacrifices as the nature of the situation would permit.
  Then, Sir, the Prime Minister suggested that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had followed in his footsteps. I confess I saw neither the loyalty nor the dexterity. Like the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, our knowledge is necessarily imperfect. So, I presume, is the knowledge of the Chief Secretary, because I imagine he has not kept back any facts from the House which are material to a judgment of this case. But on the facts he has given to the House, had he any right to say that the action of Mr. Harrel was utterly unjustified? On the facts, as he has given them to the House, had he any right to put questions to Sir John

  1051
  Ross, not as to what he did, but as to what he would have done? We have heard the most violent and, I think, just condemnations, not from one side of the House only, of those who ask hypo thetical questions of soldiers as to what they would or would not do. Those questions related to the future, but this unfortunate official who is at the head of the Dublin Metropolitan Constabulary is not only asked what he would do in the future, but what he would have done had he been in a certain position in the past. The right hon. Gentleman was so satisfied with this method of procedure that he told the House that if a wrong answer had been given in this singular examination to which he subjected one of his highest officials, that official would have been suspended—[HON. MEMBERS: "Will be suspended!"]—yes, will be suspended. He is asked the question. He has told us two alternative answers, and if he gives an answer which, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, is wrong, he will be suspended. Is that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can manage a great Department like that with which he so kindly deals from this side of St. George's Channel?
  Let us turn from the case of Sir John Ross to the case of Mr. Harrel. My right hon. Friend put certain questions in his speech with regard to the treatment of Mr. Harrel. Have those questions been answered by the Prime Minister? They have not been answered. The facts as we know them from the Chief Secretary are these: At two o'clock in the afternoon the Under-Secretary was informed by telephone of what was going on at home. The Assistant Commissioner telephoned this information and asked for an interview. The matter was obviously pressing, and most pressing, and the speech of the Prime Minister shows how pressing it was, because the Prime Minister said you have a perfect right to seize arms at the port, but no right to seize them when they have got a mile or two inland. I do not know whether that is good law. The Prime Minister is a lawyer, and I am not, but I am told it is very bad law. But let us assume it is good law. Does it not mean, if you are administering these rules about arms impartially and effectively, that there ought to be the most rapid action? Whenever news comes to any authority on the coast of Ireland that arms are being imported,
  1052
  ought there not to be the most rapid action of the Executive, and ought not those arms to be seized at the port? So far as I can make out from the story of the Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary spent three-quarters of an hour before he appeared at the Castle at all. That is in the question. I do not think that it can be denied.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not at all. The Under-Secretary was at Phoenix Park about two o'clock, and made an appointment to meet Mr. Harrel there at 2.45
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Minute does not say so.
  Mr. BALFOUR: It is not in the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. The statement made in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman whether the news was received at 2 o'clock, and the Under-Secretary reached the Castle at 2.45. Observe Mr. Harrel's view of his duty. I do not know that this is contradicted by the Government. It was that he ought to interfere at the earliest possible moment with the landing of these arms. He had gone on the business of getting the necessary force to deal with that situation at the earliest moment. The Under-Secretary arrived after three-quarters of an hour, and did not find him. Mr. Harrel was taking all the steps which he deemed necessary to carry out what he supposed, and surely he rightly supposed, was the policy of the Government. Is it not the policy of the Government, if possible, to prevent the landing of arms, and, if landed, to seize them before they have reached the mystic distance of six miles, which apparently makes them immune from capture? He hurried off to get the necessary force. In the meanwhile, what does the Under-Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant do? They meet in the Castle, and they draft a Minute to the Assistant Commissioner. They say in this draft Minute, "As regards the steps which you have taken on your own responsibility." How did they know those steps? What were those steps? According to the story given in the answer of the Chief Secretary there had been no communication of any sort between the Under-Secretary and the Commissioner between 2 and 2.45. After 2.45 the Under-Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant draft this Minute. At that time they are fully acquainted with the steps which the Commissioner had taken on his own responsibility, and they differed from them profoundly. How did they know the steps? Something has been

  1053
  omitted. Some part of the story has not been told. What is that part?
  May I take the House a step further. When they wrote this Minute they knew what the Deputy-Commissioner had done, and they knew therefore that part of what he had done consisted in the requisitioning of the troops to deal with the arms. They knew that. Presumably they were afraid of a collision between the troops and the people. The whole justification of the action of the Chief Secretary in suspending Mr. Harrel is that a collision was rendered possible or probable by sending troops to Howth. That is the gravamen of the charge. If they knew when they wrote that Minute that the Deputy-Commissioner had made the requisition, and if they profoundly disapproved of that course, why did they not take every step in their power to anticipate any evil they foresaw, and send a message, not merely to the Deputy-Commissioner, but to the troops? Why did they not, in fact, let everybody connected with the affair understand that on reflection the Lord Lieutenant and the Under-Secretary were of opinion that nothing should be done to stop the landing of arms? They did not do that. They took no steps. But they sent a note to the office of the Chief Commissioner, whom they knew to be absent on the Sunday. Is it credible that these people really were afraid of a collision between the troops and the people, and were really anxious to do everything in their power to stop a collision, and yet did nothing but send a note to an officer who they knew was absent? In face of that primâ facie case—for without knowing more of the facts we can treat it as nothing but a primâ facie case—I want to know how my right hon. Friend exceeded his duties in this House by saying that the motives of these gentlemen must have been something other and beyond that of trying to prevent the landing of arms. They were thinking—as surely we are entitled to think—of the kind of examination which apparently the Chief Secretary is prepared to put his subordinate officials through, and if they did not, under that examination, exactly agree with the Chief Secretary's views, they also would be suspended. To suspend an official means to condemn him primâ facie. I see nothing in the facts given to us which justifies the Government in condemning Mr. Harrel. If you are to act upon this primâ facie condemnation, I should have thought there were other people to be suspended.
  1054
  Before I leave that branch of the subject, may I ask one other question! Why is it that Mr. Harrel was condemned and suspended, and had this Minute thrown at his head? Why? Because he had not personally the insight to see that, as the Government did nothing in Ulster, therefore they were expected to do nothing anywhere else. Whether the Government were right or wrong in doing nothing in Ulster I will not argue. But was Mr. Harrel to argue it? Is that the kind of argument you want your subordinate officials to go through? Are they to say—"The Government, for reasons of their own, think it inexpedient, or difficult, or impossible to enforce what they declare is the law in Ulster, and, therefore, to enforce the same law elsewhere than in Ulster is obviously inexpedient, difficult, and perhaps impossible, and I will not try to do it?" Is that the policy which the Chief Secretary wishes to inculcate in all his officials? The policy is not only grotesque. It does not merely lay itself open to severe Parliamentary censure. I say in this House that the gross injustice of condemning—and it is condemnation—a man before he is heard, because he has not interpreted his action under the law exactly in conformity with the way in which the administration of the law is interpreted by this Government in other parts of Ireland—constitutes a rule which it is impossible to carry out—and to condemn a man because he does not see with that subtle eye to votes which you have in this House, or with a happy discrimination between Ulster Volunteers and National Volunteers—to condemn him for that, is to condemn yourselves and not to condemn him.
  I am not going to detain the House any longer, but I must say one word upon the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman having as I think, very imperfectly and inadequately succeeded in defending the very disloyal action of the Chief Secretary towards his own subordinates, turns upon the Opposition, and turns in particular upon the Leader of the Opposition, and declares that it is through what we have done and what we have said in reference to Ulster that all these troubles have occurred. He went out of his way to repeat a charge for which, I admit, if you go over the centuries, there is too much justice, that this House has not always understood the Irish question with which it had to deal, and that many mistakes have been made by this

  1055
  House, as doubtless many mistakes were made by an Irish Parliament when an Irish Parliament was in existence. Was there ever in the whole history of the mismanagement of Ireland, from within and without, a case in which the misconception by this Parliament of the Irish problem was so potent, so obvious and so scandalous as their misapprehension of the position in Ulster? The Home Rule question has been before this House since 18S6, and from the very first year in which that subject was brought forward, Ulster has never failed, by every means in her power, to make it clear to everybody who would listen how she thought about this particular method of restoring peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have a majority in Ulster!"] We need not argue about that. [Interruption.] The very fact that that is put forward shows that the profound misunderstanding of the problem has not even yet been dissipated in some minds on the other side. I use the word "Ulster" as it is commonly used, but in order to avoid all controversy, let us say the North-East corner of Ireland. As to the limits which it covers, let us leave that on one side. I say that ever since 1886 the third of Ireland which was the most industrious and which had the greatest industrial future, which was nearest akin to the Gentlemen who sit on the other side in blood, in opinion—religious and political—have never concealed their opinions and never concealed the fact that so firmly did they hold those opinions that, rather than submit to be placed under a Parliament in Dublin, and rather than submit to being torn from the United Kingdom, there was no personal sacrifice to which they would not submit.
  That has been told ever since 1886. You never believed it till three months ago, and some of you do not believe it now. Was there ever in the history of a country blindness so long maintained, so persistent, and so obstinate, and it is that which has got you into this trouble. The right hon. Gentleman talks as if we had reached the last moment, as it were, in which this House was to be troubled with Irish affairs. Heaven knows that is not the case. But at all events, let him not suggest that in this last moment, as he thinks it, of our control over Irish affairs, we have shown for the first time an insight into Ireland which was denied to our forefathers for centuries. Never was there a case of more obtuse blindness than you have shown, and because you have
  1056
  shown it, because you have run in the face of human nature, because you find yourselves for the first time up against facts which cannot be dealt with by dextrous speeches, up against facts which are deeply rooted in the hearts and consciences of the most loyal of the King's subjects, therefore it is that you find the whole system of your law in Ireland crumbling under your hand; and your impotence is manifest, North, South, East, and West, in that island. The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on being the representative of the democracy. He refuses to go to the only source from which the true democrat desires to obtain his inspiraton. Be it so. The world has seen many arbitrary rulers who have in the public interest refused to follow the movements and the feelings of the people whom they governed, but those who have received the gratitude of posterity have been the men who, under those circumstances, although for the moment they may have trampled upon or ignored the feelings of the great mass of the people, at all events have been strong rulers and governors. Is that the praise we are going to give to the present Government? They have shown all the unscrupulousness of men who ignore the source of the power of which they boast. Having taken that power, and having insisted on keeping it, they do not use it as powerful Ministers, but they allow, under their control, the whole system of law and order and government to crumble, although there is not a man on whatever side of the House he sits, or to whatever party he belongs, from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), the Labour party, the Unionist party, and the Radicals, who does not know that Ireland has now been brought into a condition from which it appears almost impossible for any statesmanship ever to extricate her.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The Debate so far has turned mainly upon the facts of yesterday, and the review of the circumstances that led to those facts has been somewhat imperfectly done. It is that review, however, which interests the people of the country at the present moment. So far as facts are concerned, the Opposition has been complaining that the Chief Secretary has thrown over his officials. They forget to remind the House that, so far as officials are concerned, there were two sets involved. There is Sir James Dougherty, on the one hand, and the Assistant-Commissioner of Police, on the

