Sitting of 28 July 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Leyland Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Hesketh Estate (Flood Defences) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords],
King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Edenbridge and District Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Thursday, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.
Midland Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Tees Valley Water Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1914–15).
Estimate presented of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 398.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 24th July, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Consolidated Order (Ireland), 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 394.]
WATER UNDERTAKINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th November, 1910; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 395.]
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for England and Wales for the year 1912–13. Parts I.-VI. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 396.]
EAST INDIA (MEDICAL).
Copy presented of Correspondence regarding the Indian Medical Service and the Medical Profession in India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ALIENS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Return of the Alien Passenger Traffic to and from the United Kingdom during the three months ending 30th June, 1914, together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Orders made by the Councils of the county borough of West Hartlepool and of the county of Worcester, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SUPER-TAX.
Return ordered, "showing—
(1) The number of persons who were asked by the Special Commissioners to make returns for Super-tax for each of the years 1909–10, 1910–11, 1911–12, 1912–13, and 1913–14;
(2) The number of persons who gave notice that they were liable to Super-tax in each of these years;
(3) The number of persons who neglected to make returns for Super-tax (because they had not been asked) in the

1085
respective years of assessment commencing 1909–10, and who have subsequently made returns."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Statement ordered "of the number of paupers relieved on the 1st day of July, 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 278, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Address "for Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1913, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100; and of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the judges of such Courts in the year 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 271, of Session 1913)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

EAST INDIA ACCOUNTS.
Ordered, "That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament relating to the Revenues of India be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House."
Resolved—" That this House will upon Thursday, the 6th August, resolve itself into the said Committee."—[Mr. Charles Roberts.]
Mr. SPEAKER: The ballot for notices of motion on going into Committee on the East India Accounts will be taken tomorrow (Wednesday).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Russian officers at present employed with the Persian Cossacks,
  1086
  and whether he can say if the number has been increased or diminished since the beginning of the year?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is ten. I cannot say whether there has been any increase or decrease this year.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked if the Russian consular authorities at Ispahan have Persian Cossacks commanded by Russian officers as consular guards, or is any necessary protection given by the Swedish gendarmerie?
  Sir E. GREY: The general rule throughout Persia is that consulates have guards, of the consul's own nationality, and not Persian Cossacks. I have no reason to believe that this rule does not prevail at Ispahan.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Has the British Consul any Indian guards at Ispahan?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say without notice.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information to the effect that a sum of £42,000 belonging to-the Persian Government, and set aside by them for the payment of police and gendarmerie, has been impounded by the Russian authorities, and that in consequence the police are clamouring for arrears of pay and the Swedish officers of gendarmerie are threatening to resign; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  Sir E. GREY: It appears that the surplus of the northern customs has been used to meet certain unexpected Russian demands. This has naturally increased the difficulties of the financial situation, but I have no information to show that the failure to pay the gendarmerie has been solely due to this fresh claim on the Treasury. I have instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to discuss the whole matter with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERSTON: Does not this action constitute a serious encroachment on the independence of the Persian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand there are certain Russian claims on this particular sum which, according to my information,

  1087
  is not £42,000. But still a big sum has been retained to pay Russian claims, and the point I am raising is that it is very undesirable to press claims on Persia so as to increase her financial embarrassment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is this sum any part of the loan we made to Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: Certainly not. The loan we made is ear-marked for the purpose of the gendarmerie. This is a sum received from the Northern Customs.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked whether the Russian authorities have signified their intention to permit the removal of Shuja-ud-Dowleh from the Governorship of Azerbaijan by the Persian Government; whether any withdrawal of Russian troops from that province is made dependent upon an increase of the Persian Cossacks commanded by Russian officers by an equal number of men; and whether an augmentation of the Persian (Swedish) gendarmerie in the North must be met by an identical increase of the Cossack Brigade?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot give information as to possible or prospective changes in the Governorship of Azerbaijan. The withdrawal of Russian troops is stated to be dependent on the degree of order in Azerbaijan. The question of an increase in the Cossack Brigade and of strengthening the gendarmerie is still under consideration.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Does not this interference with the prerogative of the Persian Government in dismissing and appointing Governors of districts detract very greatly from the prestige of the Persian Government? Is it not a humiliation?
  Sir E. GREY: There has always been a certain amount of influence exercised in regard to the appointments of Governors, but, as I have said, I cannot give any information as to the possible or prospective changes in this Governorship. I do not understand there is any disagreement between the Russian and Persian Governments on this point at the present moment.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked if the action of the Russian authorities in collecting taxes in Azerbaijan was undertaken at the invitation of M. Mornand, the Treasurer-General; whether the Persian Government, in consequence, wished
  1088
  to dismiss M. Mornand, but were unable to do so because of the opposition of the Russian authorities, and also because of the threat made by the Belgian Government that the dismissal of M. Mornand would be followed by the withdrawal of all Belgian officials now in Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: I am informed that the action of the Russian Government was due to a misunderstanding of a suggestion made by M. Mornand. I have no information in the sense of the second part of the question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it true that M. Mornand has resigned?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the full and exact information is received by the Russian Foreign Office in St. Petersburg concerning the doings of their subordinates in Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: That question could be addressed to no one except the Russian Minister.

  Wireless Telegraphy (China).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an announcement from Shanghai that a-complete chain of Telefunken wireless stations is in process of completion in China; whether he is aware that the Chinese Government had intended to authorise Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company to issue £2,000,000 Chinese bonds in payment of Marconi wireless stations in China on the basis of a formal contract; whether he can state which of these two companies is to receive the wireless privileges in China; and what steps he can take to protect the interests of Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, with which the Government is in contractual relationship?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen the announcement referred to by the hon. Member, and am aware that a preliminary understanding of the nature described was entered into between the Marconi Company and the Chinese Minister of Finance. The Company have been informed that His Majesty's Government are prepared to afford them such support as they properly can, and will no doubt apply for support

  1089
  whenever they consider it necessary. I have, however, no information as to which of the two companies is to receive the wireless privileges of China.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Will the two contracts compete in any way?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say.
  Mr. KING: Is full value in the stations which are being erected being given for this loan of £2,000,000?
  Sir E. GREY: That is a matter—if I understand my hon. Friend's question rightly—between the Chinese Government and the people with whom they are making the contract. I understand the particular question to be whether if there is competition between a British company and a foreign company the British company will receive diplomatic support such as is usually given, and that question I have answered.

  Albania.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government has made any loan or advance to the State or kingdom of Albania or is under any financial obligation to make any such loan?
  Sir E. GREY: An advance of £5,000 was made by His Majesty's Government last December towards the relief of distress in Albania, as was stated in the House on the 19th February, but this was not strictly speaking an advance to the Government of Albania, as it was not under their control. The question of an international loan is under consideration, but His Majesty's Government are under no obligation to contribute anything to it.

  Ottoman Public Debt (Sir Adam Block).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Adam Block, British delegate and President of the Council of Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt, is chairman of the Imperial Ottoman Docks, Arsenals, and Naval Construction Company; whether he has considered the position of the British delegate in connection with the objects and work of this company; whether Sir Adam Block informed the Foreign Office that he was undertaking the position of chairman; whether the permission or sanction of the Foreign Office in this matter was given to Sir Adam Block; and whether any communications on this subject have passed between the Turkish Government and the Foreign Office?
  Sir E. GREY: In the early part of this year I was informed unofficially that the Constantinople Dockyard and Arsenal Company were desirous of obtaining the services of Sir Adam Block as chairman. I replied that the matter seemed one for private arrangement between the company and the Council of Foreign Bondholders, in whose service Sir Adam Block was. The Turkish Ambassador, in reply to an inquiry from him, was informed of this view. Understanding from a subsequent communication from the Turkish Ambassador that the Turkish Government desired the appointment and hoped no objection would be made to it, I expressed myself as favourable to it on general grounds; there was no question of my giving permission or sanction to Sir Adam Block, who is not, as British delegate on the Council of the Debt, appointed by or under the control of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. KING: Was the approval of any other Government besides that of the Russian Government notified to the Foreign Office?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not see how the Russian Government came into the matter at all. I have not heard that any other foreign Government was consulted at all about the appointment of Sir Adam Block.
  Mr. GRETTON: Is Sir Adam Block still holding an appointment in the Diplomatic Service, and, if so, what is the nature of that appointment?
  Sir E. GREY: He was in the Diplomatic Service, but I think I am correct in saying that he has no appointment in the Diplomatic Service now. He was the British delegate on the Council of Foreign Debt, and in that capacity he was appointed by and responsible to the Council of Foreign Bondholders, who are, of course, independent of His Majesty's Government.

  Tokio (British Ambassador).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Ambassador in Tokio was last year in close contact with Mr. A. M. Pooley, recently condemned in Japan to imprisonment for blackmail and bribery; and whether he has called, or will call, for an explanation from the Ambassador of his relations with Mr. Pooley?
  Sir E. GREY: It is incorrect to state that His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio

  1091
  was in "close contact" with Mr. Pooley. His Excellency informed me of such steps as he had taken with regard to information that had reached him, and his action appeared to me to be quite right.
  Mr. KING: Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer directly the last part of the question—whether he has called, or will call, for an explanation from the Ambassador?
  Sir E. GREY: Certainly I am not going to call for any explanation, because I heard at the time of the information which reached the Ambassador and what steps he had taken. This is a matter in which I understand that the man who was prosecuted has made an appeal, and it would be quite improper for me to state what information the British Ambassador may or may not have had, pending the trial.

  Epirus.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to massacres in Epirus; and whether he has any information showing that definite steps will be taken by the Greek Government to put an end to this state of affairs?
  Sir E. GREY: I have little to add to what I have already told the House on this subject. The accounts of what has occurred in Southern Albania are very distressing, but I have received no details in regard to actual excesses or massacres, and such reports as have reached me as to the numbers that have been rendered homeless are from unofficial sources, which cannot all be considered as quite reliable. In Valona itself I hear from a reliable private source that there are now some 12,000 refugees, but I fear that it cannot be doubted that in the country round thousands more are destitute and in urgent need of the necessaries of life Some proposals have been made for their immediate relief. The Italian Government informed me that they were prepared to send maize and other necessaries at once, and His Majesty's Government are ready to bear their share of the cost, if the other Powers do likewise. I have since heard that the refugees have declined the maize and that the International Commission of Control have placed 100,000 frs. at the disposal of a special committee for purposes of immediate relief. Furthermore, the Powers
  1092
  are considering the dispatch from Durazzo of an international mission who will endeavour to elucidate past occurrences, and, I trust, contribute to the restoration of some sort of order and confidence. Such information as I have received that seemed trustworthy respecting excesses in Epirus I have brought to the knowledge of the Greek Government, pointing out that though I am convinced that M. Venizelos earnestly desires to prevent these occurrences, the fact of their being due to Greeks, however irresponsible, must produce a very unfavourable impression.

  INDIA.

    ILL-TREATMENT BY POLICE (BENGAL).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statistics received from the province of Bengal of alleged serious ill-treatment or torture by the police in the year 1912–13, from which it appears that sixty-two cases were reported, that fifty were brought before the criminal Courts, that twelve resulted in the conviction of the accused constable, and seven are said to have been compromised; whether he can say how these figures compare with the figures of other years in Bengal; and whether he has received any similar report from other provinces?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative, except that the number of convictions was thirteen, and not twelve, as stated. In regard to the second part, it is not possible to institute an exact comparison, since the reports for previous years do not furnish exactly comparable statistics. In reply to the third part, statements regarding cases of ill-treatment by the police are given in the annual police reports of the various provinces. I shall be glad to place these reports at the disposal of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say generally whether the police torture in other provinces is commensurate with the police torture that takes place in Bengal; is it not a fact that in the last six years seventeen persons have died under police torture in India, and what steps have the Government taken?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Will the hon. Member please put that question down on the Paper?

    PRESS ACT, 1910.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received the report of the judgment of the Chief Court of the Punjab in the appeal brought by the proprietor of the "Zemindar Press" of Lahore against a declaration of forfeiture made under the Press Act, 1910; whether, as the result of this appeal, the proprietors of this newspaper are penalised by a fine of £800 and the total loss of printing presses, together with the payment of costs on account of certain articles, which were held to be likely to spread dissatisfaction; whether he is aware that one of these articles was in effect a criticism of the Prime Minister and Lord Crewe for declining to see two representative Mahomedans who had come to London at the request of a large body of fellow Mahomedans to complain of the operation of the Press Act; whether any of the articles contained any incitement whatever to violence or disorder; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of this case, the Secretary of State will take any action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answers to the first, second, and third parts are in the affirmative, except that there were two orders of forfeiture and two judgments of the Chief Court. In regard to the fourth part, the Chief Court have upheld the local Government in its view that the articles were likely to bring into hatred and contempt and to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in British India. The Secretary of State does not propose to interfere in this case.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Secretary of State refused to see these two men who came over purposely as representing the people in India? The Secretary of State is paid a big salary, and is it not part of his duty?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think the Secretary of State, in his discretion, did not see any occasion for seeing these gentlemen.
    Mr. MORRELL: Was it not admitted that this paper is generally conducted on lines which are perfectly compatible with loyalty to this country, and that these were exceptional articles rather in the nature of criticism than incitements to sedition?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot accept that version of the judgment. The view expressed
    1094
    by the judgment was that the tone of the articles must be regarded as being characteristic of the paper as a whole.

    CONFESSIONS TO POLICE.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether the Secretary of State has yet come to any decision either to abolish or perpetuate the existing practice in India under which accused persons alleged to have confessed their guilt to the police are liable to have their confessions recorded by a magistrate and then used against them at their trial, without being given any opportunity of examining or cross-examining the policeman to whom they are alleged to have confessed; and (2) whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to sanction the continuance of the system of committing accused or suspected persons in India to the personal custody of the police who are investigating the crime and to allow them to remain in that custody for as long as fifteen days and to be interrogated by the police for the purpose of eliciting a confession of guilt to be afterwards recorded and used against the prisoners at their trial?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Under Indian law the police are not permitted to interrogate a prisoner with a view to eliciting a confession, and a confession made to the police may not be recorded or admitted in evidence. There is thus no question of examining or cross-examining a police officer with regard to an alleged confession. The question of the treatment of confessions voluntarily made to magistrates before trial, including the remand to police custody of the accused, is still under consideration in connection with the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code.
    Mr. MORRELL: Has not this question been under consideration for over two years, and how soon will a decision be reached?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think it has been under consideration for about that time, but careful opinions have been collected of the various local governments of India, and that takes time.
    Sir W. BYLES: Have not these quaint and un-English judicial methods the direct effect of encouraging torture by the police in order to elicit evidence, and are any really strong steps being taken by the India Office to put a stop entirely to this practice of torture?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. The Indian law is much stricter in its precautions to defend accused persons than the English law. Every effort as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, is made to root out the practice.

    INDIAN CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can now say what steps have been or will be taken either to promote or else to compensate those officers of the Indian Army who would be debarred from promotion to the command of their regiments by the operation of the new rules introduced in December last?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State for India in Council has approved the Grant of a special rate of unemployed pay to officers vacating appointments in Indian Cavalry regiments under the orders referred to. He has also authorised relaxation of the rules in special cases where they occasion real hardship to existing seconds in command.

    Public House Licences.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the Finance Act of 1909, the City and County of London paid one-eighth of the total sum paid for licences for public-houses and beer-houses in the United Kingdom, exclusive of London; whether, for the five complete years ended 31st March, 1914, the aggregate duties have been no less than £3,207,000 for London and £14,683,000 for the whole of the United Kingdom, exclusive of London, equal to nine-fortieths; whether, if the old proportion had been maintained, London would have paid £1,300,000 less during the five years, equivalent to an excess for London of over £250,000 a year; whether the rate of increase has been in London 193 per cent. and the rest of the United Kingdom 76 per cent., and the average payment has risen from £28 to £87 in London, and in the rest of the United Kingdom from £14 to £20; and when he proposes to redress this state of affairs?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Before the Licence Duties were increased by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the city and county of London contributed about one-ninth of the total sum paid for licences for public houses and beer houses in the United Kingdom, and if this proportion
    1096
    had been maintained London would have paid about £1,980,000 out of the total amount collected in respect of those licences for the five years ended 31st March, 1914. The amounts which have actually been paid for the city and county of London for this period are not shown in the official records, for the reason explained on the 1st May, 1913, in a reply I gave to the right hon. Gentleman who was then Member for East Worcestershire, and I am not therefore in a position to check the comparison made by the hon. Member. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 25th ultimo.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything to redress this manifest injustice?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Member knows very well, I have done my best to induce the licensed victuallers to supply mc with information which would enable us to introduce a Bill to levy on the basis rather of the trade done. That would be very much better adapted to the case. Up to the present I have not succeeded, because the interests of the London licensed victuallers and those of the country are in direct opposition.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information he asked for was perfectly useless for the purpose?
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that this injustice affects not merely licence holders, but the ratepayers of the whole of London, because the other ratepayers have to make up the reduction in the rateable value of licensed premises?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it Has an indirect effect undoubtedly on the rates.

    Income Tax.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the assessment to Income Tax for 1914–15 on income from possessions will be based on the average income which accrued due in each of the three preceding years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is the question which was put to me yesterday.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question yesterday referred to incomes actually received, whereas this refers to income accrued due, and is it not the fact that income which accrues due is not paid until the following tax year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider the point, but I was under the impression that it was practically the same question.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will ask the same question on Monday.

    Settlement Estate Duty.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, in cases where Settlement Estate Duty has been claimed on the occasion of deaths which have already occurred but has not yet been paid, it will now be exacted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative in the case of deaths occurring before the 12th May last.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that this will be retrospective against the subject and not against himself?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It simply means that you cannot discriminate against people who pay their duty promptly. Those who have delayed paying Death Duties cannot be put in a better position than those who have not.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it the case that they will be called upon to pay the premium for insurance after the Insurance policy is voided?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They will be called upon to pay exactly what everyone else has paid before May, and it would be very unfair that these people should have a special advantage because they delayed payment of duty.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the fact that they will be called upon to pay after the bargain has already been repudiated?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I repeat that they will be called upon to pay what everyone else has paid under the same conditions as before.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to insist on exacting the insurance premium when the policy itself has been voided, and that these people will be made to pay the duty
    1098
    when the consideration for which they are to pay it is not to be received?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unless that were done we should also have to refund the money which has been paid by others, and where is that going to end?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is the consequence of his own legislation, and not the fault of these people?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter which was argued in the House. If a thing is to be done you have to fix some date and you cannot discriminate as between people under the same circumstances, having to pay the same sum of money under the same law.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only the rich people who are now complaining about the Budget?

    Road Board (Chairmanship).
    Mr. HOAREasked whether the chairmanship of the Road Board is a full-time appointment; and, if this is so, how Sir George Gibb can have time for the duties of the chairmanship of the committee for inquiring into the Holt Committee Report?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The statutory duties of the Chairman of the Road Board occupy his full time, but I hope that he may be able without undue inconvenience to perform the duties of Chairmanship of the Post Office Wages Committee, which he has been requested by the President of the Board of Trade to undertake.
    Mr. HOARE: Do his duties take up the whole time?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. They are very onerous duties. At the same time, Civil servants very often are invited to assist Committees and Commissions of this sort. Unless they were these Committees would suffer a good deal.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Who will undertake his duties when he is obliged to attend the meetings?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely the whole of his time will not be taken up by the Committee. He will be able to attend to the work of the Board. I have made inquiries about that. It may involve overtime, but he will be able to do it.
    Mr. HOARE: Will not onerous duties be imposed on the Road Board with reference to accounts under the Revenue Bill, and, if so, how will this official find time, being Chairman of a very important Committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the Committee will have reported before the duties cast on him by the Revenue Bill will begin.