  1057
  other; and the complaint that has been made by both of the right hon. Gentlemen who addressed the House from the Front Opposition Bench is that the Government did not throw over the Civil servant and stick to the police. With characteristic choice, they abuse the Civil servant, and they select the policeman for defence, knowing that he may become the subject of their patronage. That is true to Tory traditions. It is perfectly amazing to hear the two right hon. Gentlemen say that when an officer is suspended he is thereby condemned. It is an incident that is occurring every day. When an officer or servant has done something regarding which there is a substantial amount of evidence that he has done wrong, he is suspended without prejudice until he receives a fair trial. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not have been doing fair to the police, the soldiers, or the public of Ireland, if in this respect he had not taken the course which every private employer under similar circumstances would have taken without casting a reflection on the officer who was the subject of suspension.
  I hope that in the course of the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has announced he is going to allow the conduct and character of these officers in regard to the labour disputes in Dublin to be made also the subject of an inquiry. Some of my hon. Friends who are associated with me were in Dublin, and they know at first hand how these two gentlemen, Sir John Boss and his Assistant Commissioner, behaved then, and in order to ascertain how exactly these officers have used their position as the chief officials of the Dublin police I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow labour evidence to be called as well as evidence regarding the incidents of yesterday. It is a very nice, delightful, and graceful exercise to seize upon these minutes and use them to explain, not the facts, but the motives of Sir James Dougherty. I envy the right hon. Gentleman opposite in being able to tell what Sir James Dougherty did or did not do. They are able to tell us why he did it, and it is consistent with their sense of chivalry and their championship of the public service, for although their imaginations are almost boundless, they are unable to give a decent reason for what Sir James Dougherty did. With tinerring—I was almost using the word malignity—skill they explained Sir James Dougherty's action as being deliberately
  1058
  designed for the meanest and pettiest purpose of making him right if the coup came off, and making others wrong if it happened to fail. Yet right hon. Gentlemen, after doing that to public servants, rise up in their places in this House and condemn the right hon. Gentleman for suspending an officer against whom there is a substantial amount of evidence. But the country is not going to be put off in this manner. What we want to know is how long the conditions under which these incidents arose are going to last. What are the conditions? First of all, a continued, persistent, and open activity on the part of the Opposition in aiding and abetting rebellion in the North of Ireland. That is the first. The second is what I have said outside and what I want to say inside this House—the too great lethargy on the part of the Government in handling that situation which has been created by the Opposition in the North-East corner of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in one of these innocent outbursts of language to which we are accustomed to listen in this House, referred to what was done yesterday by the Nationalist Volunteers as being lawless. He said that it was unlawful. He used another expression. He said it was a breach of law. Very well. Immediately before that he told us that he wished to associate himself with everything that was done by the Ulster Volunteers, of precisely the same character as what was done in Dublin yesterday, or outside of Dublin. And yet he comes and tells us that this Government is responsible, and ought to be censured, because it is not going to put down lawlessness in Ireland. What an extraordinary confusion of mind there is in the Leader of the Opposition?
  Lord HUGH CECILmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am glad that the Noble Lord agrees with me. I am not in the least surprised that such an obvious situation could not possibly be clouded to his very keen penetrating eyes. What we are told by the Opposition is this: "We have aided and abetted lawlessness in Ireland. We objected to the Government for not having taken more active steps to put down us and our poor deluded victims in the North East of Ireland." They ask us to go to the country for our condemnation; at whose hands? At the hands of the very men who

  1059
  have preached the doctrine outside the House that they come inside this House to defend. The electors of this country if they have got the least grain of common sense left in them are going to condemn the persons who are responsible for the beginning of lawlessness, for the organisation and propaganda of anarchy, and not for the Government that has met its manifestations by all too feeble action. There is another very interesting and very true thing that the Leader of the Opposition says. He says that we cannot govern one way in one part of Ireland and another way in another part of Ireland. I quite agree with that. I think that everybody will agree with that. But I would like to supplement it by this, that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say one thing regarding Ulster, and a different thing regarding Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say to Ulster Protestants, "When you are in a minority, and the House of Commons is doing something with which you do not agree, you are justified in arming yourself," without his preaching the same doctrine to every member of the community that now, or at any other time, may find itself in a minority and may find it impossible to get its way carried by a majority in this House.
  That is what they will not see, or, if they do see it, they are running their head in a most criminal way against a terrible state of anarchy in this country, and no sensible and no responsible man will look at it without shuddering. There they come—we find it in our unions, we find it in our work every day, we find it in every trouble we have got to face, we find it in every difficulty we are called upon to smooth out. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches, the sort of speech he has delivered to-night, quoted in parallel columns, the mildest, the most ignorant, the most planning expressions of lawlessness and disorder, uttered by merely irresponsible men who address crowds at street corners. We all deplore those events, but nobody should be condemned for them without a fair, a cool, and an adequate trial. Therefore this House to-night is not in a position to say on whom the blame rests. But these circumstances will pass away and will be forgotten, at any rate we hope so. But the gospel and doctrines that the right hon. Gentleman has been preaching are not going to pass away. They are going to be taken up by other men; they are
  1060
  going to be slightly varied in their expression, they are going to be slightly varied in their application, and nothing would suit me better, in a cynical frame of mind, than to sit on that side of the House and see the right hon. Gentleman sit on this side, when there is a big strike on, and he has got to draft in foreign policemen and soldiers in order to keep the peace. It will be a grim, it will be a miserable spectacle to see him then as the Leader of this House defending himself against the attacks which will be made upon him, not by us, but by his own past self as Leader of the Opposition, and of lawlessness and disorder in Ulster. The important thing of yesterday is this, that it is the first fruits of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. They have been gaily sowing the wind; I hope they will not be called upon to reap the whirlwind; but I have very grave doubts after the events of yesterday, and the kind of knowledge that I have from inside of the effect that those speeches have upon the mind of this country.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: This Debate upon a subject so important, and which vitally touches the highest peaks of Government policy, and the lowest solemnities of human life, is to be compressed within two hours and three quarters; but I am quite satisfied that, if the Government had been asked at four o'clock this afternoon to move the adjournment of the House, or to grant a day for this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, with his usual consideration, would immediately have yielded to that request. But as we have so brief a period in which to discuss the matter, I shall, I trust, not verge upon anything in the nature of Party recriminations, and I only regret that I had not the opportunity of reducing what I have to say into writing, as I think the Member for Waterford has been enabled to do. What I would first point out, therefore, is that we are not here as Irishmen in the pursuit of pigmies; we are not here to ask for the scalps of Ross's or Harrels, but we are here to investigate the policy of His Majesty's Ministers, and I would ask how stand the Government on this question of the right of the Irish people of the three Southern Provinces to have and to bear arms that the men in Ulster have been allowed to do? The Prime Minister has laid down a most important doctrine, a kind of foreshore doctrine of legality.

  1061
  that if you land arms on the foreshore, and as long as you are on the foreshore you are liable to be criminally pursued, and you have committed an offence, but escape beyond the littoral, get within a few yards, I do not really know what the exact penumbra is, but escape a little distance from the waves of the ocean, and you escape from the impact of the Proclamation. Is that the doctrine that was laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he was asked an important question on the 15th of the present month by one of the Members for Dublin. I would call the attention of the House to what he then said: One of the leaders of this movement is a gentleman named Mr. Kettle, and he is an electrical engineer at what is called Pigeon House Station of the Dublin Corporation. He was there on his legitimate business engaged as a Corporation official, and he goes down in his motor car. He is stopped by a Coastguard. This place is near the Liffey, but it is a long way from the waves of the ocean. His motor car is searched for arms by the Coastguards, and the First Lord of the Admiralty replied. I will read the question and answer:—
  "Mr. Brady asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, on Wednesday, 8th July last, Mr. Lawrence J. Kettle, an electrical engineer in the employ of the corporation of Dublin, when driving-home in his motor car from the electric power station in the city of Dublin, was stopped by some Coastguards, and that the Coastguards proceeded to search Mr. Kettle's car for guns or ammunition; and will he say whether this was done under the authority of the Admiralty?
  Mr. Churchill: I understand that some vehicles—of which Mr. Kettle's motor car was one—coming from the end of Pigeon House Wall were searched by the Coastguard in consequence of a report that some arms had been landed at that place. In so doing the Coastguard were acting in accordance with the duty laid upon them by the Customs laws, and no authorisation from the Admiralty was needed."
  Did Mr. Harrel read that answer? My hon. Friend the Member for Dublin was not satisfied, and he put a question that has been put in this House not once but a hundred times since the gun-running took place in Ulster:—
  "Mr. Brady: Am I to understand that it is only in the Southern provinces of Ireland that the law in reference to the importation of arms is to be enforced, and that guns can be imported into Lame and other ports of Ulster without let or hindrance by coastguards or any other guards?"
  Mr. Churchill: I can only say that it will always be the duty of, and it ought to be a point of honour with, every person serving under the Crown in any official capacity, to do his utmost to maintain the law of the land impartially in all directions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l5th July, 1914, col. 1885, Vol. LXIV.]
  I should like to ask: When was invented for the benefit of Dublin Castle officials this sort of legal micrometer, that you
  1062
  may search Mr. Kettle's motor car with impunity with the approval of Cabinet statesmen, but that if you land at Howth and get within the limits of Clontarf it is a disgraceful and disastrous thing, worthy of the condemnation by the Government, for any official in Ireland to do the very thing for which a Customs House coastguard was commended at Pigeon-hole Fort. Let us understand to-night what are the limits of deviation—to use a railway phrase—in which this work can be carried on with impunity. Let us understand why the Government have laid down the proposition they have laid down to-night? Why was it not laid down after Lame? Why has the First Lord of the Admiralty filled the seas and coasts of Ireland—as I have seen them myself—with gunboats to prevent gun-running? And now suddenly to hear for the first time tonight that if you successfully get your guns past the sea-weed and cockles, the Government official who interferes with you in the work will be condemned in the most scathing language by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In my opinion, when you reflect on what we know, Colonel Seely was compelled to resign from the Government for—could any Member say off-hand now why he was compelled to resign? Could anyone answer that conundrum offhand? I think he would have to think. But here, when we have three people killed and thirty or forty wounded, it is thought high statesmanship to quibble on points of law, and to throw all the blame on Harrel and Ross. In my opinion these two men were carrying out the policy of the Government as laid down again and again and again in these volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT if anyone cares to turn to them. At all events to-night we have the satisfaction of knowing that if this system is to go on the policeman who dares to lay a finger on a gun-runner will be dismissed.
  Lord ROBERT CECILrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I hope, Sir, that there will be another opportunity provided in which we may finish what is at present a somewhat truncated Debate.
  Lord ROBERT CECILrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 249.

  Division No. 201.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Loud.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Greene, Waiter Raymond

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gretton, John

  Prothero, Roland Edmund

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hall, Marshall (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, Leverton (Worcester, East)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyton, James

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hills, John Waller

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R G.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Butcher, John George

  Horne, Edgar

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Steel-Maitiand, A. D.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hume-Williams. William Ellis

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sykes, Alan John (Cnes., Knutsford)

  Castiereagh, Viscount

  Jessei, Captain H. M.

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cave, George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomas-Stanford. Charles

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

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

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lytteiton, Hon. J. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Duncannon, Viscount

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Worthington Evans, L.

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, Sir George

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Alden, Percy

  Adamson, William

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N.)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Malley, Wiliam

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Boland, John Pius

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brace, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Brycs, J. Annan

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Buxton, Noel

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Cawlcy, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, John R. (Waterford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kelly, Edward

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Clough, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  King, Joseph

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Crooks, William

  Leach, Charles

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, James

  Cullman, John

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Delnny, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McGhee, Richard

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Dewar, Sir J. A

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sutherland, John E.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dillon, John

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Doris, William J.

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Duncan, C. (Barow-in-Furness)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Falconer, James

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Middlebrook, William

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Field, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Mooney, John J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morrell, Philip

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Morison, Hector

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murphy, Martin J.

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

  Hackett, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Neilson, Francis

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  It being after Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House
  lapsed without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

  ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL (OLD SINKING FUND).
  Considered in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient, for the purpose of providing money towards the sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the acquisition of share or loan capital in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, to apply, notwithstanding anything in The Sinking Fund Act, 1875, the Old Sinking Fund for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen, for that purpose to the extent of a sum not exceeding six hundred and fifty-four thousand eight hundred and thirteen pounds twelve shillings and seven pence.—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: The result of this Resolution would be to appropriate practically the whole of the Old Sinking Fund. On the 4th of May the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the Old Sinking Fund amounted to £750,000 and in making that statement he used these words:
  "It would leave a surplus of £760,000, after leaving £1,000,000 still to strengthen the Exchequer balances. I think that must be a source of encouragement to all who feel any doubt as to the future of English finance."
  You are not strengthening the balances with this £750,000 if you now take it away to provide the fund for the Persian Oil Company. On the same day [the 4th of May] in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Northampton who asked
  "Will the right hon. Gentlemen kindly answer the question which I asked as to what should be done with the £1,500,000."
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
  "The £1,500,000 is still in the Exchequer balances, and it will remain there until the day comes."
  That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. I presume that the day has come to-day. It is an extremely vague way of carrying out the finance of the country to say it will remain there until the day comes. I have looked back to see what took place in 1912, when as far as I remember the last inroad upon the Old Sinking Fund was made. What happened then? The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his Budget statement said that he was not going to tamper with the Old Sinking Fund. In that year he proposed to take the whole of it, but there was such objection raised in the City and elsewhere
  1068
  that he only took £1,500,000 and that sum was dealt with not in a resolution after the Budget had been passed but in the Budget itself and if the right hon. Gentleman doubts me I have the Act here.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)indicated assent.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us on 4th May that not only was he going to take £1,000,000 out of the New Sinking Fund, but that he was also going to tamper with and take practically the whole of the Old Sinking Fund. If he had told us that, we should have been in a position to deal with the question of taking away not only a large portion of the New Sinking Fund, but practically the whole of the Old Sinking Fund. There are some extraordinary figures here. I do not know whether it is the regard of the First Lord of the Admiralty for economy. He wants the sum of £654,813 12s. 7d. I do not know where all these odd figures come in. The fact remains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer never said one word about this in his Budget statement, and the first we heard about it was on 17th June, when the First Lord of the Admiralty, bringing in a Resolution dealing with the Anglo-Persian Oil Agreement, made this statement:—
  "My right hon. Friend has still in his strong box £1,500,000, which was diverted from the Old Sinking Fund by the Finance Act of 1912, which was reserved for belated naval payments, and he has also afforded £750,000. making £2,250,000, which represents the Old Sinking Fund for 1913–14. Accordingly, it is proposed to meet the expenditure on the acquisition of this new capital asset out of these accumulations without any new borrowing of any kind. In that respect we follow the general rule of sound finance, that it is better to meet new liabilities out of existing resources than to engage in the operation of borrowing on the one hand while paving off old debt on the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1914. cols. 1186–7.]
  Why did not we hear all this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? How on earth is anybody to know what is going to happen to the Old Sinking Fund if he has to grope about among the speeches of the First Lord of the Admiralty, not on the Budget statement or on the Finance Bill, but on something to do with Persian oil. I admit that I was not aware until I happened to see the Resolution on the Paper to-day that any mention whatever had been made with regard to tampering with the Old Sinking Fund. I asked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), who is a great authority on all these things and who, we

  1069
  have been given to understand, looks up all sorts of old dust-bins, and he knew nothing about it. I asked several of my other friends who look into these dust-bins, and they knew nothing about it. If I had not happened to see this, and, through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans), had not looked into the dust-bin of the First Lord's speech on Persian oil, I should have known nothing whatever about the matter. This is a gross innovation upon the old principle of finance.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently is not to be responsible for the management of finance. He is to be put in commission with the First Lord of the Admiralty. When he wants a little money, he makes a casual observation and allusion in his statement with regard to the particular object for which he wants it. We know nothing whatever about it, and, after the Finance Bill is passed through all its stages in this House, we suddenly find that something is going to take place which is of great importance and which would have had great effect during the Debate upon the Finance Bill. It is possible, that the right hon. Gentleman may say that he did not know it on 4th May. It shows very great ignorance and carelessness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if he did not know it on 4th May and not until 17th June. I suppose the First Lord of the Admiralty did not make that statement unauthorised, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have known it.
  On 17th June the Finance Bill had not gone through Committee. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman put in a new Clause in the Committee stage of the Bill? He may say he did not want to change his Bill, but we had already had two versions of it: why not a third? I strongly protest, and I shall divide the Committee against this Resolution, not because I object to finding the money for the Persian Oil Company, but because I object to its being done in a way which is calculated to conceal it from the House. It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to laugh but it was only quite accidentally that I found out anything about it. Nobody on our side knew anything about it and certainly nobody on the other side knew or cared about it. They allow the financial customs of this House to be broken, and cared not so long as they get their £400 a year.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: You get £1,000 for being a director.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes and I do my duty. So far as I have been able to ascertain it has always been the custom in the case of any alteration in the Old Sinking Fund to provide for it in the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman followed that course in 1912 but he has departed from it now probably, as I think, because when he tampered with the Sinking Fund before he met with such opposition, which he hoped to escape by doing it in this way. At any rate I shall divide the House against the resolution.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): This Resolution takes the balance of the money required to find £2,200,000 from the Old Sinking Fund of last year and transfer it to the Consolidated Fund out of which it will be issued in pursuance of the Resolution already passed by this House. The peculiarity of the sum of money which the hon. Baronet refers to is explained as follows:—In the year 1912 there was kept in the Exchequer balances not issued to the National Debt Commissioners so much of the Old Sinking Fund as exceeded £5,000,000—an amount of £1,545,186 7s. 5d. In order therefore to get the balance we now require—£654,813 12s. 7d.—the remainder of the Old Sinking Fund of last year will be issued to the National Debt Commissioners as the Old Sinking Fund if this Resolution passes. The next point the hon. baronet makes is that this procedure was muddled through and that nobody could possibly have known it was going to be done in this House had it not been discovered through the watchfulness of the hon. Member for Colchester. The reason it is sought to be done in the Oil Bill and not in the Finance Bill is that we thought it would be for the convenience of the House—and I still believe it will be—to put in one Bill the whole financial provisions for this one transaction.
  We wanted to get £2,200,000 from one source and it would have been a great mistake to take part in one Bill and part in another. The hon. Baronet quotes the precedent of the reduction of the Old Sinking Fund in 1912. There is another precedent he might have quoted with regard to the loan to East Africa. But on those occasions there was no other Bill and therefore the only course

  1071
  that could be taken was to make provision in the Finance Bill. The next objection was that nothing was said about it on the 4th May when the Budget was introduced. The Anglo-Persian Oil papers were laid on the 25th May. The Finance Bill was ordered to be printed on the 14th May. The Anglo-Persian Oil papers were laid at the earliest possible date and it would have been impossible to anticipate on the 14th May, a transaction which had not been made. The hon. Member now suggests that it would have been a good thing if all the other difficulties I have suggested might have been got over by putting down a new Clause for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and a new Resolution. I am quite certain he would have been one of the most eloquent Members in the House to object to a new addition to the Budget and the disclosing of new financial provisions long after the stage in which they ought to have been made.
  I come to the information which has been given to the House on this subject. The hon. Member himself has quoted my right hon. Friend the First Lord. That was the first occasion—the 17th June. Later on in the evening the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) made a speech, and said
  "I think it must have been rather startling to the Committee to he informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got locked away somewhere £1,500,000 of the New Sinking Fund,"
  of course, the only Budget he ever remembers is the Land Taxes part of the Budget of 1909—he had forgotten all about 1912—
  and £700,000 of the Old Sinking Fund.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Both of the Old Sinking Fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, I7th June, 1914, col. 1184.]
  So that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and the House during that Debate knew it was the proposal of the Government to take the money from the Old Sinking Fund. On the 7th July the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) tried to make a speech on the subject, and he was informed by Mr. Speaker that
  "There is another Committee dealing with that matter which comes up in the ordinary way, Order 27. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to anticipate the discussion which will take place upon that Committee."—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 7thJnly, 1914, col. 1022.]
  That proves that the House knew at that time—the hon. Member for Rutland certainly knew—the intention of the Government in this matter long before the finance Bill was read the first time, and
  1072
  they also knew that another opportunity for discussion would occur. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned it in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Colonel Williams), who presides over the Public Accounts Committee, on the 15th July. He referred to it in a speech which I will not quote. I rely most of all on an answer given to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) on the 25th June:—
  "Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question which I understand it would be convenient for him now to answer. The First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking on the oil contract agreement the other day, announced that the portion of the money needed for that transaction would be formed by the surplus of the financial year. That is a sum of £750,000, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can inform the House under what authority that sum of three-quarters of a million would be diverted from the Old Sinking Fund to the new purpose?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A Resolution will be submitted to the House.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Would it not be in accordance with precedents of His Majesty's present Government that a Clause should be inserted in one of the Bills before the House, either the Finance Bill or the "Revenue Bill, and WAS not that the case in regard to the loan to East Africa?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORCE: We have considered that matter, and we thought it was very much better that it should be inserted in the Oil Bill, and that the whole transaction should appear on the face of that Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will have a statutory sanction and not be a mere Resolution?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th June, 1914, cols. 1977–8]
  It was only two minutes after that, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, or less than a column, that the hon. Baronet himself rose to ask a question. Therefore I conclude he was present in the House when that answer was given. In any case, it seems to be remarkable that after that very explicit statement he should come here and rouse himself to a pitch of indignation about this undisclosed provision which he hears of for the first time owing to the diligence of the hon. Member for Colchester. I need only point out further that in the estimate given to the House of the reduction of debt this year both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee and by myself on the Third Beading of the Finance Act, when I flatter myself, as far as I can remember the hon. Baronet was good enough to listen to my remarks, I mentioned that there would still be roughly £9,000,000 for the redemption of debt this year after the £750,000 had been taken from the Old Sinking Fund for the Anglo-Persian oil contract, which I mentioned by name. Now finally the hon. Baronet says, Is it not usual to take this money out by means of the Finance Bill? I think the

  1073
  Sinking Fund should be dealt with by the Finance Bill and not by any other Bill. I would respectfully refer him to the Naval Works Act, 1896, 59, Vic., cap. 6, Section 4, when the Old Sinking Fund of 1895–6 was diverted for the purpose of Naval Works expenditure, not in the sum of £750,000, but of £1,210,000. That was not an isolated precedent. The Military Works Act of 1897 next year took £2,473,000 and the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1898, took £3,678,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say it was not mentioned in the financial statement?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am quoting these as examples of precedents in which the Old Sinking Fund was diverted not in the Finance Bill but in another Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I made two charges. I said the statement that it was going to be diverted ought to have been made on the Budget statement so that anyone interested in it could know. Secondly, in my opinion, it ought also to have been put into the Finance Bill.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am suggesting that I have completely answered one of the hon. Baronet's questions. With regard to the other, that it ought to have been in the Finance Bill, we are founding ourselves on three precedents set by the Government which preceded us. I said earlier in my speech that my right hon. Friend could not have made the statement in his Budget speech because at that time the agreement was not entered into. The next answer was that we wanted the whole story in one Bill, and the third answer was that all the way through the Budget discussions these facts were well known to the House and not a single hon. Member opposite ever took exception to the procedure. If there is not a better case to put before the House in answer to this Resolution the Resolution is worthy of the unanimous acceptance of the House.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I think my hon. Friend was quite right to draw attention to the way in which this suspension of the Old Sinking Fund has been carried out. He did not say that the House has not from time to time had little bits of information and, as the hon. Gentleman has shown, by diligent search of question and answer it is possible to extract some information on the subject.
  1074
  But what my hon. Friend said, and, I think, quite rightly, was that you would expect to find that dealing with the Old Sinking Fund in the Finance Bill of the year and that precedent was followed in 1912. The Secretary to the Treasury says: "I will quote you three other precedents. The Naval Works, Military Works and Public Works Acts of 1895, 1897 and 1898 were dealt with not in the Finance Act of the year, but in separate Bills." It is quite possible and no doubt quite right that that was done, but it does not prove at all that the policy of the Government was not stated in their Budget speech, and that the House then was not informed what was going to happen to the Old Sinking Fund, so that they could judge of the financial policy of the Government as a whole at the time when that was under discussion.
  The hon. Gentleman says that this year, however much they; would like to do it, they could not do it because they had not made the agreement. That is the second line of defence. They could easily have told the House when we were discussing the alterations of the New Sinking Fund, when the Government were defending the reduction of that Sinking Fund by £1,000,000, that they were also tampering with the Old Sinking Fund. What was the other point? It was that they wanted the whole of the finance in the Oil Bill so that everyone who read it might see the whole of the finance together. That seems to remain so. What was the difficulty of reciting in the Oil Bill, if necessary, that £2,200,000 was going to be obtained from the Consolidated Fund into which this money was going to be paid from the Old Sinking Fund? There would not have been the faintest difficulty in putting the history of the transaction in the Preamble of the Oil Bill. The Government are very fond of Preambles. That would have been an effective Preamble. Some of their Preambles are not effective. They could have dealt with the actual financial transaction in the Bill where one would expect to find it. In future we shall not know where to go for the record of it. We ought to be able to go to the Oil Bill, or the financial statement, to find the history of the whole transaction. There has been a sort of thimble-rigging with regard to the Exchequer balances. The transaction with regard to this particular £1,500,000 was started in 1912. It ought to have gone to the Old Sinking Fund in that year.
  The CHAIRMAN: We will have to deal with the £1,500,000 on a future occasion in

  1075
  Committee, but the amount we are dealing with now is the balance required to find £2,200,000 from the Old Sinking Fund.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I will leave that to another occasion. I will only say with regard to the sum with which we are dealing that I think my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) has shown his diligence in being able to discover it at all. I hope the House will remember that this is the way the Old Sinking Fund has been taken.
  Mr. GRETTON: One of the disadvantages of the present method of procedure is that the Bill is not yet printed and cannot be printed until the Resolution has been passed by the House of Commons. If anyone wants to know what has become of the Old Sinking Fund money, he cannot find a record of it anywhere. It was not entered in any of the national accounts which were issued, because the Government had not determined whether they were going to spend the money or not,
  and it is not settled yet because the Bill is not yet printed. That is the kind of position to which this procedure has brought us. No wonder my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, diligent as he is in matters of finance, has failed to trace this transaction. I must confess that I had some knowledge of this particular subject but it would be difficult for any hon. Member who had not given attention to this one subject to know what was happening. I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division as a protest against this procedure. On another occasion I shall have an opportunity of putting some questions to the Government as to the methods and objects by and for which they are going to spend this money. Meanwhile I wish to enter my strong protest against the financial methods pursued by the Government in this matter.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided Ayes, 191; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 202.