    Land Valuation Department.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether up to October last travelling expenses and subsistence allowances were paid to assistant valuers under the Valuation Department when they were sent into the country to inspect properties; whether they were engaged on the understanding that this was the practice; whether since October last these allowances have been withheld; and, if so, on what grounds?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There has been no alteration in the regulations which govern the travelling expenses and subsistence allowance.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question on the Paper: Whether this allowance was given up to October last, and whether it has since been withdrawn?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have said there is no alteration in the practice at all.

    Land Court (Scotland).
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the special cases stated by the Land Court to the Court of Session for opinion are still being delayed through the continued illness of Lord Kennedy, the president of the Land Court; whether these cases have been before the Court since August, 1913; how much longer it is expected they will be delayed; and whether some steps will be taken to prevent similar delay in the future?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have done all that is in my power to facilitate the work of the Land Court by appointing an interim chairman in terms of Section 3 (5) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, to act during the temporary absence through ill-health of Lord Kennedy. I understand the interim chairman is dealing with special cases along with the other work of the Court.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it the fact that none of these applications have ever been decided against Lord Kennedy, and therefore does it matter whether they are heard at all?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    Fishing Industry (Fraserburgh).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBAR-DINEasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) if there are upwards of 2,000 people from the Highlands and Islands engaged in the fishing industry at present at Fraserburgh; and whether any inspection of their quarters is made by a local government inspector; and (2) whether, in 58, Castle Street, Fraserburgh, there are a number of young women lodged in connection with an adjoining herring-curing yard; whether there are six grown-up young women sleeping three to a bed in low rooms fourteen feet square, the bedding being of straw; whether there is no through ventilation; whether the skylights are sealed with cement; whether the occupation of herring-curing is wet, dirty, and odoriferous; whether as a result there has been considerable sickness, the sick having in some cases to sleep three in a bed along with the healthy; and if he will say what steps he will take to remedy matters?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the number of persons from the Highlands and Islands at present engaged in the fishing industry at Fraserburgh is, approximately, as stated by the Noble Marquess. A medical inspector of the Local Government Board is at present in Fraserburgh examining the conditions, but I have not yet received information on the detailed statements contained in the second question.

    Housing Conditions (Greenock).
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the Secretary for Scotland when he will be able to publish the Report of the inquiry by the Scottish Local Government Board in reference to the housing conditions of Greenock?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Report is at present before the Local Government Board who propose to obtain forthwith the observations of the local authority, and will thereafter consider the question of its publication.

    Small Holdings (Scotland).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the bed-recesses in the new kind of cottage which the Board of Agriculture for Scotland proposes to erect for small holders are lit from above by a sky-light; and in what manner is their proper ventilation provided for?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The rooms are ventilated by windows and chimneys.
    Mr. WHYTEasked whether the Scottish Board of Agriculture has yet built any of the new kind of cottages for small holders; and, if so, how many, and where?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of the three standard types of cottages shown in Appendix 7 of the Report of the Board for last year there have been built:—
    Type 1. One cottage at Stonefield, Aberfoyle, and one at Lochearnhead.
    Type 2. Two cottages on new holdings at Harrietsfield, St. Boswells.
    Type 3. One cottage at Palace, Jedburgh.
    Mr. WHYTE: Has my right hon. Friend had any complaints regarding type No. 1?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will place copies of the plans of the Scottish Board of Agriculture's cottages for small holders in the Library in order that Scottish Members of Parliament may judge for themselves whether the proposed cottages are satisfactory?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The plans and elevations of the three standard types of cottages are shown in the Appendix 7 of the Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for 1913.

    Antiquities (Scotland).
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that an ancient urn, described by the director of the National Museum of Antiquities as of rather unusual quality and not similar in ornamentation to any other example in the national collections of Scotland, was found recently at Hawcraig; whether it was sent as treasure trove to the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Edinburgh; whether he
    1102
    advised that it should be placed in the National Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh; and whether, seeing that there is an excellent museum, called the Perthshire Natural History Museum, in Perth, the principal town of the county in which the urn was found, he will make representations to the proper quarter with a view to the placing of the urn in the Perth Museum?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first portion of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. I am informed that the question of placing the urn in the Perthshire Natural History Museum instead of in the National Museum of Antiquities has been considered on a request by the Curator of the former Museum but that, in view of the fact that the urn is of a type somewhat distinct from the other examples of its class in the national collection and of the importance to the public and to students of making the latter as complete and representative as possible it has been decided that the national claim should prevail over that of the locality.
    Mr. WHYTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that all important antiquities found in Scotland should be sent to the collection in Edinburgh and kept there?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, but I suggest that where you have such a specimen it is much more valuable to have it in a National collection than in a small local collection.

    Agricultural Institute, Inverness.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has taken any further steps to meet the views of those who are anxious to establish an agricultural institute in Inverness; and, if so, what?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland are arranging a meeting at Inverness with persons interested to discuss the question, and to ascertain the extent of local support which may be given to the project.

    Trawling, Moray Firth.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland how many foreign trawlers were reported fishing in the Moray Firth since 1st January; if, during the same period, any British trawlers were seen in the Moray Firth

    1103
    and, if so, what distance from land; whether any prosecutions took place, and were the prosecutions directed against British or foreign trawlers, and with what result; how many Government vessels were employed in patrolling the Moray Firth during the period mentioned; what has been their cost to the State; and how is it that they are used for the purpose of arresting British trawlers, while foreigners can fish without molestation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Since the 1st January last fifty-eight trawlers under foreign flags and two under British flags have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth. The two latter were observed respectively 10 miles and 13 miles from land. Three prosecutions have been instituted, two against masters of British trawlers and one against the master of a foreign trawler, who was detected fishing within the 3-mile limit. One British master was fined £75 or sixty days' imprisonment; the foreign master was fined £10 or sixty days, with the forfeiture of all fish on board his vessel; the charge against the other British master has not yet been tried. There has generally been one and at times two vessels patrolling the Firth, but as several vessels have been engaged, and have performed other duties, the cost cannot be stated. With regard to the last portion of the question, I would remind the Noble Marquess of the discussions which have taken place in the House during recent years on the point which he mentions, and of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee respecting fishery limits, which is now proceeding.
    Colonel BURN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the foreign fines have been paid or the sentences carried into effect?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would ask the hon. Member kindly to put the question down on the Paper.

    Lecropt Public Sbhool.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that with regard to Lecropt public school the school board appointed a fully certificated teacher on the promise that they would receive a special Grant of £50; that that Grant has been paid regularly in April and May along with the annual Grant; that for the first time this Grant was not paid in May, 1914; and that
    1104
    the school board have been informed that it is not to be paid until 15th May, 1015, some fifteen months after it has been earned, a practice which is to be continued, thus keeping the board one year's Grant in arrear or, in other words, depiving them of a year's Grant; and will he say what are the reasons for this proceeding?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Grant in question is payable from the Education (Scotland) Fund under Section 17 (9) of the Act of 1908. The secondary education committee for the county of Perth have adopted" an alternative scheme of Grants under that Sub-section, as therein provided, one feature of which is the limitation of the aggregate amount of such Grants in each year to a total sum to be fixed by the committee. This scheme applies to Lecropt Public School as to all other schools in the county. Payment of the Grant claimable under Section 17 (9) by that school has had to be postponed (in common with similar Grants claimable by other schools in the district) till near the end of the Committee's year (15th May, 1915), because until then (1) the aggregate amount claimable by schools in the county, and (2) the limiting sum to be fixed by the Committee cannot be ascertained. And until these two factors are ascertained, it cannot be known how much Grant is payable to any particular school.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman endeavouring to ascertain these details?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have explained why they cannot be ascertained till other factors are known.

    Scottish Education Department.
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has recently received any representations from Scotland in favour of enlarged areas for Scottish educational administration; and whether the Scottish Education Department has reached any conclusion on the subject?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is a good deal of difference of opinion on the subject, and I am not at present prepared to make any statement.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long it will be before the Scottish Education Department makes

    1105
    up its mind in the matter, more especially as the Department appears to be under the control of bureaucrats?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In this case we cannot be accused of bureaucratic or arbitrary action. The fact is that there is very great difference of opinion among Scottish Members on this subject.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the question does not refer to the Scottish Education Department's mind and not to the mind of the Scottish Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer for once in a way?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend is a little inconsistent. In one breath he complains of bureaucratic behaviour, and in the next he complains that the Scottish Department is deferring to the wishes of the Scottish Members.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not take the initiative of calling a meeting of the Scottish Members to discuss this extremely important question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I shall be delighted to do that, if there is a general desire.
    Mr. WATSON: Is it not quite possible for local areas to be amalgamated and enlarged under the power conferred by the Act of 1908 in cases where the authorities desire that the areas should be enlarged?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. and learned Member is quite right. There is power, but, unfortunately, the rates are affected dissimilarly in different districts, and the one which is adversely affected generally objects.
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the final result of the negotiations in Berwickshire for the constitution of the county as a single administrative area for education?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The negotiations in question have broken down and the Committee in intimating this result state that, while they approve of larger areas, they consider that the matter can only be satisfactorily arranged by legislation.
    Mr. WHYTE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the answers to the last two questions show quite clearly the desirability that the Scottish Education
    1106
    Department should take some definite forward step now in order to ascertain whether the bulk of Scottish opinion is in favour of this change or not?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matter cannot be dealt with except by legislation, and it is quite impossible to promise legislation at this moment,
    Mr. WHYTE: As preparatory to legislation, is it not desirable to undertake further inquiry in the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am pretty well acquainted with Scottish opinion, but if my hon Friend can suggest some way of ascertaining it more fully I will be very glad to consider it.

    Scottish Fisheries (Housing Accommodation).
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland include an examination of the provision made at various fishing ports for the temporary accommodation of those engaged in herring curing, etc.; and whether he is aware that the conditions in some of these ports call for the immediate attention of the Local Government Board for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matter referred to in the first portion of my hon. Friend's question is covered by the terms of reference to the Royal Commission. The herring curing stations are under inspection by the local authorities of the various areas in which they are situated, and, as I have already informed the Noble Marquess the Member for West Perthshire, one of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board is at present engaged in examining the conditions at Fraserburgh.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the many representations made with regard to these fisher girls this year, can the right hon. Gentleman not see that the representatives of the Local Government Board, going round from fishing port to fishing port, make a complete report on the conditions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would require notice of that question.

    Housing.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he proposes to take any

    1107
    steps to give further time to the forty tenants at Kirkland who have been ordered to quit their houses within thirty days by decision at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court on 22nd July; and whether the provisions of the Government Housing Bill would assist these tenants to obtain the houses which at present it is impossible for them to procure in the district?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no power to interfere with the order of the sheriff. I am informed that considering the number of houses alreary vacated, the nearness of several growing centres of population, and the tramway facilities, no great hardship need result through these houses being closed to occupation. The applicability of the Housing Bill would depend upon facts and circumstances, and I am not in a position to give an opinion on the question contained in the last part of the question.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will make application to the Treasury for some portion of the money set apart under the Government Housing Bill for the housing of Government employés for men employed in the torpedo factory, Greenock?
    Colonel GREIGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the powers proposed to be conferred by the Housing Bill on the Local Government Board for Scotland with reference to the housing of Government employés, he will bear in mind the necessity of making such provision for the employés of the torpedo factory at Greenock, either directly or by assisting local co-partnership societies incorporated with this object?
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked if the new Housing Bill will allow provision to be made for the erection of dwelling-houses for those employed by or on behalf of the torpedo factory at Greenock?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the powers to be conferred by the Housing Bill, I must refer my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock to the Bill itself. If and when the Bill becomes law, no doubt the case of Greenock will be considered by the Government Departments concerned.

    Agricultural Labourers (Wages).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture
    1108
    whether, in view of the increased cost of living and the high rents that are paid for ordinary labourers' cottages in the district, the Government propose to increase the wages, which have remained unaltered for many years, of their lowest paid employés in the Forest of Dean?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Some time ago I set on foot the procedure necessary for a revision and increase of the wages referred to by the hon. Member, but I am not yet in a position to make a full statement on the subject.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the wages of these men are considerably below the workhouse minimum referred to in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Swindon speech?
    Mr. DUNCAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say when a decision is likely to be arrived at, and also whether the evidence will be available at the time the applications are sent in?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer the last part of the question until we have further details. The proposal we are intending to make in detail provides these men with a sufficiently large wage to give increased remuneration, and at the same time enable them to pay an economic rent for the cottages they occupy.

    King's Bench Division.
    Mr. HERBERT CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state to which of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Delay in the King's Bench Division, other than those requiring legislation, it is proposed to give effect; and whether the proposals of the Royal Commission dealing with the Long Vacation are to be adopted?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Delay in the King's Bench Division which can be carried into effect with the present number of judges of the King's Bench Division by administrative action are mainly those relating to the trial of Order 14 and other urgent cases during the Long Vacation, the hours of sitting of the judges of the King's Bench Division, arrangements as to the civil work on the Assizes and the arrangements of the work in London. These recommendations have, so far as

    1109
    practicable, been made effective by resolutions of the judges of the King's Bench Division, and, when necessary, followed by Rules made by the Rule Committee.

    Sheriffs Court Appeal Court Bill.
    Captain WARINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a Bill entitled Sheriff's Court Appeal Court Bill, introduced by the Member for Banffshire; and whether he will give facilities for the early passage of the measure into law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret to be unable to promise the facilities desired by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Income Tax Laws.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that the Commission on Income Tax shall inquire into the whole system and working of the Income Tax Laws, with a view to their codification and to the removal of the various anomalies that have arisen; and whether they will have power to suggest alterations in the machinery of the assessment and collection of Income Tax?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. These matters will fall within the scope of the inquiry.

    Second Chamber Reform.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in preparing his Resolutions for the Reform of the Second Chamber, he has had the assistance of any Committee especially appointed by him to inquire into the working, composition, and powers of other Second Chambers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question has been examined in all its aspects by a Committee of the Cabinet, who took into account all relevant considerations.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration Lord Lansdowne's Reform Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Everything relevant will be taken into consideration.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House will be in possession of the Resolutions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give the date. I said it would be before the end of the Session.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that many of his followers do not want a Second Chamber at all?

    English Bishoprics (Consecration Fees).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fees and charges payable by bishops of the Church of England on their consecration; and whether he will introduce legislation by which these burdens, which may amount in certain cases to £350, may be abolished?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that considerable fees are leviable on bishops upon their appointment. Only a portion of these fees are received by the Exchequer, and I am now considering whether some reduction in them cannot fairly be made by ordinary executive measures.

    Industrial Unrest.
    Mr. F. HALLasked whether the Special Committee which is considering the prevailing industrial unrest and the means to be adopted to remedy the present state of affairs has yet completed its inquiries; and when the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the matter, in view of the condition now obtaining in regard to some of the most important industries of the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Industrial Council, to which His Majesty's Government entrusted an inquiry with regard to certain matters relating to labour questions, reported last year. The recommendations of the Council are receiving the consideration of the Government.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MARRIED SOLDIERS (ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government propose to commence at once the building at Bulford and Durrington of cottages for married soldiers employed at Bulford Camp; whether they will provide accommodation for men married off as well as those married on the strength; and how many will be ready for occupation before the end of this year?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I stated the position at Bulford generally in my reply

    1111
    to the hon. Gentleman on the 15th ultimo. Twenty married quarters in addition to the considerable number already existing are being built this financial year. No cottages are being built at Durrington, and the question of providing for men married off the strength is under consideration. At the end of this year there will be a total of 266 married quarters ready for occupation at Bulford.
    Mr. BATHURST: What is the cause of the delay in the erection of these cottages, which are so badly needed?
    Mr. TENNANT: They are going on as fast as they can.
    Colonel YATE: Plow many of them are required?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must have notice of that question.

    HANDCUFFING SOLDIERS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now aware that just lately five young soldiers were taken by train, chained together like convicts, in charge of one police sergeant and a policeman, although their only crime was being absent from camp for a few days; whether this is a usual practice; and whether he can see his way to have this practice done away with?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have made inquiry in this matter and find that the circumstances were such that the police officers responsible for these prisoners' safe custody were justified in considering that the use of handcuffs was necessary. The police are anxious to show all possible consideration to deserters in their custody, but their primary duty is to prevent the deserter repeating his offence, and in such cases as the one now in question it may not be possible to ensure this except by the use of handcuffs.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify the action of the police in treating in this manner soldiers who have committed no serious crime at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a practice is very bad for recruiting, and that my attention has been drawn to this by the officer from whom I got the information?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of the last matter mentioned by the hon. Member, but, as I am informed, the soldiers in question, or some of them, had stated their intention of deserting again, and it was in order to prevent them from running away that while they were being conveyed in custody they were handcuffed.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there had been more policemen available it would have been quite easy to convey these men without chaining them together; and is he aware that the fact is that the police did not want the trouble of going in larger numbers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to answer that point. The hon. Member must not suppose that this matter had anything to do with the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. DIXON: Does the right hon. Gentleman associate himself with the action of his subordinate officers?
    Mr. McKENNA: The officers in question were not my subordinate officers.
    Sir W. BYLES: These five young soldiers were actually handcuffed on one chain—they were all chained together one by one. Surely it is not possible that they were on a long chain like convicts?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I am informed, there were only a sergeant and a police constable in charge of five soldiers who had deserted, and the soldiers stated their intention of running away again.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: AU of them?
    Mr. McKENNA: All or some. The officers, being alone, were quite aware that the soldiers would have an opportunity at the railway station of deserting, and they handcuffed the soldiers.
    Sir W. BYLES: By a chain?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is not this serious enough to render it necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should make further inquiries with a view of preventing a similar practice in future?
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into the error of assuming that I had some responsibility in the matter. It was done by the local police, and not by the Home Office.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Has the right hon. Gentleman no means of using his influence with the local police?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; I can find out what happened.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that questions relating to the administration of purely local police have been constantly refused in this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the question to show where this occurred. If I had known that it was a matter of purely local administration of course I would not have allowed the question.

    MEAT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the War Office appointed some years ago a gentleman connected with Smithfield Market as an expert adviser to assist them in the matter of their meat contracts; if so, what was his name and the amount of his remuneration; and was this gentleman consulted as to the advisability of so altering the War Office specification of 1913, whereby Australian beef from which the flanks and briskets had been removed was admitted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): An expert is employed when necessary for surprise inspections and other purposes. It would obviously impair his usefulness if his name were published. Payment is by fee according to the nature of the service performed. Expert advice was taken before the change of specification was made in 1913.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the contract for the supply of meat to the Army has been given to the firm of Thomas Borthwick and Sons; and, if so, what precautions will be taken to see that the meat supplied is not of the same character as the meat seized on the premises of that firm and condemned by the City sanitary authorities as improperly excised and infested with parasitic worms on 18th December, 1913, and 20th January, 1914?
    Mr. BAKER: The current contract for the supply of frozen meat ex-store was secured by Messrs. Borthwick after competitive tendering. Before being taken over the meat will be inspected by a fully qualified inspecting officer.
    Mr. HUNT: Is any of this meat with these parts cut out going to be again supplied to the British Army, as was the case a year or two ago?
    Mr. BAKER: The meat which goes to the troops is perfectly sound.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if there had been any and, if so, what reduction in the establishment of the Special Reserve since the period of annual training was increased; and what is the normal and actual strength of this force at the present time?
    Mr. TENNANT: The only reduction in the establishment of the Infantry Special Reserve since the annual training was increased to twenty-seven clays in March, 1911, has been that of eight sergeants in connection with the abolition of the Rifle Sub-depot. The strength on 1st July was 64,157.

    Coastguard Telephones.
    Mr. MILDMAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the possibility of arranging that the Coastguard telephones around the coast shall be available for use by long shore fisherman, so that these latter may get the advantage of that direct and rapid communication with the market which they at present lack?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The coast communication is installed for the purpose of passing messages on life-saving or the Naval Service, and it is not-considered desirable or practicable that its use should be extended as suggested. I may also observe that Coastguard stations are not invariably connected with local post offices.

    Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he realises that a large trade is conducted both in fertilisers and feeding stuffs by the merchant sending an order to the manufacturer for a truck load to be sent direct to the farmer, and that in such cases, although the article sent may be seriously deficient in the percentage of its important ingredients as previously stated or advertised, the merchant can rely upon the warranty which he has obtained from the manufacturer, and there being no Clause in the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, authorising proceedings

    1115
    to be taken against the person giving a false warranty, the farmer or other purchaser suffers loss without any adequate remedy; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to amend the above Act in the interests of the farmer by giving him such protection as is afforded by Section 20 (6) of the Food and Drugs Act. 1899?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have under consideration the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But I would point out that, although in certain cases no criminal proceedings can be taken under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act against a manufacturer in respect of goods resold by a retailer, the purchaser is not deprived of his civil remedy.
    Mr. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that owing to this system of merchants' warranties the county council prosecutions on behalf of poor men are rendered quite abortive?

    Somaliland.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any preparations are now being made for a military expedition in Somaliland; and, if so, what is the nature of these preparations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir. I explained the situation in Somaliland on 24th February, and the policy then indicated has not been altered.
    Mr. DILLONasked what is the nature of the instructions under which the civil officer in charge of Somaliland is now acting; and what are the instructions given to the military officer in charge at Burao?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No formal instructions have been Issued to the Commissioner of Somaliland, but he is, of course, aware of the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I am in close touch with him. There is no military officer at Burao, but a Commandant of the local forces has just been appointed, and I am considering in consultation with the Commissioner what instructions should be issued to him.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now undertake to lay further Papers on Somaliland?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I hope to lay further Papers in a few days.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    BOYAL LONDON MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the case of William James Mills, of Stanley Avenue, Fishponds, Bristol, a member of the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, concerning whose illness, alleged to be caused by poisonous fish, a doctor's certificate was sent to the society on 6th June last; whether he is aware that this society declined to pay sick pay on the ground that the vendor should be sued by Mills for damages, and that not until 7th July, and after repeated applications by Mills and letters from the Commissioners, was sick pay paid; whether he is aware that Mills was practically starving owing to this four weeks' delay and had to dispose of part of his furniture in order to live; whether the doctor has stated that the illness has been greatly aggravated by the delay; and what steps the Commissioners are taking to prevent similar hardships being suffered through the neglect of certain approved societies?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): As implied in the question the case referred to by the hon. Member had been brought before the Commissioners, and by them referred to the society concerned. The claim has now been paid. I am informed by the society that the reason for the postponement of the payment was that special investigation was required in this case, the circumstances of which appear to have been quite exceptional.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT (POST OFFICE).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that there are considerable numbers of the established staff of the Post Office who have made no provision by insurance for sanatorium treatment, he will see what steps can be taken to increase the opportunities of established servants of the Post Office to make such provision?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 22nd inst., any member of the established staff of the Post Office can acquire a right to sanatorium treatment in return for a subscription of 2s. per annum. The opportunity thus afforded appears to mo to meet the needs of the case.

    LION TAMERS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if the Insurance Commissioners have decided that lion tamers must be insured but that onion peelers need not be; if he can state the grounds on which this distinction is drawn; and if, in view of the absence of a considered and rational policy in determining as to the liability of different classes of workers to be insured, he will consider as to appointing a Committee of experts to deal with this question?
    Mr. BENN: Employment as an onion peeler has been specified in a special Order as a subsidiary employment, and contributions are not required to be paid in respect of persons so employed, if they are not already insured persons. No Order has been made with regard to employment as a lion tamer.
    Mr. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Insurance Commissioners did not make a Regulation last year that lion tamers must be insured, and can he tell me what Regulation there is in regard to who shall or shall not be insured?
    Mr. BENN: If a person is employed in contract service he is insurable, unless he is excepted under the second part of the Schedule.
    Mr. CROOKS: What about donkey tamers?
    Mr. HALL: Then you will be insured.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state how many elementary schools, comprising how many school places, are still assessed on the 8 square feet per scholar basis; and whether, in view of the fact that overcrowded class-rooms predispose the children educated in them to tuberculosis, he will issue a circular fixing a date next year for assessing all schools on the 10 square feet basis?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): In the Board's Annual Report for 1909–10 it was stated that outside London the reassessment of public elementary schools upon the basis of 10 square feet per head for
    1118
    older scholars, and 9 square feet for "infants" was practically completed. There are only a very few cases in which the reassessment has not come into force pending alterations to premises and the erection of new schools. In London the reassessment will be made as part of the scheme for reducing all classes to forty or forty-eight places for older children and infants respectively. I do not think the labour involved in ascertaining the precise number of cases still outstanding would be justified under the circumstances, nor does it appear to me necessary to issue a circular on the subject.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has recently received a deputation from the Private Schools Association; if so, what was the object of such a deputation; and whether he can indicate the substance of any reply given to this deputation?
    Mr. PEASE: I recently received a joint deputation from the College of Preceptors and the Private Schools Association, who desired to lay before me their views with regard to the relation of private schools to a national system of education. The principal subject of discussion was the State inspection of private schools, but as our discussion was in the nature of an informal exchange of views there is nothing which, at the moment, I can publish with advantage.
    Mr. KING: Was the attitude of the deputation one of protest or one of congratulation?
    Mr. PEASE: It was one of inquiry.

    ASSOCIATION OR TEACHERS (LONDON).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that an association of teachers in London has passed a resolution questioning the legality of and protesting against the demands which have been lately required of the London education authority as a result of the survey on non-provided schools; whether he has received a copy of this resolution; of so, what answer has been returned; and whether, in view of the admitted danger of tuberculosis to children in ill-ventilated and overcrowded schools, he will continue to press upon local education authorities and managers the need of proper school buildings?
    Mr. PEASE: An association of teachers in London have sent me a memorandum, which I have acknowledged. It expresses anxiety with regard to the reports made to the Board upon the premises of certain voluntary schools in those boroughs, and with regard to the interests of the teachers concerned. I think that the Board's procedure in London and elsewhere is sufficient evidence of their intention to secure an adequate supply of suitable school accommodation.

    LANCASHIRE EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made on behalf of the Lancashire Education Committee, to the effect that they have adopted a time-table setting out the order and period in which applications for the erection of new council schools can be dealt with; whether he is aware that under this time-table any application now made could not be dealt with till 1917; and, seeing that the effect of this rule will be that all new accommodation urgently required must be met by the erection or extension of non-provided schools, and in view of the disabilities which this would impose, especially on Nonconformists in single school areas with expanding populations, whether he will communicate with the, county education committee on the matter?
    Mr. PEASE: The question apparently refers to a statement made at a public inquiry recently held by the Board into a proposal to provide a new voluntary school. In that case the local education authority had already informed the Board that they would be prepared to consider favourably a request for a council school whenever there is an effective demand for it. I presume that the time-table referred to is the building programme adopted by the authority which obviously cannot preclude the exceptional treatment of urgent cases.

    DENTAL CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Board of Education when the Report of the Departmental Committee on dental certificates will be issued?
    Mr. PEASE: The Report has been laid and copies will be available in a few days.

    Housing Bill.
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will
    1120
    state, in fixing the economic rent of cottages to be built under the Housing Bill, what rate of interest on the capital expended and what additional percentage for other regular charges will be demanded as rent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer which I gave to a similar question on the 20th July.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now give the result of the inquiry which was being made last April into the question of providing a telephone exchange for Crich?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have arranged for the opening of a call office at Crich, and I am prepared to consider the question of providing an exchange also if sufficient support can be obtained.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state what arrangement has been made for connecting the hotel at Parknasilla by telephone with the Post Office at Sneem, county Kerry; and whether he can give an undertaking that the connection will be in full working order at latest by next Whitsuntide?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The terms quoted have now been accepted, and instructions have been given that the circuit is to be provided not later than the date mentioned.
    Mr. ESSLEMONTasked the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of telephone subscribers in Aberdeen who are tenants or feuars of the Harbour Commissioners; and the gross annual sum paid by these subscribers for telephone service?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The number of telephone subscribers in Aberdeen who are tenants or feuars of the Harbour Commissioners is 165, and the gross annual sum paid by these subscribers for telephone service is £2,870.
    Mr. ESSLEMONT: Is it the case that the Postmaster-General has lately threatened to withdraw the service from those subscribers in consequence of a dispute, they had with the Harbour Commissioners in regard to rent?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I have no information to that effect.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can now make a definite statement respecting the ports of Dublin, Waterford, and Wexford being opened for the export of livestock on Thursday next; whether livestock from Greenore will be permitted to land at Holyhead; whether Irish store stock will be allowed to travel to markets in Great Britain; and whether he will consider the expediency of instituting the promised inquiry with the object of arranging safeguarding regulations to lessen the frequency of suddenly imposed embargoes?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: An Order will be issued by the Board to come into operation at midnight on Thursday, allowing animals from any part of Ireland, except the scheduled area round the infected place, shipped from any port in Ireland to be landed at certain specified ports in Great Britain for slaughter within the landing-place. The Board propose, if no disquieting news is received in the meantime, to make a further Order to come into operation early next week authorising the landing of store stock from the unscheduled part of Ireland, subject to four days' detention at the ports in Great Britain, after which they will be allowed to be moved under licence to the farms. I shall be prepared to give full particulars if my hon. Friend will put down a question for Monday next.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: As the fair is to be held in county Cork next week, will a free movement of cattle be allowed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I believe the scheduled area does not infringe upon the county Cork, but I think it is a question which had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department, of Agriculture. So far as we are concerned we accept animals from the port of Cork for slaughter. The stores will come under the regulations next week.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President, whether at the fair to be held next Thursday at Mitchelstown, they will be free to move the cattle about?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I think the scheduled area will be abolished by that time

    Trade Dispute, Walsall (Alleged Assault).
    Mr. G. R. THORNE: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether his attention has been called to the case of W. M. Adamson of Wolverhampton, who is the chief organiser of the Workers' Union for the Midlands, and who on Friday last was fined for an alleged assault by a Walsall bench of magistrates £5, or in default, one month's imprisonment whether he is aware that the alleged assault took place in connection with the trade dispute at Walsall; that Adamson absolutely denied the assault, and has gone to prison; that the decision has caused widespread indignation in Walsall and district, and that many meetings of protest have already been held, and others are being arranged for; and whether, in view of the circumstances, he will cause an immediate inquiry into the facts of the case with a view, if he finds that there has been a miscarriage, of justice, to Adamson's immediate release?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am making immediate inquiry in this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    Dublin Disturbances.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is a fact that two constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have been dismissed the force for alleged disobedience of an Order to disarm the Irish Volunteers at Clontarf on Sunday last; whether they were dismissed by Sir John Ross a short time before he himself resigned the office of Chief Commissioner of Police in consequence of the action of the police authorities on the occasion mentioned; whether the order which the two constables are alleged to have disobeyed was given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who has himself been suspended for, amongst other things, giving such an order; and whether, under the circumstances, the dismissal of the two constables will be cancelled?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Owing to the occurrences some of which are referred to in the question, I cannot answer by whom the two

    1123
    constables were dismissed. Two men were dismissed for disobedience to orders at Clontarf. The question of the employment of the military does not affect the obligation of constables to obey their superior officers. I cannot say anything further on the matter.
    Mr. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in most of the newspapers published this evening, the statement is made that the dismissal was ordered by Sir John Ross?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether that statement is true or not, but they were dismissed for disobedience to orders. The question of the wisdom or prudence of the requisition by Mr. Harrel of the military in no way affects the obligation of constables to obey orders.
    Mr. CLANCY: Then those two constables are to be victimised and to be the only victims?
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Are two constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police not every bit as much entitled to have consciences of their own as soldiers of the British Army?

    Austria and Servia.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he has any information he can communicate on the European situation.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are no new developments sufficiently definite to enable any further statement to be made, but we hope that no unfavourable inference will be drawn from this. I cannot say more.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if hostilities have broken out?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have no definite information about that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take the Second Beading of the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill upon Thursday next.
Perhaps I may add a statement about Business. To-night, after Eleven o'clock, we shall take the remaining stages of the Milk and Dairies Bill and the County and Borough Councils (Qualification) Bill; also the Report of the Money Resolution of the Anglo-Persian Oil Agreement.
To-morrow, on Scottish Estimates, the first Vote put down will be for the Land Court; then Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Fisheries.
To-morrow, after Eleven o'clock, we shall take the remaining stages of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill and the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, and, if time permits, conclude the discussion on the Second Reading of the Inebriates Bill.
On Friday, the Committee stage of the Housing Bill.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Had the right hon. Gentleman not in his mind that possibly more time than one day would be required for the Amending Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will see about that. I do not think Friday would be a convenient day.
Mr. MORRELL: May I ask when the Home Office Vote will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: Upon Monday.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to take it after eleven o'clock very soon.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for the general convenience of the House, whether, if the Amending Bill goes over from Thursday, the Home Office Vote will still be taken upon Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think we must take it upon Monday.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I put another question in regard to the Amending Bill? If it is found that a second day is necessary, would it not be more convenient to take it upon Monday; and would it not be possible, if necessary, to suspend the Standing Order and take Supply later?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will consider that.
Mr. PRINGLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Monday is an inconvenient day for such important business. [HON MEMBERS: "Why?"]
Mr. J. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Scottish or English Milk and Dairies Bill that is to be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: The English Bill.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: On what day is it proposed to take the Education Department of the Scottish Estimates?
The PRIME MINISTER: It will come after the Vote I have already mentioned, that of Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that Monday being Bank Holiday, there are no trains running from the North, and that that would be inconvenient for Members?
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: With reference to the Home Office Vote it was arranged for next Monday, as one of the days allotted to us, and may I ask the Prime Minister not to fix Monday until we see about that arrangement?
The PRIME MINISTER'Sreply was not audible in the Press Gallery.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I desire to mention a personal matter arising out of the Debate last night. When the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, was talking about the Minute written by Sir James Dougherty, I interjected a question, which I did not intend to be discourteous, to ask when it was written. The Prime Minister then said that was a disgraceful insinuation. Later, when he gave way courteously to me, in order to enable me to explain what I meant by the question, I understood the Prime Minister to withdraw his allegation that it was a disgraceful insinuation. I find no report of that withdrawal either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in the
1126
newspapers, and I desire to ask the Prime Minister if it is not the fact that he withdrew the allegation?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. It was a misunderstanding between the Noble Lord and myself. I thought he was referring to a totally different point, and I withdrew what I said.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL, CHANGED FROM "EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL."
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C [Title amended].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 397.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 397.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 344.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) 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, without Amendment.
Birmingham Corporation Bill,
Great "Western Railway Bill, with Amendment.
Amendments to—
Ellesmere Port and Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Liverpool United Gaslight Company Bill [Lords],
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
"To continue various Expiring Laws." Presented by Mr. MONTAGU; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 343.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.— [SEVENTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.— [SEVENTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    COLONIAL OFFICE.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £37,510, be
    1146
    granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration." [Note.—£24,000 has been voted on account.]
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): In previous years I have followed the precedent, which I set myself, of taking this opportunity of giving at the beginning of the consideration of this Vote a general review of the progress and conditions in the Crown Colonies. I had intended—and, indeed, I had prepared—such a statement for this occasion, but within the last day or two, for the general convenience of the House, an arrangement has been made through the usual channels of communication that the day will be divided into two halves, the evening after 7.30 o'clock being devoted to Education and the earlier part to the Colonial Office Vote. I do not think under those circumstances, with the time at our disposal for criticism, that I have-any right to occupy the time, as I should do, for more than an hour, and therefore I omit it on this occasion. But I hope that whoever is at the Colonial Office next year—whether myself or my successor—will not depart from the precedent which has been set, which has shown itself to be a useful one, and which is departed from only on this occasion. I do not think I have any right to stand any longer between the House and the discussion.
    Mr. KING: Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if you, Sir, indicated at what hour you would terminate this Vote and pass to the Education Vote, and how do you intend to terminate it? Will Progress be reported or will there possibly be a Division?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it depends largely upon hon. Members and not upon me.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: On a point of Order. It ought not to be assumed that we acquiesce in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he sets the precedent that the Minister in charge on these occasions should make a speech of an hour's length in introducing the Vote. I hope that that statement will not be taken as being agreed to.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Would it not be possible for the Colonial Secretary to circulate in some way the statement which he has prepared—it would be a great convenience for Members in all parts of the House?
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Concerning the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I think that the precedent which he set as to making a review of the progress and development of the Crown Colonies was a very admirable one, but I have, however, criticised the length of the speech. I thought it was much too academic, and that the Colonial Secretary, on more consideration, could give a more condensed review, which would be extremely gratifying to the Crown Colonies, and also would serve to educate Members of this House who are not too conversant with Colonial affairs. May I say I like to call the Crown Colonies by their old name. We are somewhat handicapped to-day in discussing questions on the Colonial Office Vote, because there are certain questions which it would have been very useful if we could have brought them before the House, but unfortunately we are prevented from so doing by the fact that they are, as it were, sub judice. There is, for instance, the question of the New Hebrides. That is now before a Conference embracing representatives from France and this country, and matters which this House might well consider, and will have to consider very carefully after the Conference has reported, ought properly to have been and would have been discussed to-day were it not for this circumstance. There is also the question of Rhodesia. Before many months have gone the question of the future of Rhodesia, especially as to its future Government and administration, will be a very acute one. We cannot discuss broadly the questions relating to Rhodesia, because the question of the land, which is closely identified with the question of Government, is also sub judice. Therefore that question is eliminated. I had intended to speak on other aspects of the Rhodesian question, but I have decided not to do so, for reasons which I need not enter into further than to say that I wish to devote myself to one subject only this afternoon. There is also a very grave question involving the relation of provincial governments to Dominion Governments, and of Dominion Governments to the Imperial Government. Then there is the question
    1148
    of the Japanese steamer now detained at Vancouver, which has brought Indian subjects demanding admittance to the province as British subjects. We cannot discuss that, though it is clearly a question which ought to be discussed in this House, since we could no doubt rely on the Colonial Secretary to throw light upon a question concerning which many people in this country are confused and anxious. We cannot discuss that question, because the matter is sub judice.
    There is, however, a question which we are free to discuss, and I intend to devote my remarks to the question of Somaliland. The right hon. Gentleman stated to-day that he hoped to lay papers very soon concerning Somaliland. It is some weeks since the light hon. Gentleman stated that he would be able presently to lay papers concerning Somaliland. I think he must have anticipated that this Vote would come on this week, or, at the latest, next week, and I do not understand why he has not been able to lay papers, so that we could discuss the position in Somaliland, concerning which we are extraordinarily ignorant. I have been going through the OFFICIAL REPORT since the 24th February last, when a Debate occurred upon what was called a British defeat in Somaliland and the death of Mr. Corfield. I want to repeat now what I said then. I was not then prepared to discuss the British defeat in Somaliland, because there was no British defeat. The followers of the Mullah in Somaliland, when they are asked concerning that event, speak of it as a defeat for themselves, and they speak of Mr. Corfield in terms of which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be proud—proud that a man of Corfield's character served under him while he was at the Colonial Office. I hope that, even at this late date, the right hon. Gentleman will not only say that Corfield upheld the position into which he was driven by the policy which the Colonial Office had pursued, but that in most trying circumstances to the best of his judgment he upheld the responsibility to which he was committed with an honour worthy of a brave gentleman and a competent servant of the Empire. I hope that that belated commendation, which Corfield ought to have received at the right hon. Gentleman's hands on the 24th February, will be given to-day. The right hon. Gentleman can at least say that the Colonial Office are proud of a man whose mistake—if it was a mistake—was made because of the circumstances in