  AYES.

  [11.41 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Falconer, James

  Leach, Charles

  Adamson, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Field, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Arnold, Sydney

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Barnes, George N.

  Gladstone, W. G. C

  McGhee, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

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

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hackett, John

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Boland, John Plus

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Meehan, Francis, E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brace, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Mooney, John J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hewart, Gordon

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Clough, William

  High-am, John Sharp

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hodge, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cullman, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor. John (Kildare. N.)

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Illinworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Dowd, John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen. East)

  O'Malley, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Doris, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Shee, James John

  Duffy, William J.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kelly, Edward

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Pratt, J. W.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Scott, A. MacCalium (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, John (Glamergan)

  Reddy, Michael

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Verney, sir Harry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Rowlands, James

  Webb, H.

  Mr. Gulland and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hills, John Waller

  Sandys, G. J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Swift, Rigby

  Boyton, James

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cassel, Felix

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cave, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Gretton.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(power to Extend Classes of Persons for whose Benefit Osborne House is to be used.)
  His Majesty may, by Order in Council, add to the persons for whose benefit the part of Osborne House mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section one of the Osborne Estate Act, 1902, is to be used, such other classes of persons as, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Order, he may determine to be qualified on account of their public services to participate in such benefit, and may from time to time by Order in Council revoke or vary any such Order.
  Captain LESLIE WILSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "and may from time to time by Order in Council revoke or vary any such Order."
  1078
  I put down this Amendment in order to call attention to certain things which might happen under this Bill, unless certain provisos are put in. The Act of 1902 laid it down that Osborne House should be for the use of His Majesty's Naval and tary officers, wives, widows, and families, The hon. Gentleman proposes in this Bill to include as beneficiaries other public servants. I do not object to that but I do want to get an assurance that there shall be the same opportunity for naval and military officers, wives, widows, and families, as have been reserved up to the present time and that they will not be in any way under any hardship because this Bill becomes law. If he will give me that assurance I shall be ready to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The intention of the Committee which decides on the applications for beds in the Hospital is that officers of the two Services should have precedence over other applications. The only purpose of this Bill is to fill vacant beds. I think the hon. and

  1079
  gallant Gentleman may be assured that the officers of the two Services will not suffer.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I suggest that you insert the proviso at the end of the Clause, "Provided that the original beneficiaries should have priority of occupation." That would ensure the original Act being carried out. The hon. Gentleman says that is what he intends to do, but that will not be carried out in the Bill before the House. I would like to press the hon. Gentleman to insert some sort of proviso to that effect.
  Mr. BENN: I do not think it possible to accept such a proviso as suggested. The words original beneficiaries would have no meaning. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman need be under any fear, because the Committee will have an additional soldier and sailor added, so that you will have four Service members out of a committee of about six. I think that is an assurance on the point and I trust we may accept the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I beg to move at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that the original beneficiaries should have priority of occupation." I am sorry to say I am not quite satisfied.
  Mr. BENN: I certainly hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment. First of all, the words "original beneficiaries" have no sort of meaning, as they would convey the persons who first occupied the place. Secondly, how can you give to the Committee instructions of that kind, which would mean that any soldier or sailor who cares to apply would have priority over any other public servant who had served in the tropics and who might be far more deserving of attention. I am sure the hon. member would not wish that. When I say that there is a committee of eight persons of whom four are members of the Services, hon. Members may be sure that there is no intention whatever of departing from the practice of making this primarily a convalescent home for officers of the Services. If there are not enough to occupy the beds, as there have not been at times, we wish to be able to use them for other persons who have served as public servants in the tropics and deserve and need help of this kind.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Though the Committee may be constituted in a satisfactory manner now, in twenty years' time it may be constituted quite differently. It may be that the words of my hon. Friend are not the best that could be chosen, but he was in the difficulty that unless some amendment was inserted there would be no Report stage, and consequently a further Amendment could not be considered. I understand that it is the wish of the Government to preserve their rights to the people who were originally supposed to have the benefit of this institution, and only put in other people if the beds are unoccupied. It is best to have that on the statute, and if the hon. Gentleman would promise to insert in another place words to that effect, my hon. Friend would probably be satisfied. It would merely be inserting in the statute what the Government say is their intention.
  Mr. BENN: I have stated what is the intention of the controllers of this convalescent home, but I am quite prepared to recommend for the favourable consideration of my Noble Friend the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: In that case I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported without amendment, read the third time, and passed.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order o£ the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BOOTH: I would like to ask what Bills are likely to be taken to-morrow (Tuesday)? A pledge was given by the Patronage Secretary, or the Prime Minister, as asked by him, that a little

1081
more notice would be given of the Bills to be taken—forty-eight hours was suggested.
Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I am afraid I cannot answer that definitely. The Prime Minister said that if it were possible more notice should be given. I think it is probable that the Bills taken to-morrow will be the Milk and Dairies Bill and the County and Borough Councils (Qualification) (No. 3) Bill. It may be the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II. Amendment) Bill, Report stage, but it will probably be the Milk and Dairies Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: The Prime Minister's pledge contained nothing about "if possible."
1082
He turned round to me, and said that my request was most reasonable
Sir H. DALZIEL: What Supply will be taken on Wednesday?
Mr. GULLAND: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better ask the Prime Minister.
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: May I point out to the hon. Member for Pontefract that the suggestion of forty-eight hours is more in the nature of an ultimatum. I would advise him not to press it.
Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  PANEL DOCTORS (SALARIES).
  PANEL DOCTORS (SALARIES).
  Skegness Sub-Registrar.
  Skegness Sub-Registrar.
  Super-tax.
  Super-tax.
  Dumbartonshire (Advisory Committee).
  Dumbartonshire (Advisory Committee).
  Oxford Survey (British Empire).
  Oxford Survey (British Empire).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Calf Lymph.
  Calf Lymph.
  Cromarty Firth Arbitration.
  Cromarty Firth Arbitration.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.
  OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.
  BAGGAGE TRANSPORT.
  BAGGAGE TRANSPORT.
  MESS UPKEEP EXPENSES.
  MESS UPKEEP EXPENSES.
  ARMY SCHOLARSHIPS.
  ARMY SCHOLARSHIPS.
  COMPUTATION OF COMPLETED SERVICE.
  COMPUTATION OF COMPLETED SERVICE.
  PROMOTION PROM THE RANKS.
  PROMOTION PROM THE RANKS.
  Upper Standard School.
  Upper Standard School.
  British Arts and Crafts (Exhibition in London).
  British Arts and Crafts (Exhibition in London).
  Shiré Highland Railway.
  Shiré Highland Railway.
  Habitual Drunkards.
  Habitual Drunkards.
  Central Railway Company of Canada.
  Central Railway Company of Canada.
  Diseases of Animals Bill (Costs).
  Diseases of Animals Bill (Costs).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18).
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23).
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Mall Approach Improvement.
Oxford and District Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ELLESMERE PORT AND WHITBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(DEAL ORDER).
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Moncreiff be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Whitburgh; read, and agreed to.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2ª (The Lord Emmott), and reported from the Committee. (No. 192.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 193.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LIVERPOOL UNITED GASLIGHT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
To be read 2ª To-morrow (The Earl Beauchamp).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
1. Regulations as to the term of office of certain members of Insurance Committees (Ireland);
2. Provisional Regulations as to Married Women's Special Benefits (Wales);
3. Special Order, dated 24th July, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Special Customs) Consolidated Order, 1914:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 194.)

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
To be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord Sempill).
FINANCE BILL.
Read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 195.)
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3ª To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 22) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND SERVIA.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. We have all read with feelings of grave anxiety the reports which appear in to-day's newspapers as to the situation in South-Eastern Europe. It is confidently stated that there has been a rupture of diplomatic relations between Austria-Hungary and Servia, that the Servian Minister at Vienna has been handed his passports, that the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade has left that place, and that both countries have mobilised a large number of their land forces. We should, I am sure, be grateful if the noble
156
Marquess were able to give us any reassuring information as to these matters. We notice that it is stated that Servia has accepted no fewer than ten out of the twelve demands formulated by Austria-Hungary. That in itself has to a certain extent a hopeful appearance. I also notice statements to the effect that His Majesty's Government have offered certain suggestions with a view to mediation, and that mediation is not looked upon unfavourably by the Powers concerned. I do not desire to press the noble Marquess for any information which on public grounds it is not desirable to give, but it would be most satisfactory to us if he could tell us anything that will relieve the suspense which we all feel.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Marquess for giving me notice of his intention to put this Question. I have no direct information of what is happening in Austria or in Servia beyond what is familiar to your Lordships through the usual channels, but I think it will be of interest to the House to know what the Foreign Secretary has been doing in view of the serious situation which has arisen in Europe. After receiving the text of the communication made by Austria-Hungary to Servia Sir Edward Grey saw several of the Ambassadors, and pointed out that so far as the matter at issue remained one between Austria-Hungary and Servia we had no direct concern in it, but that the moment there was any risk of its spreading further it would naturally become a matter of grave concern to us as well as to other Powers. Sir Edward Grey had no information as to how the situation was regarded by the Russian Government, but he stated that if it were found that relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia assumed a threatening aspect it seemed to him that the sole chance of peace would be that the other four Powers—Germany, France, Italy and ourselves, all being immediately unconcerned in the Servian question—should do their best both at St. Petersburg and at Vienna to prevent any beginning of military operations while an attempt was being made to arrange a settlement. Then came the news that Austria-Hungary had broken off diplomatic relations with Servia, and Sir Edward Grey made the following proposition as a method of applying the views which I have explained. He asked

157
our Ambassadors in Paris, Berlin, and Rome to ask the Governments to which they were respectively accredited whether they would be willing to arrange that the French, German, and Italian Ambassadors should meet Sir Edward Grey in London to discuss a means, if possible, of arranging the present difficulties. At the same time, he asked our Ambassadors to request those Governments to be so good as to authorise their representatives at Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Belgrade to inform the different Governments of the intended conference, and to ask them to suspend any action until the result of it was known. I understand that Sir Edward Grey has not vet had complete answers to these propositions. He holds—in which I think the house will agree—that for such a purpose as that the co-operation of all the four Powers is practically indispensable. It was a somewhat unusual course that Sir Edward took in making this proposition without finding out beforehand whether it would be acceptable to the different parties, but in view of the urgency of the situation I hope your Lordships will agree that he took the best course in the circumstances that could be taken. It is our view, and I was glad to observe from what fell from the noble Marquess that it appears also to be his, that assuming that the text of the Servian reply is accurate as we saw it in the newspapers this morning, it does seem to afford a basis upon which a friendly and disinterested group of Powers, including, of course, those who are equally in the confidence of Austria-Hungary and of Russia, ought to be able to arrange a generally acceptable settlement. It is, of course, clear that any action winch can be taken in this crisis of a useful kind ought to be taken without delay, because the consequences of an extension of this difficulty, involving as it might more than one of the Great European Powers, are so terrifying to contemplate that we all shrink from the notion of such an extension, and I am certain that in doing his best to avert it, so far as the spokesman of one Power can, the Foreign Secretary will have the support of all parties and of all persons in this country.