    1149
    which he was placed, and that, as Mr. Archer said in his report—
    "It is apparent to me that he considered any other action than engaging the Dervishes impossible for the sake of our already much shaken prestige in the country."
    I pass from that with the hope that my words have not fallen unheeded on the right hon. Gentleman's ears. It is not too late to turn aside the criticism, which still stings in the minds of vast numbers of people in this country, that Corfield was abandoned at a moment when his memory should have been supported by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know what the present situation is in Somaliland. We have had many policies—policies which varied under the late Unionist Government, and which I do not intend to defend. They were experimental; but from their experience the present Government ought to have come to a permanent and consistent policy. The present Government attempted the policy of having about 900 men from sixty to a hundred miles from the coast, based upon Burao, with the object of arming the friendlies, putting down raids, and preventing cattle stealing and marauding. That proved a failure, so they said. Then they send a very responsible Committee of Inquiry to Somaliland, consisting of Sir Reginald Wingate and Slatin Pasha, both men of wide experience, not only in dealing with natives but of the outposts of the Empire. They recommended the evacuation of the interior, concentration upon the coast, and distribution of arms to the friendlies. That was soon abandoned. It was found that the distribution of arms to the friendlies near the coast meant constant raids and difficulties, and the small Camel Corps stationed at Berbera had to issue forth and attempt to put clown these raids. Gradually the policy of the Government developed. Instead of having fifty Camel Corps they had seventy; then instead of seventy they had one hundred and fifty. Instead of staying at the coast, they pushed on to Sheikh; instead of staying at Sheikh, they pushed on to Burao; instead of staying at Burao, they permitted the Camel Corps to go further inland, in order to do—what? In order to protect the friendlies, as far as possible, but by no means to enter upon an engagement in which it might be feared they would be defeated.
    It is not customary to British officers, if they have well disciplined men behind them and think that they can achieve a victory, to turn back, when turning
    1150
    back means loss of prestige to the country to which they belong. I am referring to this matter because after Dul Madoba there was a hasty retreat upon the coast back to Berbera. I have never been able to understand why. There was no retreat from Burao at all. Where were the-Mullah and his followers? They were cutting away as hard as they could from-Burao, from the punishment which they had had, when 300 of their number were killed or wounded. There was no danger but if there had been, what was to have-prevented the 700 men from India coming up to Burao and holding that post—and holding something more than that post: holding the prestige of the British nation, holding the respect of the friendlies, holding the Mullah in some sense of awe of the character of British and Indian troops—troops, at any rate, under British control and command. We have the Camel Corps—I fancy that is what was promised—of 500 men. We are going to have Indian troops—perhaps they are-there; I do not know; I want to know—of 400 men. That would be 900 men. I believe that 350 of the Camel Corps are stationed at Sheikh. I was told the other day by the right hon. Gentleman that there were no Camel Corps and no Indian troops at Burao. The Committee must see in what difficulty we are in in discussing these matters. It may be that I am making charges which the right hon. Gentleman can refute by saying, "I have information which goes to show so-and-so." That is the difficulty of the situation. We have no-Papers. I think we ought to have had by this time. If the right hon. Gentleman could promise Papers a few weeks ago, he could have satisfied us by now, if the resources of his Department are not exhausted, as I have no reason to think they are.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is going to happen when he re-occupies Burao? He said on the 26th March that Burao was to be reoccupied. To make the situation stronger there will be 500 Camel Corps distributed between Berbera, Zeila, and Bulhar. He will have Indian troops also at the same places. What are they going to do there? Are-they going to sit down and hold the post like a garrison, or are they going to use-it as a base, and move out, as Corfield did, with the approval of the right hon Gentleman, to attempt to preserve peace among-the friendlies, to put down small raids,

    1151
    to stop robberies and marauding, and to attempt to restore the confidence of the friendlies in British administration? And, to look no further than that, if that is exactly the position that existed at the time of Dul Madoba, what is going to happen? The Mullah's followers are in a position where they cannot be touched now—at least, I assume so. Will they not do as they have always done? When you have your posts established and in hand, and you have begun to make your little area, your little circle of protection, they will come nearer and nearer, destroying as they march, to the point where the friendlies have drawn in with their cattle within the circle of British protection, as they believe. The Mullah will come down in force into the area into which the friendlies have drawn with their cattle, and what is going to happen when the raids begin and the Mullah grows bolder and stronger? Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue then the same policy which was pursued in the case of Mr. Corfield? Will he say, "Now remember, just as soon as there is any danger of defeat you will fall back upon Burao; if you are in any danger there, you will draw back upon Sheikh, and then upon Berbera"? That will be a repetition of the indeterminate policy which has brought such trouble in the past. We will not be better off than in 1904, for since then we have had no triumph, except Dul Madoba. We had in 1904 the big defeat of the Dervishes. Since then we have been like a river stream, back and filling. We have not seemed to know exactly where we were, and since papers come to this House so seldom from that country through the right hon. Gentleman, we are always in a circle of darkness until the Colonial Vote comes, and then the right hon. Gentleman does his best to enlighten us.
    I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not beat about the bush to-day. I hope he will give a direct answer to my question, which is this: "What is the policy?" Is the policy to be the same as that pursued from Burao before? If that is so, then if with 800 men in 1908 we could not protect Burao and keep order amongst the friendlies, and prevent marauding, 900 men will not be able to do it to-day, no matter how strong, active and wise the Commissioner is, nor how brave the officer in command at Burao. A firm policy should be pursued. I do not think this nation is in the least disposed to establish posts in the interior of a country like
    1152
    Somaliland, which are only to be held tentatively and the holding of which is only experimental in its nature. To my mind only two things are possible; either a powerful garrison must be stationed at Berbera, Sheikh, and Burao, with a large force available to be sent down to the Ain Valley or into the Koath area, or else we should abandon the interior entirely. Does the Committee consider what the future of the country is going to be? In 1884 we occupied the coast for strategical reasons, in order, as Lord Lansdowne said, "To prevent anybody else occupying it." I think it was essential that we should be established upon that littoral.
    I am not at all sure, looking back over the history of the last fifteen years, that this attempt to hold posts in the interior from which we retreated when any difficulty occurs is going to do anything but increase the disturbance and disorder that have existed there, particularly during the last twelve years. The right hon. Gentleman assured us with a smile of content that the Mullah was an old man, dropsical and under the spell of morphia, and that if we waited long enough, our fortunes would turn. The Mahdi had the same disorder and he lived long enough to imprison Slatin Pasha, to appoint a very powerful successor in the Khaliphite, give us great trouble for a long time, and make a great demand upon British money and British troops before he was laid low at Omdurman. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that when the Mad Mullah dies, there will be no Khalifa to follow him? I am inclined to think that these Dervishes whom the Mad Mullah has led will have a strong leader ready to take his place, to pursue the policy of raiding, disturbing, and breaking up the friendly tribes, destroying them, robbing them of their cattle, leaving them to rest again until they have acquired cattle once more, and they are within the protection of the British zone. Then again this successor will make a big effort to take off all the cattle, as the followers of the Mullah did at the time of Dul Madoba. What happened then was that all the cattle of the friendlies were swept away by the Mullah's party. Mr. Corfield seeing that British prestige would be badly hit unless an attempt were made to recover these cattle, made the attempt. It was an excellent attempt, and a successful attempt. If he had lived and had kept his troops at Burao, decimated

    1153
    though they were, I am absolutely certain that this House would have applauded. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do now!"] Yes, they do now—have applauded the action, though it might be regarded as a mistaken action—though I do not think it was mistaken—and one to be regarded as reflecting credit upon British administration.
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the policy which is going to be pursued when Burao is occupied—I assume he will tell us that it is going to be occupied—will be simply the policy of protecting, when you can without the least difficulty and danger, the tribes which will gather in and around Burao, and when any trouble comes and the place is threatened, retreating down the coast with the friendlies struggling after and the Mullah's followers cutting them down? Or docs the right hon. Gentleman feel that now that he has a camel corps of 500 with 400 Indians the post will be strong enough to permit a wider protection being established? When the area of protection is endangered by the Mullah's followers, for the purpose of destruction, will those troops be ample to meet the Mullah and his followers? One thing is certain, that if that post is attacked by the Mullah's followers, and that post should be held by 600 or 700 men, or 500, that with the road kept open to Berbera by way of Sheikh, reinforcements could be brought from Aden quickly enough to deliver a smashing blow to the Mullah and his followers if they remain within that area of British protection. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that we are not going back again to, shall I call it, a "shilly shally" policy, or to a backing and filling policy, to "I will and I will not" policy; whether we, at any rate, are going as far as Burao is concerned and the chain from Berbera to Burao to hold that line, to hold Burao, and to have some post in the interior which we can call our own. If there is no further policy, then we ought to retreat upon the coast and stay there, and allow Somaliland to look after itself and its interior; and forget our treaties, forget our obligations, forget all that we have promised, forget the distribution of rifles, forget the training and organisation we ought to have given to the friendlies, forget all and sit down at the coast and suck our thumbs Upon my word, I do not know what other policy ought to be pursued, unless we mean to hold the position that we have got in the interior, and
    1154
    gradually to extend our power until the Mullah is at last defeated. I look to the right hon. Gentleman to-day to give us a definite reply and make a definite statement.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into the question of Somaliland. I wish to ask the Colonial Secretary to give the Committee some information on one or two matters of vital importance to the welfare of the natives, particularly in British East Africa. Some of us have been very, interested in the reading of the Report and evidence of the Native Labour Commission, and we are grateful to the Colonial Secretary for making that available in this country—at any rate to the Members of this House. While that Commission has undoubtedly made many recommendations of great value, I think one of its most valuable results is, to make quite clear to anyone who reads the danger that lies in front of us in regard to the attitude of a large number of settlers in British East Africa to the natives' right to their land and the question of native labour. It seems to me quite clear from the evidence of that Commission that a number of settlers have been constantly pressing on the Government to force the natives out of their reserves in order that there may be a more adequate supply of labour for the planters. It is a very natural economic demand on the part of the settlers, but the position of the native is a very serious one. It has been suggested that the taxation of the natives should be increased, so that they may be forced to spend a larger time in the year labouring for the white settlers. It has been suggested that they should be compelled to wear clothes, in order that they should be forced to buy them. It has been suggested that they should be compelled to do their share of work for the Government, and possibly that they should be farmed out to the settlers. I hope the Colonial Secretary will give us an assurance upon all these points.
    But beyond that question of native labour there is the great question of the natives' right to their land, and their right to the existing reserves and to the land which has not yet been definitely assigned to anyone, and which forty years ago was, if the property of anyone, the property of these black natives, when we ourselves had no intention of going into the country. I think public opinion has not yet realised

    1155
    how serious the position to these natives is. In the eye of the law it has been made quite clear by the action that certain members of the Masai tribe have endeavoured to bring, in order to set aside the transfer of their land by chiefs to the Colonial Office. The question of the justice and expediency of that transfer was questioned by certain members of the tribe who were dissatisfied with it. There is no doubt they tried to question its legality, and the High Court of British East Africa decided that these natives, not being British subjects, had no right to bring the action at all in the British Courts. They were a foreign people whose chiefs had made a treaty with the British Crown, and this solemn treaty pledged the honour of the British Crown that these lands should be theirs for ever. They were told that they had no power to bring their case before a British Court, though they are brought before the British Courts again and again if their cattle stray out of bounds and cross the border, as they do in times of great drought. They can come before the Courts as defendants, but they are not allowed to come before the Court in any other capacity. Because of this quibble of the Status of British East Africa they are not allowed to come before the Court and urge their case against the Government. Surely this is a very substantial injustice. Are we to allow it to continue indefinitely by continuing this anomalous status of a protectorate when we all know we have no intention of abandoning the country, and when to all intents and purposes it is part of the dominions of the Crown. We are doing great injustice to a large number of the native population, because they are not getting a chance of maintaining their rights. It may be that this claim may not have been justified in the Courts, but at least those dissatisfied natives had a right to bring it, and we ought to see that that right should be maintained.
    I hope the Colonial Secretary will be able to assure us as to this ultimate right of the native population, and that they will be given a position under the dominion of the Crown which they are not allowed by this quibble at the present time. One of the results of the native Labour Commission was that the Comimssioners felt they could not make a definite recommendation as to the native reserves, and there is great disagreement in East Africa as to whether these reserves are adequate for the native population It seems pretty
    1156
    clear they cannot be adequate if any considerable increase takes place in the population. I think we have a right to claim on behalf of these natives whose country this is far more than the settlers, that when new reserves are dealt with, the Government should see that land enough is left not for a bare minimum of the population, but to provide for an increase of the population, both in the interests of the natives and the ultimate interest of the Crown, so that we may not have a dissatisfied landless population, conscious that in distant days this land was the land of their people, and that owing to some legal arrangement entered into under the British Crown it was taken away from them.
    Mr. GEORGE LLOYD (Staffordshire, W.): The hon. Gentleman cannot be aware that under existing conditions there is no dissatisfaction amongst the East African settlers, and that the men for whom he was pleading so eloquently this afternoon are far richer than the white population.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: The hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the evidence given before the Labour Commission that certain settlers maintain that the reserves ought to be cut down; they ask that the land reserved should be taken away, and that the natives should be compelled to come out and work. Have we a right to say that the natives should work for us? We have every right to induce them, by education, by improved economic conditions, and otherwise, to give more of their time to manual labour. I am entirely in favour of that, but have we a right to compel them, by taking away this land, which is morally theirs? I hope the Colonial Secretary will see that it is made quite clear that the British Government will uphold the unwritten rights of the natives, and will maintain them at whatever cost. I feel there is reason for pressing this now because there is before the Council a draft land Ordinance, and that Ordinance declares that all the land not already held by legal title should be Crown land. And it could be made perfectly easy by administrative act for this land to be taken away from the actual occupiers without compensation. I see a real danger—I do not say under the present administration, but we must look ahead—of measures taken now being made an excuse in years to come for a great act of injustice being done to these natives. I hope that

    1157
    the Colonial Secretary, when he speaks upon this point, will make it quite clear that in future, if reserves are delimited, regard will be had not merely to the actual population, but to the natural growth of the population, and that room will be left for them, and that he will trust to other measures, such as education, and a gradual pressure of economic causes when you have a higher state of civilisation, rather than forced measures suggested by some of the settlers to get the natives to come in and give their labour, as so many of the settlers in British East Africa desire them to do. I think we have very great reason to see that we take away this reproach now being made against our rule, that while we talk very much about shouldering the white man's burden, we take great care to secure for ourselves the black man's land.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I desire to say a few words on another branch of the subject in connection with this Vote. I wish to refer to the constitutional discussion that recently took place in Tasmania, and to the public communications made in connection therewith. In Tasmania the Ministry was defeated, and they asked for a dissolution, and for the reasons given in the White Paper the dissolution was not granted. It appears that the numbers of each party in the Legislature were practically or almost equal, and the Governor decided he should not grant a dissolution on the ground that the party in power had recently had an appeal to the country. He then called upon the Leader of the Opposition to assume power and to form a Cabinet, and he asked the Leader of the Opposition to do so subject to one or two conditions. The leading condition was that the Leader of the Opposition who became Prime Minister, should agree to the dissolution of the House and appeal to the people, so that a new Parliament might be returned. That was the important condition. The Leader of the Opposition—that is, the incoming Prime Minister—instead of objecting to the condition which was laid down for his guidance, accepted it. He formed his Ministry, and after it was formed and sworn in they appear to have changed their minds, and they made a representation to the State Governor that it would be a breach of constitutional government for them to commit themselves in advance to a proposition of the character placed before them by the Governor, and, therefore, they wished to be released from their obligations which they had assumed.
    1158
    Now, the first Paper, signed by the Prime Minister, does not disclose the fact that he and the Governor had come to the conclusion to adopt this condition. That was kept in the background, and it does not appear until the Governor made his reply.
    When the Governor made his reply he pointed out to the new Prime Minister that before he accepted office, and before his Ministry was sworn in, he, the Prime Minister, had agreed to this condition, and that it was one of the terms of arrangements under which he entered into his office, and that he, the Governor, thought, and still thought, that a new House should be elected. On the following day the legislative Assembly of the State passed a resolution which appears in the White Paper taking up the ground that the Governor acted unconstitutionally in the stand he had taken in making the suggestion to the incoming Prime Minister and condemning the arrangements that had been entered into by the Prime Minister and the Governor as being a departure from constitutional government, and in conclusion it asked that the question should be referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. The correspondence was placed before the right hon. Gentleman, and he proceeded to make a communication upon the subject, and in that communication he points out that it is not the function of a Colonial or Dominion Governor to indicate to his Ministry what course of proceedings should be taken, and that he is bound to act upon the advice of his Ministers, to all of which, of course, very little exception can be taken, but I think it hits somewhat hardly upon the Governor. The Secretary of State for the Colonies says:—
    "At the same time, while I consider that you should not have imposed terms on Mr. Earle. I recognise that he was entirely at liberty to decline the duty of forming a Government unless he was left with complete discretion as to the advice to be tendered to you. Instead of doing so, he decided to take office, and thus must be held to have accepted for the time being full responsibility for your action."
    Up to this point I take no exception, but the further remarks I will quote I think are open to some criticism:—
    "He (the Prime Minister) remained fully responsible until the Ministry determined to advise in the contrary sense, when the policy of dissolution ceased to be authorised by ministerial advice, but became a matter of your personal opinion, that is to say, no constitutional means existed of giving effect to it without another change of views on the part of Ministers, or another change of Ministry."
    Although in the main that may be correct, still it does veil in a midst of language that once the Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister and had assented