THE DUBLIN DISTURBANCES.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have to apologise to the noble Marquess for asking another Question. I am afraid there is no doubt that within
158
the last two days there have been regrettable collisions in and near Dublin between bodies of troops and police on the one hand and on the other parties of Nationalist Volunteers engaged in gun-running operations somewhere in the neighbourhood of Howth. The first collision seems to have been followed by another collision of a more formidable description when the retiring troops were on their way through the streets of Dublin. We gather that the troops were severely stoned, and that they were finally driven to fire upon the mob and that several lives were lost and several people injured. I will not dwell upon the gravity and significance of such facts, but we should like to know whether they are facts and what is really the true account of these events. I should like particularly to hear front the noble Marquess what the force of troops employed upon this duty was. According to the newspapers three companies only of the Scottish Borderers, accompanied by a very small force of police, were employed for the purpose of stopping the landing of these arms. I should like to know whether that is the actual site of the force employed, and, if the noble Marquess is able to tell us, how it came to pass that the troops were ordered to fire upon the crowd.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I will give the noble Marquess such information as I can upon the points upon which he has questioned me. Your Lordships saw the account of the landing of arms front a yacht at Howth on Sunday afternoon. Those arms were received by a body of men exceeding, it is supposed, a thousand in number who set off to march into Dublin through Clontarf. At Clontarf they were met by a body of the Dublin Police and 160 men of the King's Scottish Borderers. That, I think, replies to the noble Marquess's question as to numbers. The police tried to disarm the men in front, which they did after a struggle. There were some casualties. The casualties are stated as having been three Volunteers and two soldiers, one of whom was shot through the knee and the other through the ankle, and one policeman. The soldiers on that occasion did not fire. The soldiers then returned towards their barracks, and an attack was made on them with missiles by an excited crowd. There the command of the troops was taken over by Major Haig.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Had he been sent for?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Marquess. He himself was struck several times by missiles, and he, from in front of the column, expostulated with the mob who were impeding some of the men. But he did not give any order to fire, and the firing which occurred took place without orders. I am certainly not prepared to say that the firing may not have been under a misapprehension that orders had been given from the head of the column to fire. That, however, will be the subject of an inquiry. The firing was stopped as soon as possible, but in the meantime three persons had been killed and thirty-two injured, while a number of the soldiers received severe injuries from missiles. So far as I am informed as to how all this came about, the Under-Secretary had asked the Assistant-Commissioner of Police to meet him at the Castle; and while at the Castle, where the Assistant-Commissioner had not arrived, news came that a large body of men had left Howth carrying the arms that had been landed. The Assistant-Commissioner did not come to the Castle, having gone off to consult the military officers. He expressed his regret that he was not able to stay and see the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary left instructions to be delivered, if possible, to the Assistant-Commissioner, directing him that in the opinion of Government—
"the forcible disarmament of the men now marching into Dublin with these arms should not, in all the circumstances, be attempted, but the names of the men carrying arms should, as far as possible, be taken, and watch should be kept to ascertain the destination of the arms illegally imported. His Excellency cannot authorise any further steps in this matter at present."
That information was never received by the Assistant-Commissioner of Police, who had requisitioned the military force on his own authority believing that the effect of these Nationalist Volunteers marching through the streets of Dublin would be detrimental to the public peace, and he was satisfied that the police would not be strong enough to keep order unless they were supported by an armed force of some sort. The Assistant-Commissioner has been suspended pending an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. That is all the information which it is possible to give the House at this moment.

PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had the following Notices on the Paper—
To draw attention to the arrest and subsequent treatment of Mr. Bowskill, a Baptist missionary at San Salvador, in Angola; and to move for Papers, including correspondence from His Majesty's Consuls on the subject.
To draw attention to the system of contract labour in the Islands of San Thomé and Principé; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish first to draw attention to the arrest and subsequent treatment of Mr. Bowskill, and I hope your Lordships and the noble Viscount opposite will bear with me while I relate the story of what happened at San Salvador, which is in the Congo district of the Portuguese Province of Angola. The trouble which led to Mr. Bowskill's arrest began about October 13 of last year. Senhor Godino, a Portuguese, arrived at San Salvador for the purpose of recruiting contract labourers for the plantations in the Islands of San Thomé and Principé. He required anything up to 1,500 labourers, and he so informed Senhor Paulo Moreira, the Portuguese chef de poste or commandant, at San Salvador. He suggested going round to the chiefs in the district and getting the men in that way, but it was thought that it would be better to assemble the chiefs at San Salvador and put before them the wishes of this gentleman for labourers. About fifty chiefs assembled. It was explained to them that the labourers required would work for one year only; that they would then be sent back to their district; that they, men and women, would be paid so much in advance and so much while they were working, and the rest would be given to them on their arrival back. Anybody who knows anything about these matters knows perfectly well that in nearly all cases these promises are not carried out with regard to the natives who are induced to go to the Islands of San Thomé and Principé, commonly called the Cocoa Islands.
The chiefs who were assembled said—
"We paid your hut tax. When asked for carriers we gave them. When labourers were asked for plantations at Cabinda we gave them. Now we have only men like ourselves—old men."
The chiefs were, however, threatened. The commandant said—
"As you will not do what you are ordered to do, the Governor may send men to catch workers by force."

161
Another plan was tried by which Senhor Moreira saw the chiefs separately in order to endeavour to break up their unity, and by means of bribes and promises he induced the King of San Salvador to offer about 20 men, and finally, by persuasion and being told by their chiefs that they were to go, a fairly large number of labourers were sent off down to the coast.
Then the trouble broke out. The whole country became unsettled and the town of San Salvador was attacked. This was in December, 1913. The attacking party were actually in the town, when the commandant asked Mr. Bowskill to go and make peace with the natives outside. This he very pluckily did. He took with him some of the Christian natives of his own mission, and succeeded in making peace. Hostilities were suspended and a great war palaver, as it is called, was held. The charges made at this war palaver by the hostile troops were as follows:—First, against the King of San Salvador and two of his counsellors for having sold the country for personal gain; secondly, against Senhor Paulo Moreira, the chef de poste, for having behaved in an unlawful and cruel manner in his position as ruler of the district; thirdly, against certain native emissaries of the king and Senhor Moreira, who had committed crimes and atrocities of the vilest kind when out tax gathering or securing forced labour contracts. There had been town burning and looting by Senhor Moreira himself when out recruiting forced contract labour, and witness after witness proved these charges in front of the missionaries at this station, and we have every reason to believe that their statements were perfectly true. The result was that the king was deposed and fled to the Belgian Congo across the border, and I believe that at a later period the commandant of San Salvador was also deposed, but that was very much later.
There was, however, more trouble to come, and four of the native Christians were arrested and put in prison, among them being two of the men who had gone out with Mr. Bowskill to make peace for the Portuguese. There were more hostilities after this. The town of San Salvador was again attacked, mainly because no answer had been received from the Governor of Angola to the demands made by the natives at the war palaver and because these Christian natives had been imprisoned.
The native town and native huts at San Salvador were burned and the place became practically a town of ruins. Now I come to the serious matter of Mr. Bowskill's arrest. Mr. Bowskili had gone down to Matadi to meet the Governor of Angola, and on his return he was arrested and confined in the fortress at San Salvador—that was on February 19 last—on the ground that he had fomented the war. And this was the man who had made peace before ! If he had been an ordinary Englishman, a trader or a visitor to the country, perhaps it would not have been so serious, but here was a missionary who had lived for many years in the country and bad the good feeling of the natives with hint, as was shown by his successful action in securing peace on the previous occasion. He was arrested and, as I have said, put into prison.
The next thing that happened was that the Governor of Angola came up to San Salvador. Shortly afterwards Mr. Bowskill was released on parole, and then a day or two later he was released and told he was free to go where he liked. No doubt it would have suited the Governor and the Portuguese authorities if Mr. Bowskill had cleared out, and the whole matter would have been hushed up. But matters of this sort cannot be hushed up when an Englishman is accused of a grave offence without sufficient evidence. This also shows the way in which the Portuguese authorities carry on this system, which is not one of contract labour at all but should really be given another name—that of slavery. The situation is summed up in a letter from Mr. Bowskill to His Majesty's Consul at Loanda, dated March 10 this year, in which he says—
"The whole of the unrest in the country, the war and everything connected with it, is the direct result of Senhor Paulo Moreira's maladministrations. He terrorised the people to such an extent that they could put up with it no longer. Hence this rising. And as I have already stated in previous letters to you, in order to wreak his vengeance on us for having reported his misdeeds and (as he said) checked him in his forced labour recruiting, he has sought to 'father' this whole war on us."
Well, my Lords if that is going on at San Salvador, from which district we have been able to get the whole truth because there happened to be a Baptist Mission there, what is going on in other districts of Angola where there is nobody to report upon what takes place except, perhaps,

163
our Consuls, who do not, however, travel through the whole of the country? If this state of things is going on at San Salvador, it is most likely that it is going on in other districts.
One of our Vice-Consuls, Mr. Bell, arrived at San Salvador on March 28 last and left on May 13 by the overland route to make further investigations as to forced labour. His Report exists, and I believe it is at the present moment at the Foreign Office. As far as we know, matters at San Salvador at present are not very agreeable or peaceful. A cablegram received from Matadi on June 15 ran—
"San Salvador property surrounded by Government soldiers. All mails and communication stopped. British Consul has demanded Loanda free passage mails and missionaries. Mr. Bowskill remaining at present San Salvador."
That was bad enough. But on the 20th this telegram was received—
"Mails from San Salvador to England have been seized by authorities at San Salvador, opened, and detained. Mission passengers arrested. San Salvador property kill surrounded by Government soldiers. Urge Foreign Office to bring pressure to bear upon Lisbon."
VISCOUNT MORLEY: To whom were those telegrams sent?
THE EARL OF MAYO: To the Anti-Slavery Society, and I imagine they were communicated to the Foreign Office. This is a serious matter, as the San Salvador Mission depend very largely upon the supply of provisions from the coast and would be soon reduced to starvation if the carriers could not get through. Unless food could be got up front the coast the members of the Mission would have to live on native provisions, which are hardly fit for white men; at any rate, they are very disagreeable and would be likely to lead to illness. The place being surrounded by soldiers, it would be very difficult to send native messengers out because they would be frightened.
Portugal is a country with which we have a Treaty which is well defined and well known. Great Britain has undertaken by an Article in the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of Alliance—
"to defend and protect all conquests or colonies belonging to the Crown of Portugal against all his enemies, as well future as present."
Old though that Treaty is, it has been recently confirmed. Yet the country with
164
which we have this Treaty is a country which practically countenances slavery. They have in the part of the world to which I am referring a whole district in rebellion because of the way in which they have treated the natives. Yet, as I have said, that state of things is permitted by a country with which we have a Treaty under which we are bound to support them, and therefore we are practically supporting the system of slavery which Portugal is carrying on in West Africa. It seems, however, that the San Salvador affaire and scandal has reached the authorities at Lisbon. For we learn from our own Foreign Office, in a Despatch dated June 2, that His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has reported that Lieutenant Crato, Chef du Cabinet of the Portuguese Minister for the Colonies, was leaving that capital on the 7th of the month for Loanda in order to investigate into the circumstances of Mr. Bowskill's arrest. That is all very well. But what we want to know is what is happening to the people at San Salvador. Is nothing being done to relieve the situation in any way?
What we ask for are—First, the publication of Vice-Consul Bell's report upon his investigations at San Salvador; secondly, the formulation by the Portuguese of their charges against the Baptist missionaries, and a justification of, or an apology for, their treatment of the Mission; and, thirdly, the fair trial or immediate release of the imprisoned assistants of Mr. Bowskill—I mean the Christian negroes who assisted Mr. Bowskill in making peace. These black men have been imprisoned, and we all know that when these sort of people are incarcerated they are not treated with much kindness, especially by the black soldiers who are put there to guard them. Vice-Consul Bell's report would give us the whole story. The facts as I have stated them are from letters written from the Mission at San Salvador to the Anti-Slavery Society in this country.
I pass from that question to draw attention to the system of contract labour in the Islands of San Thomé and Principé, and to move for Papers. I brought up this subject last year, and I should like to say at once that the Consular Reports confirm in almost every particular the unofficial information which for years the Anti Slavery and Aborigines Protection

165
Society and private individuals have been forwarding to the British Foreign Office. I should like to quote from the White Paper [Cd. 7279] an account of an interview between Mr. Carnegie, our Minister at Lisbon, and the Prime Minister of Portugal. Mr. Carnegie wrote to Sir Edward Grey as follows—
"The Premier said that no one was more fully aware than himself of the importance of improving the conditions of native labour in the Islands of San Thomé and Principé. Long before he assumed office he had inveighed against the iniquitous system which had existed in the Portuguese possessions on the West coast of Africa. He was most anxious to do all in his power to enable Portugal to face the world without any fear that accusations that she countenanced slavery in he dominions could he brought against her."
That Despatch was written on November 15, 1913. The whole of the trouble at San Salvador, the rebellion and the sending of these contract labourers to San Thomé, were going on practically whilst the Prime Minister was saying this to our Minister at Lisbon. What, then, can we think of the protestations made by Portuguese Ministers? There is a telegraph office at Matadi, not far off, and the Portuguese authorities at Lisbon must have known what was going on. The Portuguese authorities have made so many protestations that we are beginning to get suspicious of what they say in these matters.
I should like also to quote what Vice-Consul Smallbones, who went to the Cocoa Islands, said with regard to these matters. He said—
"From what I have been able to gather, all the serviçaes (contract labourers) I have now seen were bought in the Province of Angola; their original contract was a sham, and the renewed contracts were a farce."
That is perfectly plain speaking, and it is the truth. The whole system may be put under three heads—(1) the contract system on the mainland for private profit; (2) the recontracting of contract labourers on the islands; and (3) repatriation. It is not, indeed, a contract system. Lord Cromer said in this House that he was not averse to a contract system provided it was properly carried out and provided it was for public works, such as railways. But this is a system for private gain absolutely and solely, and the planters of San Thomé and Principé have made large fortunes out of this so-called contract labour. The contract system on the mainland is one
166
which it is immensely difficult to get at. We should require a whole army of Consuls and Vice-Consuls there to see that the system was properly carried out. But Sir Edward Grey has given a line which is most useful, and which, if carried out, would help greatly to stop this evil. In a Despatch to our Minister at Lisbon, dated November 25, 1913, Sir Edward Grey said, speaking of the action of His Majesty's Government—
"It is their intention to appoint a Consul-General for Portuguese West Africa Whose principal duty will be to superintend the Consular posts already established on the mainland and in the islands. This officer's duties of superintendence will entail constant visits to San Thomé, w here the labourers are employed, as well as to those localities where they are recruited and contracted, and it will therefore be possible for him, if he is afforded the necessary facilities, to furnish His Majesty's Government with full information on the points to which I have referred, and thus enable them through the medium of their Consular officers to assure labourers at the recruiting stations that they con safely contract for service on the plantations."
I would like to supplement that. Supposing these men are brought down to the coast, it would be very useful if they could be taken to the curador's office—that is, the office of the Portuguese official—and, in the presence of one of our Consuls or Vice-Consuls, asked whether they were prepared to go to the islands or not, and whether they were satisfied with their contracts. You could in that way find out whether they had been properly contracted for, or whether their services had been secured by corruption and bribery of the chiefs or by actual force brought against these unfortunate people them selves.
I come now to the second head—recontracting on the islands. Despatch No. 20 in the White Paper clearly sets out our Vice-Consul's opinion on this matter, and what he saw with regard to it. He points out that the natives from Portuguese East Africa, who are more independent, are invariably sent direct to the curador's office in the chief town or city at the expiration of their contracts. These men who come from the East coast are contracted for generally for a year, and when their time is up they walk down to the town and see the official and say whether or not they want to go home, and if they do they are sent home. The Angola natives, who are in much greater numbers, are treated in a very different manner.

167
The planters, when they think it is time for the labourers to go back, send for the Portuguese official. The natives do not go by themselves to the town, but the Portuguese official comes up to where they are working and holds an inquiry at the plantation. You can well imagine the sort of pressure that is brought to bear in these circumstances to make the men stay on. They are induced in more ways than one to recontract, and, as our Vice-Consul quite rightly stated, this recontracting is a farce. What should be done is this. The Angola labourers should go down to the town and make their wishes known to the Portuguese representative the same as is done in the case of the Mozambique labourers. This would be quite easy to carry out, because the Governor of San Thomé informed our Vice-Consul on September 13 last that in the curadoria of the Province sufficient documents and data exist to enable the Curador-General to know when the contracts of the labourers on the different plantations terminate. Therefore the machinery is there, and it could quite easily be put into operation. Now with regard to the third head—repatriation—I go back to the original Despatch of November 15, 1913, sent by our Ambassador to Sir Edward Grey.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: On what page of the White Paper?
THE EARL OF MAYO: The Despatch is on page 77. In it our Ambassador says—
"Senhor Macieira, had informed him" [the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lisbon] "that I had stated that the repatriation of the serviçaes was not proceeding as fast as it should. He admitted that that was true, but he assured me that it arose solely from the insufficiency of vessels to convey the labourers to the mainland. He was at the moment engaged in negotiations with the Portuguese shipping company concerned with a view of having two more vessels made available for the purpose."
Now I must contradict this statement entirely. According to the sailing table of the Empreza Nacional Shipping Company, there are four Portuguese sailings from San Thomé to the mainland. The average carrying capacity of the company's fleet is 400 labourers per vessel, with four calls in each month—that is to say, a minimum of over 1,000 each month or over 13,000 a year. But during 1913 only 2,071 serviçaes were liberated and
168
repatriated. This is confirmed by Despatch No. 63 in the White Paper from Mr. Hall, our Consul at Loanda. There is a repatriation fund which was created by stopping wages from the contract labourers. That fund is short of some £100,000, which I believe cannot be accounted for. And instead of these labourers getting £18 as a bonus after their contract is over, I believe they get only £10. The accounts are difficult to follow. This fund is in the hands of a planters' committee, and there is a great deal of money which might properly be expended in giving these labourers grants when they land so that they should not starve, because there have been cases where they have been dumped on the mainland and been unable to get to their homes.
I think I have made out a case for the production of any further Papers that the Government may have with regard to this contract system at San Thomé and Principé. I myself once travelled with these slaves. I was at San Thomé for a short time. I know what the country is like, and I have seen these men put on board ship. They looked cowed, miserable, and unhappy—in fact, like slaves. That was many years ago, I admit, but I believe very little has since been done to help these people beyond this, that a certain number are now allowed to go back to their homes. When I was in that part of the world I do not think any of them got back home at all. They were kept there until they died. I beg to move.
Moved, (1) That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers, including correspondence from His Majesty's Consuls on the subject of the arrest and subsequent treatment of Mr. Bowskill, a Baptist Missionary at San Salvador, in Angola. (2) That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the system of contract labour in the Islands of San Thomé and Principé.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, the noble Earl last year went over a good deal of the general ground that he has covered this evening. I make no complaint of the noble Earl for bringing the subject before us. I entirely concur with what was said by the most rev. Primate in the debate on the last occasion, that it

169
has always been one of the glories of this country to do what is superciliously called the policing of the world—that is to say, when there is inhuman treatment and oppressive wrong-doing, if we are able, it is our duty to press on those who are concerned, Governments or private corporations, to redress those mischiefs. Therefore there is no difference between the noble Earl and myself in principle and aim. The noble Earl has told the story of Mr. Bowskill and has asked for Papers.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I ask for Vice-Consul Bell's report.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: That will be produced in time, but I will show later why it is better to wait a little longer. The noble Earl has told the story of the Baptist missionary with a running attack, in effect, upon the Portuguese authorities there before we really have heard the other side. I believe the bald facts are simply these. The noble Earl has not left any of them out, but he has put them in a very invidious setting. News reached San Salvador that there was an insurrection in the South, and it was known that that insurrection was due to the supply of labourers to the Government's recruiting agent by the native King of the Congo, who was breaking faith, in effect, with his own subjects. On December 10 there was a native attack on San Salvador. Senhor Moreira, the Portuguese administrator, sent an urgent request to the Baptist missionary, Mr. Bowskill, to use his influence to call a truce. His influence was known to be remarkable, and at considerable risk to himself he complied with this request and arranged a parley for the following day. On December 11 and 12 there took place accordingly what the noble Earl properly called a war palaver, and the Portuguese Roman Catholic priests went to lay the case before the Governor of the Congo. On, January 17 of this year the priests returned with a favourable reply. But troops came the same day from Noqui, whatever the significance of that was.
Things then began to take rather a singular turn. On January 19 Senhor Moreira collected all the guns belonging to the adherents of the Baptist Mission, although they were duly licensed. On the same evening Senhor Moreira came to the station with the Portuguese officer in
170
command of the fort, and said that there was a rumour that, an attack was to be made on the town that night. Then Mr. Bowskill and a colleague offered to go out and parley with the rebels provided the priests did the same. They went out together, and this intervention of the Baptist missionary and the Roman Catholic clergy was again successful. That was the second time in which the Baptist missionary had been of extreme service in getting a truce. But still the situation remained serious. Mr. Bowskill states that he tried hard to co-operate with the Roman Catholic priests and they with him to prevent another outbreak. On January 20 news came that the town of San Salvador was to be invested by the rebels, and the Mission station was barricaded in anticipation of that attack. On January 25 fighting began, and the remaining houses of the town were sacked and burned, and the Mission buildings happened to be in the line of fire. On January 30 Mr. Bowskill started for the coast in order to inform the Governor of the serious situation. The fortress was at that time cut off from the Mission station, and his action on this occasion was not taken at the request of the Portuguese authorities. He saw the newly-arrived Portuguese Governor and returned to San Salvador on February 13.
Then came the extraordinary climax. Mr. Bowskill was sent for by Senhor Moreira and placed under arrest. He was afterwards released on parole and was subsequently released from parole. He has no complaint to make, so we are informed, of his treatment while in the fortress. I forget how many days he was there. What did our Government do next? Vice-Consul Bell was sent from Boma to inquire into all the circumstances of the missionary's arrest. His report, to which the noble Earl referred, has been received; it is, as he supposed, now at the Foreign Office—I think Sir Edward Grey has told the House of Commons something to this effect—and it is still under consideration. The noble Earl may smile at the expression "under consideration," it being not an uncommon one for a long suspension of the production of a Government document.
But let us turn to Portugal, as to which the noble Earl was so extremely suspicious, and, may I say, uncharitable. His Majesty's Government—I have not the date—made serious representations to the Portuguese