    1159
    to the conditions, he was bound by that in the future, and any renunciation later was a breach of a clear bargain made between the Prime Minister and the Governor. While that bargain subsisted surely the Governor was not open to reproach when he had frankly and fairly put before the Prime Minister the conditions upon which he accepted him as his chief adviser. If that was binding up to the time the Minister was sworn in, surely the departure from it, instead of constituting anything in the nature of a reflection upon the Governor of the Colony, was more a breach of the bargain openly made between the parties, as is proved by the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman himself. In this House we have to be extremely careful of the criticisms we make with regard to the Governments in our Dominions over-seas. They have their differences just as we have, and whatever criticism is made by the right hon. Gentleman in this paper, and whatever I have said, has been made in perfect good faith without taking sides.
    I wish to say a word or two with regard to the policy of co-operation in the Empire. There is no doubt whatever that this is a matter that we cannot ignore whether we call ourselves great Englanders or little Englanders, because we are all interested in that vast space of the earth's surface and the enormous population which constitutes the British Empire. What we have to look forward to in the future is more serious co-operation in the development of this vast Empire which is our possession. In that connection I am not going to refer to any question that can be regarded as controversial, such as the fiscal question, but I do think that the subject of emigration is one which calls for greater care and supervision. In making that observation I do not mean for one moment that there should be any encouragement to people to leave this country but we know from experience that large numbers of our countrymen do leave this country and go abroad. We have an interest, and emigrants have an interest, in seeing that as far as possible they should settle under the British flag. At the present time supervision in that respect is practically non-existent, and surely it is compatible with the interests of this country and our great dominions overseas that some sort of supervision and oversight should prevail over the emigration that
    1160
    inevitably takes place, so that as far as possible the emigrants should go to countries under the British flag, and should not feel that they are entirely cut off from the Motherland. There should not only be a bond of sentiment but also some practical means of systematic communication kept up between those abroad and those remaining behind in this country other than the post or the telegraph. Whenever our people approach any of our great dominions for settlement I think there should be some co-operation between this country and those dominions with a view to seeing that those people do not arrive there as absolute strangers, in some cases practically stranded in a land that must be more or less strange to them. It would be far better if a friendly hand could meet them, and that they should be conducted or shepherded as far as possible and assisted in finding some means of livelihood and settlement in suitable parts of the country, instead of being left to travel haphazard, perhaps through thousands of miles of territory which is unknown to them.
    From what I have heard in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa, the public officials there are quite willing to afford any assistance they can to make things as comfortable and agreeable as possible to those emigrants who desire to improve their fortunes, and I think many of these people might receive more friendly salutation than is the case at the present time. Our means of communication might be vastly improved. In the case of postal matters and telegraph communication there is room for vast improvement. Improvements in our lines of communication, whether by ship or telegraph or by post would materially strengthen the bonds of friendship and help to knit together more-perfectly and strongly the enormous Dominions which are under the aegis of the British flag. In that connection I think it would be a great deal better for this country and for our great Dominions if there could be some sort of reasonable and rational supervision of the news that is sent out from this country to our great Dominions all over the world. Hon. Members who have been abroad know these difficulties, and I have often been at a loss to obtain anything like an accurate idea of what is taking place in the United Kingdom whilst living abroad. How that is to be done I am not able to explain, but the necessity exists, and I do trust it will not be beyond the

    1161
    power of British enterprise and skill and forethought to devise some means by which better and purer news of what is going on here shall reach our great Dominions abroad. These are the only points to which I wish to call attention, and I commend them to the respectful consideration of the Colonial Secretary.
    Mr. ALDEN: I think the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Macmaster) touched upon a very important point when he referred to an Imperial news service. I think it is of the utmost importance that our Colonies should get accurate information as to what is going on in the old country. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary might do worse than institute a system of cablegrams with regard to important information which can be very easily obtained in this country in regard to news, which never does seem to percolate to other countries. I have been to most of our Colonies, and I know the information they get is of the most extraordinary character at times. I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the question of the native lands in South Africa. The Colonial Secretary knows quite well, and so do we, that it is impossible to interfere or do anything which might seem like interfering with the Government of South Africa. I happen to have been responsible for a Resolution passed unanimously in this House previous to the passing of the Act of Union, and in the discussion which took place on that occasion the Under-Secretary of State to the Colonies laid it down as one of the duties of the Imperial Parliament to protect in every possible way the interests of the natives in their land, and protect their rights and liberties in that respect. If we take away the land from the natives we take away his liberty. In reference to the Natives Land Act of 1913, I want to put two or three points before the right hon. Gentleman. In the Union of South Africa, blacks own about 4,500,000 morgen of land, and the whites own fourteen times as much land as the blacks, though, of course, they are very much smaller in number. The inequality is very noticeable in the Transvaal, where there are 300,000 whites holding 31,000,000 morgen of land, as against a total of 32,000,000 morgen, and the 1,000,000 natives only have 500,000 morgen of land which they can call their own. The Land Act of 1913 declares in its first Clause:—
    "Except with the approval of the Governor-General, a native shall not enter into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire, or other acquisition from
    1162
    a person oher than a native, of any such land, or of any right thereto, interest therein, or servitude thereover."
    And secondly
    "A person other than a native shall not enter into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire, or other acquisition from a native of any such lands or of any rights thereto."
    5.0 P.M.
    It has been said over and over again in South Africa that this Sub-section applies equally to Europeans and Whites as well as to the natives. There is, they say, no injustice. The European is estopped from this purchase of land, just as the native is estopped. All I can say in answer to that is that the fallacy is shown the moment you begin to ask what land the natives have to sell. The native areas are already overcrowded, and they positively have no land which they could sell. When once a native leaves his farm or is evicted or has to quit for any reason whatever, the Act does not allow him to purchase, hire, or to lease anywhere else for farming purposes except from natives, who have not the land to lease or to sell. He therefore must become a servant of the farm. There is absolutely nothing else for him to do but to become a servant of the farm, and in many cases, although I do not wish to say any word against the farmers in South Africa, it practically means that he has got to become a servant. This Act has already produced very great hardships. It has produced hardships to the people who were under notice to quit at the time the Act was passed, to the people who have actually since then been evicted from their farms, to the natives who were in search of land and who are wandering about with their families and stock and have nowhere to settle, and to the natives who have had to leave their crops un-reaped. There are many hundreds of such cases of hardship which have been inflicted under the Act which is being enforced on all sides. I do not wish to go into this question at very great length, because the right hon. Gentleman knows more about it than anybody in the House in all probability, and he knows the difficulties of the situation.
    I want to put before him just one point with regard to what can be done. We call ourselves the protectors of the rights of the natives, and we claim that we have always, in season and out of season, insisted that those rights should not be infringed, and that no action should be taken against their liberties. The Imperial Government cannot, of course, intervene in the sense of asking the Govern-

    1163
    ment of South Africa either to rescind an Act of Parliament or to amend an Act of Parliament, unless it is their own wish, but I must point out that Clauses 1, 4, and 5 do operate most harshly against the native, and it might be possible, on the representation of the right hon. Gentleman, for the Prime Minister of South Africa to mitigate the hardships. I do not say that it would be possible to ask him to suspend altogether the operations of those Clauses until such time as the Land Commissioners reported, but certainly, if the Prime Minister could see his way to do that, it would do a very great deal to conciliate native opinion in South Africa, and it seems to me that it would be one of the most humane things that could possibly be conceived. Apart altogether from that, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that Mr. Dower, the Minister for Native Affairs, by the wish and on the instructions of General Botha, wrote a letter with regard to native lands, and to native affairs generally, to one of the deputation,—which deputation. I believe, is still in England—whether he will use that letter as a lever for obtaining some sort of definite native policy in South Africa. May I read to the Committee a portion, at any rate, of that letter:—
    "When the time arrives for introducing such legislation it is the intention of the Government to make full legislative provision for such gradual expropriation of lands owned by Europeans within defined native areas as may from time to time be necessary for the settlement of natives on such lands under a regularised system, for the acquisition of land by natives within such areas, for the gradual extension of the system of individual tenure, wherever the natives are sufficiently advanced to appreciate its advantages, and for the good government and the local administration of affairs in native areas by means of native councils and otherwise."
    I say that this bespeaks a very wise and statesmanlike policy, and if only that policy could be, shall I say, recommended or approved of by the right hon. Gentleman, if he would intimate to the Government of South Africa that he strongly approves of that policy, and that he would wish to see it put into operation as speedily as possible, I believe that he would do a very great deal to create good feeling in South Africa, and he would certainly reassure the natives with regard to their future welfare. I do not think that I need say more on this subject, because the right hon. Gentleman is fully cognisant of the difficulties of the situation and of the needs of the natives, and I sincerely hope that he will see his way to take the step that I have suggested.
    Mr. CAVE: The subject to which the hon. Member has referred is no doubt of importance, and no one can quarrel with the tone of the speech in which he has introduced it. I want to revert for a few minutes to a subject which was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Macmaster), and that is the recent crisis in Tasmania. The Colonial Secretary, in his dispatch, has expressed the opinion that the action of the Governor of Tasmania has not been in accordance with constitutional practice, and I do not think that the statement ought to be allowed to pass without some comment, or that it ought to be taken that all of us agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The action of the Governor of Tasmania, in declining to dissolve Parliament at the request of the late Prime Minister, has not, I think, been censured or attacked. It is plain that his view was that before the House was dissolved it was right that the party which then had the majority in the House—namely the party led by Mr. Earle—should have the opportunity of declaring their policy, and that thereupon the dissolution should take place. No one, I think, has seriously attacked that decision. It was at all events inspired by the wish to give effect to the views of the majority of the House in Tasmania. The censure, if that is the word, or at all events the comment, is made upon the action of the Governor in making it a condition when he appointed a new Minister that an early dissolution should take place, and there it is that the right hon. Gentleman disapproves of the action of the Governor.
    I speak with very great reserve, like my hon. and learned Friend, in commenting upon anything that passes in a Legislature of one of our Dominions, but I do just want to point out one or two things. When the Governor put to Mr. Earle this condition, Mr. Earle might very well have said I decline. I do not recognise your right to impose the condition, and I decline to form a Government on those terms." This Gentleman, however, after consulting the whole of his party, came back and said that he accepted the condition, and on those terms the new Ministry, the present Ministry of Tasmania, was formed. Surely there was nothing improper in that! The Governor is entitled to know before appointing Ministers what their views are upon one or the other subject, and, if he thinks that a dissolution at an early date is in the interests of the com-

    1165
    munity as a whole, I do not see anything improper in his obtaining from the incoming Minister whom he is about to appoint his opinion and advice as to whether such a dissolution should take place. Mr. Earle at all events accepted the condition of a dissolution, and took office on those terms. By so doing he accepted responsibility for a dissolution, and in effect must be taken to have advised the Governor to dissolve at an early date. What happened? Mr. Earle might have come back to the Governor afterwards and said, "I have made a mistake: I do not think that a dissolution is desirable." That did not happen. A Member of the House without notice moved what amounted to a censure of the Governor, and Mr. Earle, in spite of having accepted the condition, thought it right to support that Motion, and it was passed by the House, not unanimously, but with very little dissent.
    I do not know what comment to make here upon the action of the Prime Minister of Tasmania, but we are concerned with the action of the Governor, and the comment of our Government on that action, and I do think, in view of the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman should have been very reluctant to pass any censure at all upon the Governor of Tasmania. He was put in a very difficult position indeed. He had, I think, reason for supposing that the action he took was in the interests of Mr. Earle and his followers, and that this would have been recognised, and that the terms on which they took office would have been accepted and carried out. At all events, he had the right to expect before he was censured by the House in Tasmania, that he would have some notice and some opportunity of knowing what was about to occur. Further than that he had been subjected to very bitter attacks by the Press of Tasmania. I am glad to know that a reaction has taken place, and that there is strong feeling in his favour in Tasmania at the present time; but, while they lasted, the attacks were very bitter, and I think that he was deserving of such support as could be afforded to him by this Government.
    I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman in his dispatch goes too far. He puts a dissolution in a Colony on exactly the same footing as a dissolution in this country, and he lays down the rule that the Governor of the Colonies can do nothing except on the advice of his Ministers, and he extends that to the case
    1166
    of a dissolution of Parliament. I believe that to be a new doctrine as regards Colonial Governments. It is obvious that there is a difference between the Home Government and the Government of a Colony. This is what is said on the subject in well known constitutional text books. When a dissolution is recommended in a Colony the Governor has a discretion in the matter. The responsibility rests upon him. He cannot shelter himself behind the advice of his Ministers, and he must exercise his discretion, having regard to the claims of the respective parties in the Colonies, and to the general interests of the inhabitants. I think it will be found that that is laid down by several constitutional authorities. At all events, I do not want to argue the question in any dogmatic way. It is one of great importance, and, personally, I do not want to pronounce a final opinion whether that view is right or wrong. I do think that the Colonial Secretary, in pronouncing a very dogmatic opinion the other way, has been a little hasty, and, having regard to the position of our Governor, he might have held his hand and not expressed his views so strongly. I desire to enter this caveat against the doctrine laid down in the despatch. I am not satisfied that it represents the right constitutional position, but I am satisfied that the Governor of Tasmania has done nothing whatever which should prevent him from receiving that support which our Governors usually obtain from the Home Government.
    Sir A. SPICER: I desire to say a very few words with reference to the Native Lands Act in South Africa. I quite realise that in South Africa we have a self-governing country, and, therefore, one would be desirous to be very careful in what he said with regard to its administration and legislation. But this, at any rate, is the right place to express the views that are held by very large numbers of people in this country, who have devoted a good deal of time and money in doing what they can to educate and uplift the native races of South Africa. Those of us who know South Africa, are perfectly well aware that whilst it is now a country owned by the white races, it can only be properly and fully developed with the help of the native races, and the better educated they are, the better work they will be able to do for South Africa. This Native Lands Act was passed very hurriedly. Of course, we cannot blame South Africa for passing legislation hastily, seeing that we are accustomed

    1167
    sometimes to do the same thing in the Mother of Parliaments. Again, the appointment of the Commission, which is now inquiring into the subject and is taking evidence, is helping, I think, to produce injustice in some cases, so far as the natives are concerned, because the introduction of the Lands Act has led farmers to take action to enforce their rights. They have terminated the rent-paying agreements of former tenants, and, knowing that these are precluded from making new agreements for the hire of land, they have either rejected them or have demanded from them three months' unpaid service per annum, which has had the indirect effect of reducing a free people to a condition of service. I could give instances of that from well authenticated sources. I will refer to one only. It is the case of a chief and his people living on land which they and their fathers have dwelt upon for eight generations. The farm was recently purchased by a farmer resident in another province. He decided to terminate the rent-paying conditions previously in existence between the former owner and the natives, and to substitute labour conditions, under which even the chief, an old man, has been required to give service. The people were called upon to quit their houses, square buildings, timbered and thatched, and in connection with this the owner gave less than one month's notice in the following terms:—
    "This is to notify I can lot you have the school building no longer. I bought the farm and wish to receive the same at the end of your school quarter."
    We desire to speak with all due respect of the self-governing Dominions of South Africa, but I think we may fairly ask the Colonial Secretary to help the Union Government to realise that there is a strong feeling in this country in favour of everything possible being done to secure just and reasonable treatment for the natives. One may fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman to use all reasonable influence with the Union Government to secure for the natives a fair quid pro quo for the loss of their former rights of land purchase, which would mean in some cases an extension of the native area, and if it were possible to suspend to some extent the operation of the Act until the Land Commission has reported. Having been connected with South Africa for a good many years, having travelled through it, and given a good deal of time to it, I desire to do what I can for the uplifting
    1168
    of the people of that country, and that is my reason for intervening in this Debate.
    Mr. HUNT: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.
    I want to ask the Colonial Secretary how it is that the Federated Malay States have been obliged to raise a large loan in London for public works, when, only a short time ago we were told that the States were presenting a "Dreadnought" to this country? His Excellency the Governor, in a despatch on the subject, said it was the Chief Secretary who first proposed that the Malay States should give this warship to Great Britain. This gentleman's name was Mr. Brockman. He was really a dependent of the British Government, and soon after he succeeded in getting the promise of this "Dreadnought" he—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not see how the Colonial Secretary is responsible for the matter to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring.
    Mr. HUNT: Has the Colonial Secretary nothing to do with the Malay States? I always thought he had.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the Colonial Secretary is responsible for the action of the Federated Malay States, and I do not see how he can answer for them in this matter.
    Mr. HUNT: But is not Mr. Brockman more or less under the Colonial Secretary?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know. I am only clear about this, that the Colonial Secretary cannot answer for the action of the Federated Malay States in the question to which the hon. Member is now referring.
    Mr. HUNT: Then, I suppose I cannot go on with this. I presume the Malay States will come before this House under some Vote, and if it is not the Colonial Vote, I cannot understand what Vote it is. Is it not a fact that the Colonial Secretary can intervene in a matter like this, and, therefore, would he not be held responsible? If he is not I do not know who can be.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not mind, as a matter of courtesy, and the Colonial Secretary offering no objection, allowing the hon. Member to develop his point, but it must not be taken as a precedent.
    Mr. HUNT: It seems to me that the Malay people were never consulted in this

    1169
    matter at all. It was the Chief Secretary who made the suggestion to the Sultan of the four States, that a warship should be presented. What I want to point out to the Colonial Secretary is that this money was given for the warship at a time when it was badly needed for hospital accommodation, doctors and nurses, especially in the undrained areas, where men, women and children were suffering, and, indeed, dying, from disease and fever. The serious part of it appears to be that this is the first time the British Government has ever applied the old Roman system of tribute, and the effect must be very bad in India and the East. Apparently the Government wanted to save money, and so they extracted about two and a half millions sterling from the unfortunate Malay people, with the result that they have now had to try and raise a big loan in London for purposes of public works, such as hospitals and roads, which could have been supplied to a great extent cut of the money devoted to the purpose, as the First Lord of the Admiralty put it, of presenting a battleship to the British people. There are, I believe, only about a million people in the Malay States. They are poor people, and this must have been a very heavy tax upon them. It was imposed without their consent, and I say it was a very bad precedent indeed. I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in defence of it.
    There is another question which I hope I shall be strictly in order in putting to the right hon. Gentleman. It is. How was it that he agreed in this year's Finance Act to allow the interest on money invested within our Empire to bear a double Income Tax, even when reinvested in the self-governing Dominions or in India, for the purpose of still further developing British Colonies or Possessions. I am quite aware that the interest on Colonial investments when brought home already bears a double Income Tax, but, under the present Finance Bill, things are considerably worsened, because that Bill imposes a British Income Tax even where the money is left in the Colony for the further development of that Colony. If I may take a specific case, British capital is very much required for the development of Australia. Under the present Finance Bill the interest on British capital in Australia will have to pay British as well as Australian Income Tax, even if it is left in Australia. On the other hand, British capital employed in any part of South
    1170
    America, where there is no Income Tax, will only have to pay one Income Tax, and if the interest is reinvested it is very doubtful whether the British Government would be able to collect their Income Tax. Therefore, if capital is sent to South America, the interest on that money will not only not have to pay two Income Taxes, but will not have to pay any Income Tax at all, whereas in Australia it will certainly have to pay double Income Tax, and in all probability the British Government would have no difficulty in collecting the British Income Tax. That state of affairs is a very distinct injury to our great self-governing Dominions, and is bound to check the much needed investment of British capital in those Dominions. The money so invested is at a disadvantage with money invested in the United States, because although the United States now have an Income Tax, I understand that in some, if not in all cases, if a person can prove he is a British subject the American Income Tax is remitted. I asked a question on that subject the other day and the Minister did not deny it. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will say. If the Colonial Secretary is to be of much use to the great Dominions, he should surely see that British capital invested in those Dominions is not treated worse than capital which is invested in other countries. The people in our great Dominions are very much interested in this question, and it ought to be put right. People in this country should not be penalised for using their capital to develop our great Dominions or any other part of the Empire.
    Mr. THEODORE C. TAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman who now presides over the Colonial Office is one of the greatest of House of Commons reformers. I would ask him to-day to effect a little reform that would help to give more reality to our Colonial Office Debates in future than they have at present. He should endeavour to secure that the Colonial Office Reports, say for the year 1913, should be presented to this House before July, 1914. I cannot believe it is impossible that the Reports from our various Colonies should be printed earlier than they are. I notice that the 1912 Report for Hong Kong, dated 28th June, 1913, took the acting Colonial Secretary nearly six months to prepare, was printed last August and presented to Parliament just after the Colonial Office Debate. We had an eminent predecessor in the office the