171
Government, who replied with more than diplomatic courtesy that there was no reason to suppose that the affair of Mr. Bowskill could not be settled most satisfactorily. The trial would take place at Cabinda; it would not be hurried on precipitately, as was at one time apprehended; and Mr. Bowskill would be given the opportunity of legal assistance. And then a Portuguese officer was detailed to go and investigate the whole case, and he left for Angola on June 7. I submit to your Lordships and to the noble Earl that before producing Mr. Bell's report it would be better and fairer to await the arrival of the Portuguese counter-case, if it be a counter-case. It would be very unfruitful and not paying any great compliment to the Anti-Slavery Society if we were to give them Vice-Consul Bell's report without waiting to see what Lieutenant Crato, the Portuguese officer appointed to investigate the matter, had to say. We are promised that we shall have that report; and I think the House will agree that the Govern-merit are justified in asking the noble Earl and the Anti-Slavery Society to await the time when the whole case can be presented. The noble Earl has been perfectly fair as far as the Government are concerned. He has admitted that it is almost impossible to penetrate into these wild and remote areas with such effect as to be able to investigate the real truth of the situation there. But we have at all events taken a forward step in appointing an officer whose business it shall be particularly to watch these affairs.
The noble Earl made a number of suggestions the value of which I suppose nobody in the House, certainly not I, could contest. I can promise him that I will draw the attention of the Foreign Office to the suggestions that he has made, and I am perfectly sure that, they will he carefully considered and all the use made of them that can be. I want to say generally that since this time last year, when I had the honour of replying to the noble Earl on this subject, there has been a marked improvement in the state of things existing in regard to labour. The noble Earl said truly that the repatriation of the labourers who were kidnapped before the regulations of 1903 had been a slow work, but there is no reason to think that it has not gone on, especially during the last three or four years, perhaps owing to the noble Earl's efforts and the efforts of his friends, at
172
a much better pace. One important fact which I think the noble Earl will recognise is that the Portuguese Government confidently expect that by the end of this year all but 8,000 of those who were kidnapped will have been repatriated.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Is that in this White Paper?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am not sure. The noble Earl, however, may take it from me that it is said to be so. But it appears to His 'Majesty's Consular officers that there have been unnecessary delays. I think one can readily understand that ill an operation of this kind there might well be some miscarriages and delays. One reason was referred to by the noble Earl, though he brushed it aside—namely, the scarcity of shipping. He read some figures upon that point, and gave us the measure and accommodation of some of the ships which ply regularly there. He spoke of the tonnage of these vessels and how many labourers they carry. Yes; but the Portuguese authorities point out that they must have a large amount of space for cargo, and that these ships carry as many labourers as can fairly be expected from them. That difficulty, therefore, is more real than the noble Earl seems to think.
THE EARL OF MAYO: They generally carry them on deck; it is so hot.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Be that as it may, the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs has promised to investigate the matter thoroughly.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Then something was said by the noble Earl as to the bonus, and the doubt which he entertained as to whether the bonus, which is meant to be reserved pay, really finds its way, as it ought to do, into the hands of these men. No doubt there is a pretty careful handling of the bonus, not really to the disadvantage of the emancipated labourer. You are doing him no kindness—I think this is mentioned in one of the Portuguese Despatches—by dumping him down there with money which he will assuredly fritter away under the worst imaginable conditions. Therefore the noble Earl must be careful in supposing that this handling of the bonus is all to the bad.

173
The Anti-Slavery Society have always pressed that we should supervise the administration of the bonus fund; but, as I said last year, it is most unreasonable to suppose that we can supervise the whole administration, the audits, the receipts, the discharges, and so forth, of this fund. It is not for us to do it; it is for the Portuguese authorities; and it is a misplaced accusation against the British Government that they do not take care of this—
THE EARL OF MAYO: I did not accuse the British Government. I only mentioned that this fund existed, and I said that I did not think the natives were getting sufficient bonus out of it. They ought to receive £18 and I believe they get £10. I never made any accusation against the British Government with regard to the matter.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: If not by the noble Earl, the point has, at any rate, been taken by others. I repeat that it is impossible for us to superintend the administration of a fund of this sort. Let me close this part of the matter by saying that recent repatriation figures have shown a decided increase. During the first five months of this year 1,821 labourers have been repatriated from San Thomé to Angola, as against 2,071 during the whole of the year 1913. That, the noble Earl will admit, is a most satisfactory improvement.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am not competent to discuss the noble Earl's suggestions, but I venture to say that the action of the Portuguese Government in making new regulations and in giving instructions to their agents in these places deserves recognition; and I think Sir Edward Grey recently said that if you want them to go on in the path of progress and humanity it is no bad thing to recognise the progress they have already made. Their regulations are thought to be satisfactory. They are cumbrous, but they are regulations with which we find, as I understand, very little fault; and they have been or are about to be immediately presented to the Lisbon Parliament. The noble Earl knows as well as I do how frightfully difficult it is to do real good in a terrible case of this sort; but he needs no assurance from me that the Government have, and must have, the fullest sympathy with the spirit in which he has moved in these matters.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the House passes from the consideration of these questions I should like to say a word or two with regard to the first of the two Motions standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mayo. Personally I think it is rather unfortunate that the discussion upon the two matters, which are perfectly distinct, should have been mixed up as they have been in the discussion this afternoon. I am not going to say anything about the general question, important as it is, of contract labour in this district; but the matters touched upon in the first Question are of very great and immediate importance. I may say, in passing, that the telegrams which were the subject of question and answer between the noble Viscount opposite and the noble Earl were sent, not to the Anti-Slavery Society, but to the Baptist Missionary Society, and they have been communicated to the Foreign Office. That I have been assured of as a fact since the discussion began.
Regarding the treatment of Mr. Bowskill and, I may add, his two native Christian companions, I want to say a word or two. The noble Viscount seemed to think that the noble Earl had, as he described it, put the matter in a rather "invidious setting"—that was the expression used. I venture to say that the statement of fact as given by the noble Viscount did not better the matter so far as the Portuguese officials are concerned. I say nothing about the Government, but about the conduct of some of the subordinate Portuguese officials, which, so far as we know at the present time, has not met with any censure on the part of their own authorities. The facts as given to me, and I have done my best to assure myself of their accuracy, are these. Mr. Bowskill and two leading native Christians of the Mission went, at the request of a Portuguese official, to make peace. The noble Viscount says that his information is that they offered to do this.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Three occasions there were on which they went, and I think in regard to one occasion what I said was perfectly accurate.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: At any rate, on one occasion I am informed that they went actually at the request of the Portuguese officials—
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I said so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: For the purpose of preventing a native expedition from attacking the Portuguese settlement. In that intervention Mr. Bowskill and his two native Christian friends were successful. As the noble Viscount said, a war palaver followed. Mr. Bowskill and the two native Christians acted as interpreters on this occasion. But very soon after that not only Mr. Bowskill but his two native companions were arrested. It is true that Mr. Bowskill was released on the order of a superior official. Probably the fact that he was a British subject had some influence in that direction, and it was recognised that it would be too dangerous even for a subordinate Portuguese official to keep a white British subject in durance vile without the formulation of a charge. But my information is that the other two men, the natives, are now in prison; that they have been for months in prison; that they have had no trial at all, and that they have not even had a definite formulation of the charge against them.
The noble Viscount himself is not in the Foreign Office, and therefore I cannot ask him now for an answer to the point that these two native Christians, who did a service to the Portuguese Government, are at present and have been ever since this occasion actually lying in prison—and we can imagine what a Portuguese prison in those districts is like—not only without trial, but even without a formulation of the charge against them.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: There was a charge formulated against Mr. Bowskill—namely, that he had made an incendiary speech at Boma, or some such place.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I understand that that was the case, but my information is that the charge against him on that point has been withdrawn. At any rate, whether it has been withdrawn or not, as the noble Viscount said, it was investigated by Vice-Consul Bell, and in the course of time we shall hear the result. I am confident that the result will be in favour of Mr. Bowskill. But Mr. Bowskill is free, and therefore we can afford to wait. My point is that these other two unfortunate men who have been treated in a worse way are not released, have not been tried, no
176
charge has been made against them, and they do not know, and even their friends do not know, the particular reason why they have been incarcerated. I call the attention of the noble Viscount to that, and I do so feeling it to be absolutely true that there is no man in this House, no man in this country, who, left to himself, would deprecate more or view with greater horror such a state of facts as I mention, if they be true. The point I make is that the noble Viscount should urge the Foreign Office to use the same influence on behalf of these two unfortunate natives, at any rate to the extent of getting them released pending the trial which it is perfectly fair they should stand. I am glad to think that we are to have in due time Vice-Consul Bell's report of his investigations. If it was received only a few weeks ago it is probably reasonable that time should elapse before we have it.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: May I put my point again, such as it was? We should like to keep Vice-Consul Bell's report back until the report of the Portuguese agent has been received, so that we may have the whole case before us.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think, if I may say so, that that is absolutely reasonable. But I hope that the Foreign Office will take care that no undue procrastination on the part of the Portuguese authorities takes place, and, if it does, that they will say that Vice-Consul Bell's report shall be put before this country after such interval of time as would allow the corresponding Portuguese investigation also to be produced. I press also very strongly for the formulation by the Portuguese of their charges against these two native Christians. I do think that we ought to have an apology for the treatment of the Mission as a whole; also a promise of a fair trial in due time; and I urge strongly for the immediate release of the imprisoned assistants of Mr. Bowskill, who must be suffering very much at the present time. I do not go into the general discussion, but these are personal things which do not admit of any delay. Unless the action which has been taken by the Foreign Office is followed up by the limited steps which I have mentioned, we shall not be doing justice to those who are suffering for wrongs which I do not believe they have committed.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords. I do not think there can be any one in the House who does not entertain some sympathy for the noble Viscount who is called upon, of all men in England, I do not say to defend doings of this kind, but to give such apologies as he can from the point of view of His Majesty's Government for a narrative such as that which we have heard. The story as told by the noble Viscount does not really differ from that which Lord Mayo has brought before the House and which appeals in the documents that have been made public. The noble Viscount the President of the Council, in his speech, said that at the particular moment in question a "rather singular thing" happened. Yes, my Lords, it was a singular thing. The position was this. An English missionary had defended the Portuguese authorities from what would have probably been something very like a massacre, and he bad with him as his colleagues the two natives who were the leading Christians in the place. A little later, at I he hands of these very authorities, and in consequence of his chivalrous action on their behalf, he was himself arrested and put into prison, and although he is now released he is to a very real extent under a kind of quasi-censure; wide the two men, who went with him to save the lives of the Portuguese authorities who were practically enlisting slaves, are imprisoned to this hour, and are waiting until a trial shall some day take place after a report has been received which is promised us as to the conditions going on. We have been told that these men have been suffering the foulest indignities, and that on one occasion they were kept five days without food in the dungeon in which they are. And these are the men who had helped our English missionary, who was there under special privileges in connection with Treaty obligations which were our own, to save the lives of these people. He was accompanied by these native Christians, who were alone able to intercede effectively; and these men are now in the position that I have endeavoured to describe.
As for Mr. Bowskill himself, it has been inferred sometimes that he was a man who was interposing in a way that was not necessary, and doing one of those troublesome things missionaries are supposed to do. The position was this. Here was a man with an important stake in that place
178
on behalf of Christianity and civilisation, with a school, hospital, and the rest of it, all for the good of the people there, and for that reason he is the friend of the whole of the natives of the neighbourhood. He alone was able to interpose and save these Portuguese from the rising of those whom they were endeavouring to enslave. So bad was the case—it has all been made public, there is nothing to conceal about it—that the representative of the Portuguese authorities actually took refuge in Mr. Bowskill's bathroom. Mr. Bowskill was willing to give him that shelter. The one place to which he dared to go for safety was to the home of the English missionary. This man is now released as a kind of favour, as though he were a person they would tolerate, but no apology has been made and no explanation given why this man, after conferring that benefit upon the Portuguese, has been treated in the way he has. Far less is anything now being done in regard to his colleagues, the native Christians who went with him to intercede on behalf of those who are now treating them in the way that has been described.
We are told that some day we shall get full reports. The noble Viscount himself stated that, even in our own parlance, it is sometimes the fact that when a matter is said to be "under consideration" the phrase is a way of saying that some little time may elapse before the consideration is concluded. We can imagine what is meant when we are told to await a report which is going to be made by the Portuguese authorities some day, and all the time the Christians who went with Mr. Bowskill and thus endeavoured to save the Portuguese authorities are to remain in the position which we know them to be in now.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I do not think I used the expression "some day." The Portuguese agent left on June 7 and we expect his report within, say, a month or two months. That is what I am told.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Of course, if we are assured that it really will be expedited, we must take what we can get and hope for the best. But I confess that the position of those who are now in prison does not strike me as other than one of which we should be profoundly ashamed, seeing that we have Treaty obligations in the matter. However, I shall await with great anxiety the effectual pressure which will be brought by His Majesty's Government, as I hope,