    1171
    right hon. Gentleman now holds, the late Mr. Chamberlain. They say—I do not know whether it is true, but I have heard it more than once—that he made his office the only Government office whence one could get a reply to a letter by return of post. At all events, he brought a business spirit into that office which it has never since lost. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman who so ably presides over the councils of that office at the present day, who gave us the boon of a quicker voting system in this House, and so many things in the House itself that were good, could easily secure that the Reports from the Colonies should be presented to this House every year, so that Members could read them before the Colonial Office Debate comes on. I want to say another word in the right hon. Gentleman's praise before I proceed to criticise some things which have occurred in his Department.
    I want to thank him for the very great reform he has effected in one branch of the Government in Ceylon, namely, the sensible course that was taken in appointing a Commission to report on the opium rice there, and finally his acting upon that Report as he has done and is doing, thereby greatly reducing the consumption of opium. By registering the users there, by taking the business into the hands' of the Government, gradually reducing it, with very little friction and with no injury but great benefit to the Colony, he is gradually, I hope, extirpating the vice there. The right hon. Gentleman told me two years ago that the recommendations of the Commission on Opium, which was appointed in 1908 and reported in 1909, were being fully carried out. One of the recommendations of that Commission was that an absolute end should be put to the opium vice in Ceylon. It has already been greatly reduced, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman when a final end is going to be put to it. We ought not to be behind the example of the United States in the Philippines, where they put an end to opium smoking in three years; and we ought not to be behind the example of China.
    The right hon. Gentleman's immediate predecessor said that we ought to live up to the example of China. My opinion is that we ought to go ahead of China, which is steadily extirpating the vice. As to the other side of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, namely, the setting up of toddy taverns, I believe there is already an
    1172
    apprehension on the part of the Colonial Office that they went too far in licensing so many toddy taverns as they did. I have information showing that several licences were granted for the sale of toddy in places where they were certainly not wanted, and in other places where they are not only in excess but injurious. We should never forget that of the population of Ceylon, which is a little over 4,000,000, 2,750,000 are Cingalese, mostly Buddhists, against whose religion opium smoking is an absolute crime; and about 1,000,000 are Tamils from India, in whose case opium taking and alcohol drinking are against their religion. It is to our shame as a nation that we have introduced into Ceylon the two vices of opium smoking and alcohol drinking. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will continue his policy of assisting the leaders of religion there, for whom I have as much respect as I have for the professors of the Christian religion when they are genuine men, because I believe they are deeply anxious for the welfare of their people. May I give the right hon. Gentleman one hint? I have a good deal of information from Ceylon showing that he would considerably add to the value of his local excise committees if he would make them rather more representative. There are native institutions which might be more represented than they are on those committees, and which would enable them to get a better index of the real feeling of the people.
    A word or two about Hong Kong. The last Report we have is for the year 1912, which is dated 28th June last year, and was issued in August, too late for discussion last Session. The opium-smoking divans or dens—that is, the opium public-houses in Hong Kong—were put an end to several years ago. When we asked that that sort of institution should be stopped, we also asked that an end should be put to the opium-smoking vice. The Government there have taken the selling of opium into their own hands. I believe the Colonial Secretary prides himself on the fact that, while the revenue has not declined, a much less quantity is being smoked, because it is being sold at higher prices. I feel very strongly on this question of Hong Kong. The Chinese Government are making enormous efforts to put down the opium-smoking vice in China, but it gives them very little encouragement when they see the colony of a so-called Christian Power is deriving a very large amount of its revenue by ministering to this vice.

    1173
    The total revenue for 1912 is about 8,000,000 dollars, of which just two-thirds comes from licences which, I believe, means, although the details are not given in the report—they should be given—that it is mainly derived from the Government sale of opium. The consumption of opium, if We are to judge from the year 1912, is going up. For the five years ending 1912 the opium consumption was: For 1908, 864 chests; 1909, 1,044; 1910, 782; 1911, 761; and 1912, 1,113. I do not know what it was last year. The population of Hong Kong is over 97 per cent. Chinese, who are constantly passing from and to the Chinese Empire. When we remember that this is a standing object lesson of our deriving revenue from this vice, and that the Chinese Government, although very much in need of money, and although it has the opportunity of deriving money from it, for the sake of its people is not doing so, it is high time that we absolutely stopped the opium smoking in Hong Kong as it is now stopped in China itself.
    I asked the right hon. Gentleman some years ago to adopt in Hong Kong and also in the Straits Settlements, in regard to the Chinese there, the plan which is being carried out in Ceylon, and which the United States have carried out so successfully in the Philippines, namely, registering the smokers and preventing others from commencing the habit. He replied—I remember it quite well, and there is something in it no doubt—that there is this very great difficulty that the authorities there cannot tell the difference between one Chinaman and another. I suggest that we get Chinese officials, so long as we carry this trade on, the smokers there to be registered, and that this may be a check effected on these opium smoking gentlemen. The Chinese say that we all look alike to them, and I am sure they all look alike to us. We can tell the difference among each other, and they can tell the difference among themselves. I commend that idea to the right hon. Gentleman.
    The proportion of Government income derived from licences, mostly opium and the rest liquor, in the Straits Settlements was 75 per cent. in 1911, and 77 per cent. in 1912. In other words the Straits Settlements, whose case has been put before this House over and over again in the last seven or eight years, and where we have been deriving half the revenue from the opium receipts, seem to me, unless there has been a great reform
    1174
    this last year, to be as bad as ever, and there is really no excuse for this, because although the Straits Settlements revenue is not in as overflowing condition as that of their neighbours, the Federated Malay States, yet in the last three years, 1910, 1911, and 1912, they have had very large surpluses each year, and indeed at the end of 1912 they had in one shape or another to their credit nearly 11,000,000 dollars. That is, they had in hand over a year's revenue. The Straits Settlements could very well afford to do without this revenue. The number of chests of opium consumed in 1912 was 4,107. Here again the Government are the farmers of the opium revenue. The total cash receipts for opium in the Straits Settlements for the year 1912 were overs,800,000 dollars, and the liquor revenue nearly 1,500,000 dollars. If we compare the total amount received for opium at the Government shops—over 8,000,000 dollars in that little State with a total revenue of 9,250,000 dollars, we see what an enormous amount of money, in proportion to the population and the money to be spent, is being spent on opium. I again strongly urge upon the Colonial Secretary that in the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong the Chinese, who are prevented from smoking opium in their country, when they come to pay us visits in the Straits Settlements or Hong Kong or the Federated Malay States, should not have the Government panderers to them for this vice. The report of the Federated Malay States for 1912 was only issued this year. This is another case of the reports being very belated. For years they have had an enormous surplus of revenue over-expenditure. They had 21,000,000 dollars surplus revenue in the two last years of which I have any account, 1911 and 1912. Here again the Government have taken a wise step in putting-down gambling. A great many people think that any Government Department that acts at all on moral lines must be acting purely puritanically. There are some people who will sneer at this. The Chinese themselves do not sneer at it, for the Government Report states that the better Chinese of all classes approve this very much, and they have had meetings at which they have approved of the Government's action, because one of the greatest weaknesses of the Chinese is gambling.
    I should like to say a word about Borneo, which, I believe, comes under the Colonial Office. There is very great need indeed for the Colonial Secretary to make inquiry into the way in which the North

    1175
    Borneo Trading Company are using their powers in the way of tempting the coolies on the plantations there, when they receive their wages for the past months by means of gambling and drinking saloons and brothels, set up on the confines of the plantations to get money from these poor fellows. There is a great deal which wants inquiring into, but I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be surprised when he finds the facts—I do not say about the way the British Borneo Company themselves manage it, but the lax things which are going on there, to the great detriment of the poor Chinese coolies who work on these plantations. We have recently added to our Empire some other Malay States, which have to report to the Chief Commissioner at Singapore. We always have springing up in these Eastern States opium and gambling, and I recommend the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to look into the Kedah report for 1912. It is only a little State, but there is a report showing a large State income from opium smoking and gambling there. There is an opium farm in another State, Trengganu, let to a Chinese firm till 1917. The little State of Peril's has 39 per cent. of its revenue coming from opium. The smaller the State the more it escapes public observation and the more necessary it is that a keen eye should be kept on it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done in Ceylon. I believe that he has fears that the system of registration could not be applied to the Chinese. I believe you could engage reliable Chinese officials, both in the Straits and in Hong Kong, to carry out the same very wise policy, as it seems to me, of registering old opium smokers, and giving them a time in which they are to cease smoking, and not allowing any fresh ones to be registered. That, of course, is only a temporary policy. In any case I press strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman that we have the same duties to these people, who are so dependent upon us and who are under our absolute rule through the Colonial Office as their Government has to them in their own country, to stamp out and absolutely prohibit after a very short time, if not immediately, the vice of opium smoking, which is against religion and everything that is good. All our self-governing Colonies without exception have stem laws against this vice. In Japan, as we know, it is sternly put down. In China there is one of the most heroic struggles
    1176
    that the world has ever witnessed of a nation struggling with a bad thing, and they are successfully struggling. In our Crown Colonies the right hon. Gentleman has adopted, very tentatively, as it seems to me in some cases, the policy of also putting down this vice. I cannot apologise for bringing once more to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House that which has been a very great blot on the national escutcheon of our country, and I again urge upon him with all the power I can, in the interests of humanity, to say nothing else, to put a speedy end to the vice of opium smoking in such parts of the British Empire as are under his control.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think the hon. Member need apologise for the eloquent speech he has made in reference to the opium question. This is one of the occasions when party ties are not very closely held, and we are all interested in doing what we can for our Colonial Empire. It is unnecessary to say more on the opium question than the hon. Member has said. I cannot resist an allusion to one or two remarks made by the hon. Member (Mr. Edmund Harvey) and another hon. Member opposite with regard to native labour in South Africa. I think there is a great deal in all that they said. I have had the case of the natives in South Africa put before me also, and I am bound to confess that certainly the first of these gentlemen seemed to have forgotten, and the second seemed to slide over it very carefully, the fact that South Africa is a Home Rule country. I think it is rather a warning to us in this House in regard to legislation affecting another country. I see the hon. Member (Mr. Cotton). I wonder what would happen after Home Rule had been granted to Ireland if two hon. Members on the opposite side of the House were to get up and implore the Government to interfere with the legislation which a Home Rule Parliament might enact. One must accept responsibility for the full grant of Home Rule to South Africa, and though many of us may think that some of these native laws require amendment, I felt I could not make that demand in this House myself because having been responsible as a Member of the House for the granting of Home Rule to South Africa, we must realise that they are in all respects a self-governing Colony, and it would ill befit us to attempt in any way whatever to control what is now a free Colony.

    1177
    6.0 P.M.
    I wish to say a word with regard to labour in East Africa. The question of labour in East Africa was also raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Harvey), and I think he will quite appreciate the fact, that a sufficient supply of native labour can best be obtained by good conditions on the part of the employer. We do not want anything in the nature of forced labour, and we want to encourage our Colonies in every possible way to make the conditions of labour as good as they can possibly be. Of course the Government itself should set a good example in the matter of the labour which it employs. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions in reference to forced labour in East Africa. I believe there are regulations proposed to be made either by the Colonial Office or the local government there affecting the question of forced labour. I am prepared to admit that in the present state of civilisation forced labour for the Government may be necessary for some time to come, but forced labour for private property, I want the Colonial Secretary to declare, as the Foreign Secretary has already declared, is a form of slavery, and as such cannot be tolerated. The Foreign Secretary has already made a declaration in this House to that effect, and I believe the Colonial Secretary takes the same view, and I should be glad if he would make that public in order that it may be known throughout the whole of our Colonies. But there will be for some time to come a certain amount of forced labour for Government purposes, I believe. I should like the Colonial Secretary to state for the information of the House and of our Colonies exactly what the conditions of this forced labour are to be. For instance, how many days a year are the natives to be forced to labour if they do not wish to do so? Is it one, two, or three months? What is to be their pay, and how far are they to be taken from their own villages to effect this forced labour? On the answers to these questions as to the proper carrying out of forced labour will depend whether we as a Parliament ought to sanction the use, in so far as it is necessary, of forced labour in East Africa.
    I want to deal with a question which has not been dealt with this afternoon, namely, the establishment of liquor distilleries in Ceylon. That is a new movement within the last year or two on the part of the Ceylon Government, and I think it
    1178

    should receive serious consideration if it is to be carried out with the sanction of this House. If this House does not agree with the movement—and I venture to-think it will not agree—I think definite instructions should be sent out either that the whole system should be stopped or that no further progress should be made in regard to it. It is a system which we believe to be totally contrary to the licensing system of this country, and it is-one which should not take place in our Colonies.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I understand the hon. Member to refer to Government-owned distilleries.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, I mean Government-owned distilleries. I believe the hon. Member would be against all liquor distilleries in Ceylon, although I personally could not go so far as that. But the question of Government-owned distilleries is quite a different one. In the first place, I wish to lay down that all the liquor laws enacted here have been restrictive rather than an encouragement of the liquor traffic, and I think that all our laws in our Colonies should be equally restrictive. There should be no possibility of the Government taking part in increasing the liquor trade, or encouraging alcoholic consumption in any of our Colonies. In 1912 power was given to the Excise Commissioner in Ceylon to establish, or authorise the establishment, of distilleries or breweries to be used under licence granted on such terms as the Government of the Colony saw fit. The Government are proposing under the provisions of this Ordinance to establish distilleries at the public cost, and then let them out in order that other people may distil in the Government buildings. A deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman two years ago from the Society for the Protection of Native Races, which owes no party allegiance, but is composed of people on both sides of politics, and represents the Church of England and Nonconformist bodies who desire to save the natives in our Dominions from the contamination of the liquor traffic. After receiving that deputation, the right hon. Gentleman sent a dispatch to the Governor of Ceylon, in which he said:—
    "I desire to add also that, in my opinion, the 'Contract Supply System' should be regarded as merely a temporary expedient, and that it is desirable that it should eventually be superseded by the system, which is in force in this country and in most parts of His Majesty's Dominions, of licensed distilleries paving an Excise duty on output."

    1179
    The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) may not agree with me, but I am bound to say that I am not opposing the system of Excise distilleries as they are carried on in our own country. It may or may not be desirable from his point of view, but we do recognise the existence of licensed distilleries. I do not say that they should not exist in Ceylon. All I say is that they should not be built with Government money. We find that last year a definite statement was made by Mr. Allnutt, the Assistant Excise Commissioner in Ceylon, in which he laid down the position the Excise Department has in this matter. On 14th November, 1913—I am quoting from the "Ceylon Morning Leader "—he said:—
    "Ultimately we shall have Government distilleries enough to produce the whole quantity required for consumption, but I cannot yet say how many distilleries we shall require…. But we shall have one distillery for each supply area not in it, each distillery supplying its own allotted area. Our distilleries will be erected by the Government and then handed over to the contractor or lessee, who will do the distilling on the same principles as we follow in our present distillery now."
    There is a distinct intimation that the Government are going to erect all the distilleries which they deem necessary for the distilling trade of Ceylon. The observation I wish to make on that is that if the Government are going to erect distilleries they will be bound, from the financial point of view, to see that they are a success, and that they bring in the necessary amount of money to pay for the cost of erecting the buildings. The only means of doing that is to see that a sufficient quantity is distilled, and that what is distilled is consumed by the people. I think that is perfectly clear. A certain portion of the revenue of Ceylon undoubtedly arises from these distilleries, and I wish to say that no Government, if possible, should have any partnership share in the control of the liquor traffic.
    Many people in this country are supporters of what is known as the Gothenburg system. The objection which many of us have to the Gothenburg system is that is makes the Government, or the municipality, a partner in the sale of strong drink. I hope the Colonial Secretary will say that the Government of Ceylon is not to be made a partner in securing the success of these Government distilleries. The duty of the Government should be merely to control the liquor traffic, to see that it is kept in due bounds, and to take care that no undue inducements are given
    1180
    to the natives to drink. The Government of Ceylon should not have any interest in the profits arising from the distilleries. I submit that it would be impossible for the Excise Commissioners in Ceylon not to push, for revenue purposes, the work of these distilleries. If they push the sale of the output of the distilleries, we in this House, who have a responsibility for the government of Ceylon, will be taking a part and share in encouraging the consumption of spirits by the people of the Colony. I think we have distinct obligations in this matter as the governing Power. There are 2,225,000 Buddhists in Ceylon, and according to their religion it is a low and vicious occupation to manufacture and sell any kind of strong drink. You have more than half of the population condemning the manufacture of strong drink, and here is our Government, which we desire that they should look to as the best for the control of the natives, taking a part and share in what the religion of the people says is a low and vicious proceeding. Surely the Colonial Secretary will not wish to be tarred as the representative of a Christian Power with the contamination of those who belong to the Buddhist religion. Everybody knows that many Hindus take the same view as the Mahomedans, and that they are opposed to the sale and consumption of strong drink. It is no answer to say that all Buddhists and all Mahomedans are not good. We are in a measure forcing upon the Ceylon people the manufacture of a material which is opposed to the best interests, not merely of the Ceylonese people but to the tenets of the religion of nearly the whole of the natives of Ceylon. The Ceylon Government publicly claimed not long ago that they are the most powerful and the most genuine temperance organisation in the island. The acting Colonial Secretary, so recently as 7th May, 1913, made that strong statement, and at the very time he made the statement his Government was concerned in the new proposal for setting up Government distilleries in Ceylon.
    I wish to say a word as to the increase which has already taken place in the consumption of liquor since this scheme was first set on foot. In 1897 the consumption of arrack in Ceylon was about 1,100,000 gallons, and the yield to the Government rose from two rupees per gallon in that year to 4.38 rupees in 1905, when they had a fixed minimum price. That fixed minimum price has already gone, and the Government appear to be encouraging the con

    1181
    sumption of liquor. I have said that if the Government owned the distilleries, they would be bound to force the sale. The consumption of arrack in 1912–13 rose to 1,445,000 gallons, and last year it was 1,554,000 gallons—a rise of 400,000 gallons in the last four years. This matter has been put before the Colonial Secretary. A deputation waited upon him some few weeks ago, and I am sorry that on account of other engagements I was unable to take part in it. I trust that the Colonial Secretary to-day will make a perfectly plain public statement as to the attitude the Government are going to take on this matter. I do not know how far it will be possible for them to revoke what has already been done in Ceylon, but it will be perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman to send a dispatch—I am sure I have the feeling of the whole Committee with me when I say that it is desirable that he should send a dispatch—stating that, at all events, this thing should cease until further inquiry has been made into it. I do not want at the moment to go further into it. There may be reasons which are not before us at the present time, but all the reasons I have seen will not hold water. To put it on the highest possible ground, we as a nation, and we in this House as representing the nation, are responsible for the good government of Ceylon. It is our duty as a nation to do nothing whatever which can in any way increase the consumption of a beverage which in Ceylon at least is detrimental to the native races. We are responsible, and we should do all we can to protect the people in our Dominions.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I must congratulate the Colonial Secretary on having issued the statement in reference to the recent political crisis in Tasmania, and on the exposition of the constitutional position which it contains as to the powers of the Governor in the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution. It is a curious thing that I should differ from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Macmaster) as to this particular exercise of the power of a Colonial Governor to dissolve which is nothing more or less than the power of the Sovereign in these countries to dissolve. It is a power as we all know that has always been exercised, as has been confessed, since 1850, at the desire of the Prime Minister of the day. A Colonial Governor in exercising his discretion as
    1182
    regards dissolution has to remember that be is not only a Colonial Governor, and as such is in a analogous position to the constitutional Sovereign of these realms, but that he is likewise an Imperial Officer, and there might arise, though it has occurred very seldom, a case in which a Colonial Governor might find himself in a conflicting position, urged on one side by a Cabinet to dissolve forthwith, and on the other by Imperial consideration which impel him to the other course. But his position in that dilemma is this: immediately to consult the Home Government as regards his actions. What has happened in this case raises a question of Imperial moment, and not merely one of Colonial policy. The Prime Minister of the House of Assembly wished to dissolve. The Governor said "No." The Prime Minister resigned. The Governor sent for another gentleman to act as Prime Minister on whom he imposed a condition, which was unknown in this country since 1770, when George the Third endeavoured to impose conditions on his Ministers taking Office, that they should not introduce certain measures. Here is the constitutional doctrine bearing on the point, to which expression has been given by Sir William Ellison Macartney:—
    "It is important, to bear in mind that the discretion of a governor with regard to the question of dissolution is, as in other instances of the exercise of the prerogative, much wider in the Colonies than that upon which by constitutional practice the Sovereign acts in the United Kingdom."
    That is a preposterous proposition that cannot be advanced. Here we have a constitutional Governor, appointed by Downing Street, taking up a position which would not be taken by the Sovereign of these countries. Therefore, I wish to say how much I approve of the dispatch of my right hon. Friend, and how truly I believe that it is the proper exposition of the constitutional law. He says:—
    "While I consider that you should not have imposed terms on Mr. Earle, I recognise that he was entirely at liberty to decline the duty of forming a Government, unless he was left with complete discretion as to the advice to be tendered to you. Instead of doing so he decided to take office, and thus must be held to have accepted for the time being full responsibility for your action"
    And here comes a sentence which proves that my right hon. Friend had the hereditary constitutional leanings:—
    "He remained fully responsible until the Ministry determined to advise in the contrary sense, when the policy of dissolution ceased to be authorised by Ministerial advice, but became a matter of your personal opinion, that is to say, no constitutional means existed of giving effect to it without another change of views on the part of Ministers, or another change of Ministry."

    1183
    At present there has been no other change of Ministry, and Sir William Ellison Macartney still remains in that position. It was not my fault that this gentleman was appointed that position. I was early in the field and foretold what would happen. On 16th December, 1912, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Colonies—
    "Whether he is aware that Mr. William Ellison Macartney, the Deputy Master of the Mint since 1908, who has been appointed to the governorship of Tasmania was a grand master of the Orange Society, member of the House of Commons in the Orange interest for South Antrim from 1895 to 1903, and has filled the position in the Unionist Administration of Secretary to the Admiralty, from 1895 to 1900?"
    And I also asked whether he had consulted the Government of the Colony before appointing him. My right hon. Friend's reply was terse and laconic:—
    "I am satisfied that Mr. Macartney will, both in experience and capacity, make a suitable and acceptable Governor of Tasmania. Before I submitted his name to the King, I satisfied myself of the concurrence of the Government of Tasmania."
    May I say this, with all the gentleness of my gentle nature, that when my right hon. Friend has an important appointment to make, he should not go into the ranks of men who have done nothing but oppose him. He is going too far. It is an intense extension of the principle of the Sermon on the Mount, but it is not just to his own Friends on the Liberal side to see these gentlemen put into the best positions, and I rather think that in the constitutional utterances of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey and the Member for Kingston, they had at the back of their minds the case of Sir William Ellison Macartney, who was in this House through thick and thin a supporter of the late Government, and was appointed for these great services by the present Government. I hope that hon. Members on the Liberal side will like it.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I never knew his politics.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: That shows that my hon. Friend is an innocent Member. Coming to another matter, I wish to say in a few words to the Colonial Secretary that he will have a great opportunity, in the interests of humanity and good will, between man and man, if he will take the chance that presents itself to him of considering whether the Charter of the Chartered Company is to be revised, or revoked, or modified, or placed in such a position as
    1184
    to make it more consonant with the requirements of the country. In October of this year the Charter of the Chartered Company will reach the time limit placed upon it, and when the time comes for the consideration of its revision or renewal, my right hon. Friend should consider the matter very carefully, and I think that he ought to institute a Committee of Inquiry into the administration of the Chartered Company for the last twenty-five years, and that this Committee should report to him, so that full justice might be done in reference to this great country, as to which our position is quite different from that which has been put forward in the plea made with regard to the natives of South Africa, who are, of course, as we all know living in a self-governing country. The country which the Chartered Company controls is not a self-governing country. There are various objections to Government by Charter under the best circumstances. A chartered company is in its very nature and inception a trading company, a commercial company. It has in the one case to look after, and properly so, the interests of its shareholders. On the other hand it has to administer the company. There was never a chartered company that was a success. The East India Company was anything but a success. The Hudson Bay Company in peculiar circumstances very nearly became a success, but in all the companies there is a great temptation that they control the destinies of persons of different race, different education, and different surroundings from themselves, and there is a tendency in the very best of us consciously or unconsciously to take advantage of that.
    The Colonial Secretary will remember that at the time of the Committee of Inquiry into the Jameson Raid, the reference to the Committee was not only to inquire into the raid but also to investigate the administration of the Chartered Company with a view to further inquiry. The second part of that investigation was never entered into. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should come now to some decision about that. I speak in no-manner of personal opposition to the company. I am doing this simply on public grounds. I have not a farthing in the company, and I never had. But, I am interested for the sake of liberty and justice. I may give a concrete case. Of course, I am not able to produce legal proof of these things which

    1185
    may be of very considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman, with the view, at all events, of his instituting an investigation into the administration of the company, against whose members, personally, I make no charge whatever. I have frequently during the course of last year asked questions of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to a transaction of the company in Rhodesia, the sale of one million acres at Is. an acre by the company to the Liebig Company. That seems an extraordinary transaction, and from the information that has reached me, which, of course, is only hearsay, contained in correspondence from persons whom I have never seen, I gather these allegations, which I think should be investigated. By means of a system of cattle removal permits, natives of Liebig's concession, I am informed, are prevented from moving their cattle without Liebig's consent, or from selling their cattle to anyone but Liebig at Liebig's price—£5 and £8 being the current price. By means of an Order the natives on this concession are treated as trespassers in their own home unless they can make terms with the manager of the Liebig concession. This manager is a man who was dismissed from his former occupation as a Native Commissioner in some district for ill-treating the natives. These are serious allegations.
    I have received this year letters from various gentlemen, some of whom are of great position and weight in that country, and possess great knowledge of it. One of them writes that the manager of Liebig's is the same man who was a Native Commissioner, and he is not of English birth. The writer speaks of the conditions of Rhodesia, and suggests that before the Charter is renewed, a Departmental Commission should be sent to inquire into those conditions. [The hon. Member quoted passages from the letters which he had received from gentlemen in Rhodesia.] I have placed these communications before the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. We have heard a great deal about the treatment of the natives of South Africa, and the right hon. Gentleman has the power to see that the rights conceded to the natives, even under that Charter are rigorously enforced. I am told that there is great difficulty in obtaining from the natives themselves their actual condition, because they are so coerced and so under terror. There is another matter to which I desire
    1186
    to shortly refer. In a speech which I made some months ago I used language which was thought to be somewhat extreme, though it was perhaps quite justifiable; but when I used certain words I did so rather by way of invective. Exception was taken to my use of the word "atrocities" in my statement as to the condition of the natives in the country. I did not in any way impute personal dishonesty to those gentlemen, whom I did not know; I was only speaking in an impersonal way. I said that the concessions had been obtained at a gross undervalue. I am simply placing these things before my right hon. Friend, and I hope he will take heed of these matters, and have a proper investigation of the affairs of the country and its administration, and especially of the Chartered Company, in regard to which the Government are more the trustees of the natives than they are in any ordinary case. I am not making any charge whatever against the company. I am simply stating what cannot be contradicted or denied in reference to these concessions and the value of them. I find that on the 11th March, 1889, the late Mr. Chamberlain, who was then just about the sunset of his Radical days, asked the then Secretary of State for the Colonies:—
    "Whether, in view of the character of the concession said to have been recently granted by the Chief Lo Bengula to Messrs. Rudd and Rhodes, by which, in consideration for a sum of £1,200 a year, together with one thousand rifles and a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition, these gentlemen are reported to have obtained sole rights of prospecting and working for minerals in a territory the size of Italy, Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to call the attention of the Chief to the disadvantages and dangers to the peace of the country incident to such a monopoly; and, whether, in the" event of Her Majesty's Government extending, at any future time, a Protectorate over the Colony now under the sphere of British influence, they will refuse to recognise the concession in question, or any similar concession that may he contrary to the interests of the Chief and people of Matabeleland, and likely to lead to complications and a breach of the peace?"
    Mr. Chamberlain was early in the field at that time, and the reply which Baron H. De Worms gave him was:—
    "Her Majesty's Government have hitherto abstained from interfering with any commission granted by Lo Bengula, as that Chief is not under their protection, is independent, and has not, till lately, asked for advice. He has now, by his messenger, asked for advice, and that some one may be sent to him by the Queen. It is not clear whether he desires to have some officer permanently resident with him, or only temporarily, for the special purpose of advising him upon the present state of affairs. But Her Majesty's Government are prepared to send some officer to Lo Bengula should he still desire it, and should he agree to any arrangement proposed by Her Majesty's Government in respect, of such a mission. In the meantime, I may state that Her Majesty's Government do not approve of that term in the concession referred to, which provides for the supply of arms and ammunition, and they would advise Lo Bengulu to have this altered. If at any

    1187
    time a Protectorate were declared at Lo Bengula's request over his territory, Her Majesty's Government would discountenance any concession containing such terms of the kind referred to in the concluding words of the question."
    That is the foundation of the Charter, and that was the concession that was obtained for £1,200 a year, together with 1,000 rifles and 100,000 rounds of ammunition. It seemed to be of such a value that afterwards the Chartered Company's shares were quoted at £4. That is the story of the inception of the country, and the granting of the Charter which took place afterwards. In the Charter of the Company there were very definite provisions that slaves and the slave trade should be abolished. I have shown as well as I can what is going on, so far as I am aware, and what are the conditions which have been produced. There was an interesting discussion on the 6th of May, 1898, which should be of importance in guiding the right hon. Gentleman's decision as to whether or not there should be a thorough investigation of all the circumstances of this country. On 6th May, 1898, there was a discussion on Sir Richard Martin's Report. That gentleman had been sent out by the Government to investigate and report, and he reported that out of fifteen Commissioners, eight of them stated that the slave trade prevailed in that country. There was another who on that occasion gave his estimate of the conduct of the Chartered Company—Sir Robert Reid, now Lord Loreburn. He said:—
    "There has been £5,500,000 obtained from the public by the Chartered Company. I do not know, but it is stated on authority that £20,000,000 or more have been obtained upon mining prospectuses. There are outspoken critics of authority who believe and say openly that most of this money has been thrown into the sea, or, worse still, has gone into the pockets of unscrupulous speculators and promoters of bogus companies…. The mismanagement of the native population, the conduct of the Company with regard to the Jameson Raid, and their financial attitude are such that I venture to think that the most clear statement may reasonably be expected from Her Majesty's Government."
    I do not know that Sir Robert Reid's violent language was assailed. I come to almost the worst of all, Sir William Harcourt. He said:—
    "The financial history of this Company has not been brilliant, and its connection with the Raid, through its leading officers, has not been creditable. The whole of its past administration has certainly not gained through the examination of Sir Richard Martin, who was very properly sent out by the Colonial Secretary to look into its proceedings."
    Then we have last of all the speech from that wise man, Lord Courtney of Penrith, who expressed his opinions of the Chartered Company, and hoped that the
    1188
    Charter would soon be taken from the company. We have had the native question raised recently. I do not want, in the slightest degree, to say anything personal. I do not want to speak more than I have about the dealings of companies of this kind with natives, and as to the great necessity that those dealings should be revised. In that Debate of 1898 a curious thing occurred, Mr. Labouchere said that Mr. Lecky had accepted as the fact the statement that a, large number of the Matabele had been killed in a cave by dynamite. Mr. Lecky at once got up and said he had made no such statement. A day or two afterwards there appeared a letter from Mr. Lecky in the "Times," apologising to Mr. Labouchere, on 9th May, 1898, and in which he gave the passage of his speech delivered in Trinity College eighteen months before. [The hon. and learned Member quoted the passage from Mr. Lecky's speech mentioned, and referring to the Matabele War.]
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman ready to affirm that that went on?
    Mr. MacNEILL: I neither affirm nor deny anything, but these are things for investigation. I do say, with all the resources of the Colonial Secretary, that there is a great chance for him now to see that these things are done rightly. I do not make any charge whatever of a personal character. The vices and imperfections of this company are inherent in the nature of these companies. I do not wish in the slightest degree to embitter feeling, but in the interests of humanity charges which have so constantly been made require a clear and thoroughgoing investigation by the Government before there is any renewal of the Charter.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am sorry I must rise now, as the Debate has to close early and otherwise I should not be able to reply to the points which have been raised. When I said at the beginning that I did not intend to make a general statement an hon Gentleman below the Gangway expressed the hope that the precedent I had previously set in this matter would not be followed in the future. My efforts were received with more appreciation by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker), who, however complained of the length of the statements. That is a matter which can be cured. I think, on the whole, the Colonial Office is to be congratulated on the paucity

    1189
    of the matters of acute criticism to which it has been subjected to-day. There has been a wide field covered, but I admit there are some matters which might have created criticism which have been put aside because at this moment they are subjects of judicial consideration. The hon. Member for Gravesend raised again the question of Somaliland. I dealt very fully with the situation in that country and with the intention of the Government in Debates in this House on the 24th of February. I am sure that the hon. Member and other hon. Members realise that I cannot give information here as to our plans for the future, which might be conveyed, and certainly would be conveyed, to the Mullah, and would nullify the chance of our plans being successful. Subject to that limitation, which is one which must always be exercised by anyone making statements in this House. I will tell the hon. Member what he asks. What is the situation there? The present situation is that we are getting 450 camel constabulary and 400 of the Indian contingent. Of those 400 of the Indian contingent I have now arranged that 150 will be mounted, and will act with the Camel Corps, and that increase will be an added strength to the Camel Corps stationed there.
    Sir G. PARKER: What about camels?
    Mr. HARCOURT: They are being provided. Sheikh and Galoli only are occupied at present. Galoli is about 17 miles south of Sheikh, and has been specially occupied as a training ground for the mounted force which has been built up gradually since I last addressed the House on this subject. When the new Commandant gets out to Somaliland, which he will do in the middle of August, as soon as he is satisfied with the training of his corps, we shall then probably reoccupy Burao, some time perhaps early in September, though I do not wish to commit myself to an exact date. From there our intention is to support the friendlies in their grazing at the mouth of the Ain Valley, towards Shimberberris, of which they have been recently deprived by the fact that there was a small number of the Mullah's men in the neighbourhood, which discouraged and so frightened the friendlies that they have not yet returned. We shall give them the necessary support to enable them to reoccupy the grazing, the loss of which would no doubt encourage the friendlies
    1190
    to pass over to the Mullah. I explained that in February of this year. It is to avoid any such unsatisfactory result that we have slightly increased our forces, and are intending, as at present advised, to reoccupy Burao. I have no more to say on the subject of Somaliland, because the situation has not altered at all since I explained it to the House in February. I am glad to say that the not infrequent reports one reads in the newspapers of a great advance by the Mullah, or of raids by the Mullah or attacks on the British position, are entirely untrue. Those reports alarm me as they alarm other people, but when I make inquiries I get the inevitable telegram that there is not the slightest foundation in any of these reports that have appeared in the Press.
    Sir G. PARKER: Is it a case, then, that the reports in the Press concerning raids within the last few weeks are wholly inaccurate? A question was asked of the right hon. Gentleman in the House by an hon. Friend of mine concerning a raid upon a friendly tribe by the Mullah's followers. Is that inaccurate?
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, so far as I am aware, absolutely inaccurate. There does not seem to be the slightest foundation for it, I am glad to say. The hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey) raised the question of the East African Labour Commission Report, and drew attention to some of the evidence which had been given. I hope that he and others will not make the mistake of confusing the evidence with the Report of the Commission. That is a most undesirable thing to do, because the Report of the Commission does not at all reflect a good deal of the evidence which has been given. It is quite true that some of the witnesses before that Land Commission expressed the opinion that the present native reserves were too large. I do not share that view. I do not intend to attempt to increase the amount of available labour by starving the labourer of the land on which he lives. Native labour interests are carefully safeguarded by the Ordinance of 1910, which laid down very strict rules as to the recruitment of labour. The recommendations of this Commission are now under consideration, both by the Government and by myself. I am not prepared to announce any final decision in this matter. I am well aware of the local demand and the necessity for increased labour. I think the Committee may trust me