179
upon the Portuguese should there be any delay in producing the report which is going to elucidate this matter, and do something to alleviate the lot of these unfortunate men who are in the Portuguese prison. I think this is one of the darkest stories we have heard even in the narratives of the Dark Continent.
Then a single word about the general question. It is perfectly true that the White Paper lately published gives a record of a definite improvement in more ways than one. I think anybody who will look into the facts and see what are the points upon which improvement has taken place, and then look hack upon what has taken place in this House and elsewhere in England before, will be able to find cause and effect, and will be able to see that it is worth while for us on occasions like this to bring pressure to bear, because the very points upon which we have brought pressure are those which have in consequence been improved. Therefore I feel that nothing but good comes from our raising a point of this kind and pressing the matter home. The noble Viscount gave, in words which I was most thankful to hear, a reply to the taunt sometimes levied as to our policing the world. In this case it is not a matter of policing the world, but of fulfilling obligations which are our own, because we have in this particular matter definite Treaty obligations. We are linked up and tied with those whose misconduct—it cannot be called anything else—we are describing to-night; and if we are apathetic, or quiet, or submissive in allowing these things to go on, we have a grave responsibility in the matter. More than that we have, through the Foreign Office, given a quasi-pledge to the Portuguese authorities that, given satisfactory conditions for the enlistment of native labour, we shall help to secure that that labour is forthcoming. That was a wide responsibility to take. I think in some ways it was a wise one, because native labour will be required, and if it is properly conducted it is of benefit to the people who are thus enlisted as well as to those on whose behalf it is carried out. But it is a grave responsibility on our part, and if we are in any wav directly or indirectly supposed to be guaranteeing that that labour shall be forthcoming, we are bound to see what are the conditions under which the labour and also the repatriation take place.
It seems to me that what we have before us in the White Paper as it stands is not
180
nearly clear enough, and when further Papers are furnished I hope we shall have a good deal more told us of how we are taking care that the obligation upon which we have insisted as a condition is being fulfilled before we help that native labour to be enlisted. The whole matter is one which ought to be as fully and as often brought before the public as possible until we see that we have the facts made perfectly clear to the world. The facts with regard to the missionary Mr. Bowskill reveal a sad and wretched story. I venture to hope that we shall find that not the missionary alone but the people whom he has been protecting and who are now terrorised by what is going on will receive proper protection. With regard to the general question, let us note what are the improvements that have taken place; and let us see that we do what in us lies to improve matters where we are concerned, directly or indirectly, and to see that the obligations in which we are involved shall be carried out in their entirety, not for the gain of the private exploiters for whom we are sending the labour, but for the good of the people on whose behalf we have undertaken these obligations, which are hard to discharge but which we ought to endeavour to discharge to the best of our ability.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything about the case of Mr. Bowskil, which has been so fully dealt with. But I want to say a word about the contract labour at San Thomé. My noble friend Lord Mayo quoted a statement by Lord Cromer, but I do not think, if he will allow me to say so, that he quoted that statement quite correctly. Lord Cromer spoke not of contract labour but of forced labour when he said that under no circumstances should forced labour be used for the purpose of private gain. He admitted that there might be exceptional circumstances under which forced labour might be legitimate for some truly public purpose; but I think Lord Cromer said "never for private gain." We all admit that contract labour may be quite legitimate for the purpose of private gain. The whole question is whether the natives who are contracting do so voluntarily, whether they understand exactly the conditions of the contract they have undertaken, and, lastly, whether full faith is kept with them in respect of the contract they have made.

181
It is in this connection that we feel so doubtful as to what the conditions really are under which the natives now working in the islands of Portuguese West Africa have been recruited. We do not know too much about the conditions under which they are being recruited now. We cannot say that we feel absolutely satisfied that they always understand exactly what they are doing, and that no pressure is put upon them. The noble Viscount himself said quite bluntly that prior to 1903 these unfortunate natives were kidnapped. I am not at all sure that something worse than kidnapping is not occasionally mixed in this business. I understand kidnapping to mean a sort of form of legal pressure put upon natives living in the Portuguese territory to come away from their villages and kraals, whether they like it or not, to work in the islands. Although I have not been to San Thomé I have been within what I may call a comparatively short distance of the Eastern border of Portuguese West Africa and of the Congo border up into the North-West corner of Northern Rhodesia. I was quite satisfied myself from what I heard—indeed, it is on record in the Colonial Office—that that corner where British territory and the Belgian Congo and Portuguese territory join has within quite recent times been traversed by the ordinary brutal African slave raider, and he was always going westward. Therefore, so far as we know, he was going to try and dispose of his human wares in Portuguese territory. We do not know; we have no possible proof; but at any rate it is possible that some of those unfortunate slaves may have found their way to these islands. All that is more or less a matter of conjecture.
But what we do know is this that the natives now under contract in these islands are almost all anxious to get away. They are not staying there voluntarily. No one can read the White Paper without coming to that conclusion. It is an infinitesimal percentage of the natives who are staying there voluntarily. Very many of them are, by the admission of the Portuguese Government itself, kept there after the period for which they are said to have contracted has expired, and the excuse for that is that the shipping is inadequate. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that, it would neither be wise nor just not to recognise that the Portuguese Government has been making a genuine effort to improve this matter, and we must recognise that the
182
Portuguese Government has real difficulties with which to contend. There are important vested interests. It is always difficult to dislocate a system on which many interests depend, and many interests apparently do depend on this native labour. But surely His Majesty's Government cannot really be finally contented with the explanation that there is not shipping enough to enable natives to be repatriated whose term of contract it is admitted has expired months and months ago. Therefore I think we are justified in urging His Majesty's Government to be constant in their pressure.
It is not an agreeable thing to put this kind of pressure on a friendly Power and on an old ally. But I submit that it is not only a question of carrying out our self-assumed function of policing the world. It is not even a question of acting where we have a definite locus standi like we had in the Belgian Congo. Here His Majesty's Government are on much firmer ground than that—namely, the ground mentioned by the most rev. Primate. Here we are absolutely bound by an offensive and defensive alliance to protect all the Portuguese possessions all over the world. But, as Lord Cromer said, it is absolutely unthinkable that we should spend a life or a pound in defending Portuguese interests where slavery existed or where there was slavery in some vague form. Therefore while I would not demur at the attitude which the Foreign Office has hitherto assumed of courtesy and patience, yet I think that pressure ought not for one moment to be relaxed and the Foreign Office ought never to forget the great strength of our ground.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Earl press his Motions?
THE EARL OF MAYO: yes.
On Question, Motions agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I hope you will not think me guilty of any disrespect if at this stage withdraw this Bill. I do so with the full assent of all those who have taken part

183
in its promotion, and I do so upon three grounds. The first is that the Amendments which have been already introduced have so greatly changed the character of the Bill that I and those who have supported it feel that we must consider very carefully the effect of those Amendments before we continue to support the Bill. I will mention two points to show that it is really considered reasons which have urged me to drop the Bill. The first is that it is very questionable whether, with the Bill so amended, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has borne the great brunt of preventing these cases, could really continue its work at all, because private prosecutions seem to be very much hampered by the first clause as amended. The second reason is, although it was no doubt very far from the noble Marquess's (Lord Salisbury's) intention, that by his Amendment now in the Bill we should be leaving those up to the age of twenty-one practically to do as they like. Those two Amendments, of course, very much change the character of the measure. Then from a legal point of view consideration is required as to how this Bill will work. The other ground for withdrawing the Bill is that it cannot possibly become law this session. I therefore propose to bring the subject before your Lordships again early next session, and I trust that you will see your way to have a Select Committee upon it in order that we may thresh the matter out in detail; and then when we have a measure upon which we can thoroughly agree I hope we shall be able to press it through both your Lordships' House and another place.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am very glad that the right rev. Prelate has announced his intention not only of bringing this Bill in again I hope in the first week of next session but of sending it to a Select Committee, because it seems to me that a Select Committee is the exact body to deal with this very difficult class of case. Our discussion in Committee the other night showed two conflicting trends of opinion. In the first place, there is the public opinion which stands behind the promoters of this Bill. It is a very strong volume of public opinion, including that of a vast number of women in this country who feel very strongly the evils that exist and the dangers to which the present state of the law, in their opinion, exposes very young girls; and the promoters of the Bill
184
believe, rightly or wrongly, that such a change in the law as is represented in this Bill would do very much to mitigate if not to remove those evils. On the other side we have the warning of some of the most experienced administrators and lawyers in this country. Your Lordships heard what the Lord Chancellor said, and the report he gave of the opinion of those whom he had consulted. We also had a very interesting and forceful speech from my noble friend Lord Parmoor. The task of Parliament is to try and reconcile by a proper balance these two conflicting trends of thought, and I think it is almost impossible to do that in a Committee of the Whole House. But in a Select Committee the whole of this matter can be threshed out, and the weight of the objections and the value of the proposed remedies can be tested. Therefore, although I deeply regret that there should be any delay in dealing with this question, I am quite sure that the right rev. Prelate will do a wise thing if he asks this House to send his Bill at a very early date next session to a Select Committee.
*LORD BRAYE: My Lords, may I remind the noble Earl who has just sat down that this matter has been already before a Select Committee which sat in 1881. I presume that the evidence of that Committee is still obtainable in a Blue Book. It is evidence of a very startling nature and of a very painful kind. But the point I should like to impress upon your Lordships is that the whole matter was as far as possible threshed out and thoroughly investigated by that Committee. I forget how long the Committee actually sat—I think I am the only surviving member—but at all events it occupied a considerable portion of the session, and the Blue Book, which contains the evidence verbatim, is, I presume, obtainable by any member of your Lordships' House. If the right rev. Prelate who has just announced his withdrawal of this Bill is of opinion that the matter can be expedited by a Select Committee no harm can accrue from going over the investigation again. I presume that the number of the Committee would be about the same—I think thirteen—as sat on the Committee of 1881. However that may be, if the proposal in any way serves to expedite the matter or to clear the way for a Bill which will deal will an atrocious and abominable system, I for one would give it my hearty support.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the right rev. Prelate intends to withdraw his Bill and to bring it forward again, but I should like to be perfectly certain that the public will not thereby think that the House of Lords as a body are at all unfavourable to the Bill. I am perfectly certain that that is not the ease, and that it is simply and solely withdrawn in order that it may be improved. There are conflicting opinions upon certain points which there will be time to consider very carefully, and I am pleased to think that in a very short time we shall have a really good Bill before us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that the right rev. Prelate has taken a wise course in asking leave to withdraw the Bill at this stage of the session. The questions which the Bill raises are questions of great gravity. They are attracting new interests and are being approached from a new point of view, and that in itself is a justification for regarding the work done by the old Committee as requiring to be supplemented by further consideration to-day. Speaking for the Government, I do not in the least underrate the consideration of the matters which the right rev. Prelate has brought forward. On the other hand, as Lord Selborne has pointed out, there is another side to every one of these questions. Considerations, also of great gravity, arise which cannot be ignored; and without the bringing to bear of the best skill in the preparation of a Bill of this kind it is hopeless to expect it to progress. In those circumstances I think that the right rev. Prelate has done well to take the course of proposing to bring the matter before you again in the shape of a Bill early next session, and to have that Bill referred to a Select Committee which will investigate the matters to which it relates.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LIPTONS, LIMITED, AND THE ARMY.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether any general order has
186
yet been issued to the Army prohibiting the employment of Liptons, Limited, as contractors. The noble Lord said: In asking this Question I do not wish to imply any distrust whatever of His Majesty's Government, but rumours have reached me that no instructions have been received by various regiments. Therefore I put the Question in order to remove any misapprehensions on the subject. But as we are upon this subject, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply whether the prohibition which refers to the Army with regard to this firm applies also in the case of the Navy.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend who represents the War Office I hope the noble Lord will take such information as I am able to give him en the subject. I understand that the sequence of events was that on June 15 the War Office addressed a letter to the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of all the districts, intimating that no contracts were under any circumstances to be entered into with the firm of Liptons, Limited, and steps were to be taken for all contracts now held by this firm to be terminated as soon as possible, but that where any hardship or inconvenience to the troops might be caused thereby, Commanding Officers were to use their discretion as to the date of termination. On July 6, in answer to a Question addressed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas gave the substance of that letter. On July 24 the War Office addressed another letter to the General Officers Commanding in all the districts and requested to be informed whether the Order had been communicated to all concerned. The War Office asked for a report on that point to be furnished to them by July 27, and I am given to understand that all eight districts answered in the affirmative. I am afraid I am not able to tell the noble Lord whether the prohibition applies also to naval contracts. But as far as the Army is concerned, I think he may take the reply to his Question as being in the affirmative.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.