    1191
    to move cautiously in this matter with due regard to both sets of interests concerned. With my assent, improved arrangements are now being made for the internal transport of labour, so that it shall not be discouraged by its present discomforts. A revision of native and general taxation may quite possibly be necessary in the future, but, if so, that matter must be considered independently of its effect on the labour supply, and it must not be used as an indirect means of increasing it. Our officers in the East African Protectorate, though it is their proper duty to afford information as to where employment may be available, do nothing which savours of or suggests Government compulsion in the matter of recruitment. It is sometimes difficult to discriminate nicely between advice, persuasion, and compulsion in this matter, but I base my policy on the instructions given by the late Mr. Chamberlain to Government officials in Southern Rhodesia in 1901 in these words:—
    "The Government, through its officials, confines itself to what is necessary for the protection of labour, namely, ensures that the contract entered into is regular, contains no false representations, and is understood by the natives, and that proper treatment is given to the natives before and after they are handed over to the actual employer."
    The hon. Member also mentioned the case of the Masai. I am happy to say that they have abandoned their appeal to the Privy Council, not because it was not open to them, but no doubt on the advice of those whom they employed for that purpose. I am glad to be able to say that the Masai, with the exception perhaps of a single chief, Legalishu, who has no followers, are now abundantly satisfied with the new reserves. In the last twelve months I have been able to provide excellent water storage by dams and one or two barrages. I had a delightful private account the other day from a man who has been in the Masai reserves helping the natives for over six months, and he says that they are satisfied with the new water supply, which enables them to graze thousands of acres which they could not utilise before.
    The hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Mac-master) referred to the Tasmanian crisis. I think that my dispatch, whatever other complaint there may be, makes my position abundantly clear. I have laid down in that dispatch nothing new. I have laid down only what I believe, and
    1192
    what I thought most other people believed, to be the rules which properly govern any constitutional ruler or Governor acting on his behalf. I conceive there is an impropriety in a Governor imposing conditions upon an incoming Minister, especially in imposing the condition of a dissolution on a Minister who is coming in immediately after the Governor has refused a dissolution to the other party. I have dealt with the constitutional question in the dispatch briefly, but quite clearly, because it was referred to me by the House of Assembly. I am glad to find that there is very little controversy in this House as to my attitude, except on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), who differed, I think, from my view as to the discretion which a Governor may have to refuse a dissolution. He quoted certain authorities to which we all attach great weight. I would ask the hon. and learned Member to consider himself in the position of a Governor—if I should be so fortunate as to be able to obtain him—who is asked for a dissolution by his existing Ministry. He refuses, a dissolution, and the Ministry resigns. The Governor has only one alternative: he must find another Ministry which has a majority in the Legislature and is able to carry on without a dissolution. Other than that he has no alternative at all except to grant the dissolution which he has been attempting to refuse. I do not call a discretion which is so limited by the course of events a very useful discretion for the Governor, nor one which it is desirable to lay down as an effective discretion in our Constitutional usage.
    The hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) rather invited me to deal with the personal position of Sir William Macartney. I do not think I need do that to-day. I selected Sir William Macartney, not because I have known him in this House, but because I knew him as a Civil servant, as Master of the Mint, where he had done capable work. His political opinions neither encouraged nor discouraged my recommendation of his appointment. I happened to recommend to His Majesty for appointment in the same week an Orangeman to Tasmania and a Roman Catholic to New South Wales, and I was equally and refreshingly abused in each case for the selection I had made.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the incident now considered closed by the Tasmanian people themselves?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think so; I have heard of no further action on the part of the Tasmanian Government since the arrival of my dispatch. I myself regard the incident as closed. The hon. Member for Chertsey suggested that there should be greater supervision of the emigrants from this country for the purpose of directing such emigrants to British Colonies and Dominions. I am happy to say that nothing of that kind is necessary in the present circumstances. I do not think the hon. Member had in mind what is the proportion of the emigration from this country that goes to British Dominions. I am glad to be able to inform him that it is 74 per cent. of our total emigration. In that direction great service has been done by one of the most modest offices—of which not much is heard by the public—the Emigrants' Information Office, which is not a subordinate department of the Colonial Office, but is formed under the ægis of the Colonial Office—
    Mr. MACMASTER: How much of the 74 per cent. is attributable to Governmental action?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I was not claiming any credit for the 74 per cent. who go to British Possessions; indeed, it is not necessary to claim credit for a fact which is satisfactory to all. The hon. Member was only anxious that people should go to British Possessions and Dominions. I am glad to say that they do, to the extent of 74 per cent. of our total emigration. A considerable part of the change in the proportion has been, due to the work of the Emigrants' Information Office, and also to the great activities of the Dominions which happened to require emigrants of a particular kind and at a particular time. The hon. Member also invited me to set up a Press censorship or bureau here to supply the Dominions and British Possessions with such accounts of our doings as would be satisfactory to—I am not sure whether he meant to him or to me?
    Mr. MACMASTER: To truth.
    Mr. HARCOURT: What is truth? I quite agree with the hon. Member that a greater amount of that commodity filtering daily into the Press would be a great advantage to the Dominions and even to the Home Country. But I am afraid we shall have to trust to the play of natural forces, and perhaps even to a greater public demand for the substitution of accuracy for mere sensation, for the result
    1194
    which he and we should desire. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hackney (Sir A Spicer) have drawn attention to the South Africa Land Act. I think it is necessary, if I am to discuss it at all, that we should completely understand what that Act means and what it does. It is not a sudden inspiration of the Botha Government. It is the outcome and result of a Commission appointed by Lord Milner some years ago, presided over by Sir Godfrey Lagden. The Commission was appointed,
    "in view of the possible federation of the South African Colonies, to gather accurate information as to native affairs so as to arrive at a common understanding on questions of native policy."
    The recommendations of that Commission were three: first, that in the interests of Europeans and natives alike, the purchase of land by natives or Europeans should be limited to certain areas to be defined by law; secondly, that the same principles should govern purchasing and leasing; and, thirdly, that the unrestrained squatting of natives on private farms, as tenants or otherwise, was an evil, and that it ought to be dealt with on the principles of the Cape Act of 1899. That Commission sat for two years. It had upon it representatives of every Colony and territory. It arrived at what I believe was a unanimous report, and this Act is practically doing no more than carrying out its recommendations. The Act has already been in operation for twelve months. The Commission of Inquiry, which was to be instituted under the Act is now sitting. It is bound by the terms of its appointment to report within two years, and will probably report by Christmas next. The whole of this Act is a temporary measure until that Commission reports. A native deputation has come over and seen me, and I believe many other members. That deputation left Africa against the advice of General Botha, and against almost the entreaties of Lord Gladstone. They knew that the Act would not be disallowed, because that had been announced months before in South Africa. Before the day the deputation saw me the period of twelve months during which that Act could be disallowed on my recommendation had already expired, and it is now an Act which can only be suspended by the Government and Parliament of the Union of South Africa.
    Sir W. BYLES: Does it forbid the holding of land by natives?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my statement as the time is short. The suspension of the Act would be worse than useless at the present stage. It would suspend the Inquiry which is taking place at this moment in the interests of the natives themselves. I cannot believe that any further Commission is necessary, as the existing one seems-to me both efficient and sufficient. The principle is to set apart land for the white and native populations with no power of purchase by either in the domain of the other. The Act gives for the first time a statutory basis to the existing reserves. They cannot be reduced, but may be enlarged on the recommendation of the Commission. The Natal reserves, I am told, are already quite capable of accommodating 30 per cent. more natives than at the present time. This Act does not interfere with any of the existing arrangements, or any of the contracts which have been made. The native is not prohibited, as has been said, from buying land at the Cape, and he may do so elsewhere in the Union of South Africa by permission of the Governor-General. The consent of the Governor-General has already been given in certain cases where it seemed desirable that the natives should be allowed to purchase particular portions of land. The Act is transitory till the Union Parliament, on the advice of the Commissioners, has made other provisions. The Lagden Commission recommended segregation as desirable in South Africa, and I think that the arguments have been reinforced by the occurrence of cases of Black Peril which we have had to regret, and with which we have had to deal in recent years.
    The squatting of the natives on absentee landlord farms has been very undesirable. It has led to constant stock thefts. Joint white and native farming, which has taken place in some places, has always been prohibited in the Free State, until I think quite accidentally repealed in a Consolidation Bill a year or two ago owing to a mistake in drafting. If the natives are farm labourers there is no limit to the number who may reside on white property. If not, they are not dispossessed until Parliament acts upon the Report of the Commissioners, and then only when suitable land is provided by addition to a native reserve. There is no necessity to send cut a British Commission, which is one of the things I was
    1196
    asked to do, when one is already at work in South Africa. I think it would be quite unprecedented, and I am not quite sure whether it would not be an insulting procedure. General Botha has written a letter to the members of the deputation. Part of it has been read in the House to-day. I am not sure whether it was this part, but perhaps I may be allowed to read some of it, seeing it was a letter to the natives:
    "When the lime arrives for introducing such, legislation, it is the intention of the Government to make full legislative provision for such gradual expropriation of land owned by Europeans within defined native areas as may from time to time be necessary for the settlement of natives on such lands under a regularised system for the acquisition of land by natives within such areas, for the gradual extension of the system of individual tenure wherever the natives are sufficiently advanced to appreciate its advantages, and for the good government and local administration of affairs in native areas by means of Native Councils and otherwise. Meantime, all lawful contracts between natives and Europeans existing at the date of the proclamation of the Act, whether in respect of the sale, lease, mortgage, or occupation of land, are recognised as valid: but in view of the definite decision of Parliament no new contract can be entered into without special sanction."
    The deputation which saw me admitted that they were satisfied with those promises of General Botha. They asked me on behalf of the Imperial Government to guarantee General Botha's words, to back his Bill! I think that is an unheard of request; it would be a proceeding of insolence on my part. What is more, it would be quite inefficient. If General Botha breaks his word I have no power to enforce it. I cannot bind his successors. If the Government of South Africa is not to be trusted in this matter they are to be trusted in nothing; and we know perfectly well that they can be trusted in these matters. Note what has been done with respect to the Indian Immigration Act. This was passed not from local desire, but from Imperial considerations. The provisions of that Act have been accepted by the Colonists and by the representatives of the Indians, who consider it the Magna Charta of the Indians in South Africa. I think that that should be a sufficient guarantee as to the way in which General Botha proposes to act. General Botha, too, used these words in Parliament:—
    "He had told the deputation that he had given standing instructions to the magistrates throughout the country that if they found anyone in their districts ejecting natives from the farms they had to go and make inquiries and report to him. He had in all those cases which had been brought to his notice used the influence of his Department—the Department of Native Affairs—to get the people evicted placed in location? or in some other farm He had done his utmost in every respect to alleviate any distress that might be caused,

    1197
    and that was the attitude he proposed to continue…It was has policy to see to it that a feeling of contentment and satisfaction was created among the native population."
    Though this country has never surrendered the proud position and the proud boast that it is the protector of the natives, I think we must have some regard to the sovereign powers of the Union of South Africa, and we should not be invited to intervene in the matter until gross and palpable injustice have been alleged and proved. That is not so in this case. That natives have not yet made an appeal to their Union Parliament. The Prime Minister of South Africa has tried to induce them to do so. He is also Minister for Native Affairs. He has promised to protect them, and there is no reason to doubt his ability to do so. In a period of transition such as this is, in the native question there are certain to be some hard cases, but I believe that they will be treated with consideration. There is nothing in the record of the Union Government to raise any suspicion in our mind, or in the native mind, of unfairness towards the natives, or that this action of the Union Government has not been taken purely upon the recommendations of the British Commission which sat some years ago. I believe that a just and considerate segregation would probably lead to the greater happiness of both whites and blacks in these parts of South Africa. The deputation which has come here ought to make their appeal to their own Parliament, and not to appeal to us against their own Parliament, except upon the basis of proved and admitted injustice. They have neither proved, nor is there a suspicion of any such injustice to the blacks.
    Sir G. PARKER: Is it not the case that under the South African Constitution this Government have no power whatever to intervene in such a case as has been cited to-day in regard to the natives?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think I would put it as broadly as that. I think intervention would be difficult. I am not sure that some forms of intervention would not be undesirable. The question does not arise, and there is no reason to doubt the justice and consideration of the treatment that the natives are likely to receive. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt) moved a reduction of this Vote, and I am not quite sure upon what point he moved it. He made objection to the fact that the Federated Malay
    1198
    States have been considering the possibility of raising a loan in this country. They have not done so yet. I do not think they are likely to do so for some little time to come, if at all. If such a loan is raised, it is not required for hospitals and the various works which the hon. Member specified, but entirely for remunerative railway extension, which will begin to pay interest and sinking fund probably from the moment of its construction.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not the fact that hospitals, nurses and doctors, are very badly needed in the Malay States, and that there is not money enough to provide them?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I do not think those are facts. There is no doubt that in hospitals and medical supplies improvements might well be made, but I think I am safe in saying that some have been made in the last four or five years. I do not say that the Federated Malay States have yet reached perfection, but I cannot for a moment admit the language of the hon. Member for Ludlow as to the "Dreadnought" being in the nature of a tribute. That "Dreadnought" was not exacted from the people. These people are not our subjects. It was a voluntary gift from allies.
    Mr. HUNT: Surely that is not the case! Was it not on the suggestion of the Chief Secretary of the Malay States, who is practically dependent on the British Government? Surely that was stated in the dispatch.
    Mr. HARCOURT: The facts were that the rulers of the Malay States discussed this matter with the gentleman who the hon. Gentleman has referred to, and they unanimously expressed a desire to present a "Dreadnought" to this country. The first I heard of it was an intimation from the rulers themselves that it was their desire as allies to make this present to the British Empire. It is not the case, as has been suggested, that the taxation of the people is heavy. The taxation of the people in the Federated Malay States is practically nil. The revenue is raised from the railways, Liquor Duties, Export Duties on tin, rubber, and other products, which do not fall on the native at all. The hon. Member in his speech also invited me to pursue inquiry into Colonial investments and the incidence of the Income Tax. I am afraid that there is no special relation in that to this Vote, and I am certain it would

    1199
    take up a much longer time to-night than I can give to it. But I have also a knowledge that it was fully discussed in the Debates on the Finance Bill, and that, indeed, a concession and an Amendment was made on the particular point raised. The hon. Member for Radcliffe (Mr. T. C. Taylor) complained of the delay in the printing of Colonial Reports. These Reports are derived in the first place from Colonial Blue Books, which are prepared in the Colonies at varying dates. Some of the Colonies use the calendar year; others use our financial year.
    These Reports are prepared quite at different times in the different Colonies. I have urged Colonial Governors to send these Reports as early as possible. What I can say is that they are printed as soon as they are received, after having received decent consideration in the Department. If, however, the hon. Member likes, I will give another reminder to Colonial Governors of our desire to have these Reports as early as we can get them. As to the Reports of the Federated Malay States, I have no control over their finance or of the publication of their Reports. The hon. Member also put a question relating to opium in Ceylon. He asked me when con sumption was to cease there. All the consumers of opium in Ceylon are on the register, and no addition can be made to their number. Consumption, therefore, must disappear on the death of the last registered consumer. As they the off the consumption is, of course, declining. The imports of opium into Ceylon are falling rapidly. They have fallen from 16,300 lbs. in 1908 to 11,780 lbs. weight in 1911. The average for the last two years is 9,700 lbs., so that what the hon. Member for Radcliffe desires, the end of opium in Ceylon, is approaching—not, perhaps, so quickly as the hon. Member desires, but still there is a reasonable approach to finality. As to Hong Kong, I am afraid I must differ from him as to the question of registration there of smokers. Registration is impossible. Where hundreds pass the frontier daily from Canton to Victoria, it is quite impossible to have strict or effective registration. The opium farm has now been terminated, and has become a Government monopoly. Opium divans are absolutely abolished. The price has risen from 3¼ dollars per tahil (l⅓ ounce) in 1908 to 5½ dollars in 1913, and to 8½ dollars in 1914. There has been a large increase in price, and discouragement of consumption
    1200
    has resulted from Government control in the Malay Peninsula. In the Straits Settlements in January, 1910, the Government took over the trade, and there the constantly changing population also made registration impossible. But we have restricted the consumption by raising the price and by stopping smuggling. The price of opium in September, 1909, was 3 dollars; in January, 1910, 3.30 dollars; in April the same year, 4.30 dollars; in May, 1912, 5.50 dollars; and to-day it is 6.50 dollars. So that we have more than doubled the price.
    The fees for smoking shops have also been largely increased, and in consequence of the increase in price which has been made since May, 1912, the consumption has fallen 8½ per cent. in the Straits Settlement, and 6 per cent. in the Malay Straits. The Preventive Department in these Straits have been active, and it is rather ominous what they have done. They have seized 22,000 tahils of opium in 1911; they also seized over 2,000 ounces of cocaine, and 3,360 ounces of morphia. In 1912 the seizures had decreased, but again 454 ounces of cocaine and 228 ounces of morphia had been seized. These are very ominous figures when you consider what a small dose is required to be given for the destruction of the human body or soul. I am happy to say there is this indication, which is rather striking and curious, that although it is said the people are tending more with the shutting down of opium to those other drugs, that in the gaols of the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States—these are the only places where you can make compulsory examination—fewer men come m with punctures in their arms, and I hope that is some indication that the vice is not making serious headway. In Weihaiwei since 1909 there has been a prohibition of all except registered consumers. None can be added. At the end of 1913 there were only 30 registered consumers out of a population of 150,000. Opium divans are prohibited.
    The hon. Member for Brentford raised questions about imported labour in East Africa. There is no forced labour, public or private, in the East African Protectorate to-day. There may be occasional bits of forced labour inflicted by native chiefs, but that is not what the hon. Member meant. I said in a letter, and I repeat it publicly to-day, that forced labour for private profit is slavery, and as such should be stopped. The hon. Member dealt with the Ceylon Excise question. I am sorry

    1201
    he did not come to the deputation that waited on me the other day, and where he was expected, as I should have greatly valued his knowledge and experience. If he had been there he would have found the answer to many of the questions he put. Many of these questions were asked and answered. The policy is that we have put up an experimental distillery, which is in existence now. That was not put up for the supply of spirits to the consumers, but it was put up in order that the Government might be able to teach their Excise staff, and to learn facts and cost, and what would be the proper rate hereafter to charge, and what are the proper duties that might be raised upon the arrack produced. Undoubtedly it was and is still the policy to erect one distillery at a time if the plan is going to be pursued further, and if the experience of the experimental distillery suggests to the Government that that is the proper way to deal with the matter. Something must be done to get rid of the present distilleries; they are filthy holes and shanties, often without locks and with back doors, where smuggling goes on frequently. They are frequented by the worst possible characters, and they are not possible distilleries to maintain for any length of time, if distillation is to go on at all. The Governor has already announced in Ceylon that it is not his wish to erect these distilleries if private enterprise would come forward and do it.
    It was objected to by the deputation the other day that the Governor had never said that he would allow distilleries to be erected by private enterprise. I have looked up the point, and that fact was made public in Sir Henry McCallum's dispatch of 1912, printed in a Paper presented to the Legislative Council of Ceylon. I know the Governor would encourage private enterprise if he could get it, but I do not want to see private enterprise at the cost of our having to give them security of tenure, or some advantage at a loss to the Excise, which we would find it difficult to get back. I would far prefer to see buildings put tip by the Government, not for the distribution or sale of liquor, but buildings to be let to the contract suppliers. The hon. Member referred to a fixed minimum price which had at one time been arranged and then abandoned. It is abandoned, of course, for a definite reason. First of all, it was unenforceable, and, secondly, the minimum fixed was four and a half rupees, but the
    1202
    selling price has more than doubled the old minimum, and in many places the selling price of arrack is from nine and a half to eleven rupees. The supposed increase of arrack consumption to which the hon. Gentleman drew my attention is, I believe, due to the fact that a very large quantity of illicit sales which took place in the past are being stopped. There was an enormous quantity of illicit traffic, and now the illicit drinker is coming more into the open and on the statistics, and therefore undoubtedly you will have an apparent increase in the spirits sold, but I do not believe there is an increase in the consumption per head of the people. My object, and that of the Government of Ceylon is to encourage temperance in every way. Hon. Members and I may differ as to the method adopted, but I think they do not doubt that our object is the same even though they may think mine is a mistake.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is clearly the intention to continue the erection of Government distilleries in Ceylon! Would it not be possible to deal with the bad distilleries by getting rid of these bad distilleries, rather than erecting new ones?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think we could get good distilleries erected by anyone but the Government, unless you gave private enterprise such advantageous terms as would entail loss of control and loss to the Excise system, which I should be very sorry to see happen. We only intend to erect one distillery to start with, and I can promise the House that before a second distillery is erected there shall be time for discussion as to results and experience from the first distillery.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that one distillery is decided upon in addition to the experimental distillery?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, there should be one distillery put up. But it is quite possible, when the Government of Ceylon have gained the experience required from the experimental distillery, they may decide to lease it.
    Mr. HIGHAM: It is not the intention of the Government to allow one distillery to be erected in a district and to allow all the other bad ones to remain. As I understand, the intention is to erect a distillery and to close all the bad ones.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Of course, where a distillery is erected to supply a particular district, the bad distilleries would be closed. I do not mean the bad distilleries all over the island unless I may be allowed to erect good distilleries all over the island. We must make one experiment, and then we shall have an opportunity of judging whether it is desirable to continue the experiment. The hon. Member for South Donegal has referred to the question of the chartered companies. I really cannot in these days go back to the Raid Committee, nor am I inclined to set up another one, but if the hon. Gentleman wants any information that can be reasonably required from Rhodesia, we have got the High Commissioner and the Resident Commissioner, who will be able to supply what is required. I am not prepared to give a decision as to what I am going to do about the Charter when it comes up for revision on the 29th of October. I am not going to say whether it is to continue or whether it is to be amended, or whether it is to be cancelled. One of the reasons why I am not prepared to announce any decision is that Lord Gladstone has only to-day landed in England, and I wish to have the advantage of consultation with him upon the matter, and I desire to say nothing further about the chartered company. I am sorry not to have been able to leave more time for hon. Members to speak. I have had to condense my reply, as I felt bound to observe the agreement come to by both sides of the House, and if the hon. Member opposite will withdraw his Amendment for reduction, I shall move to report Progress.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This is the last chance we shall have of discussing this matter of the Chartered Company before it is finally settled. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell the House what his intentions are with regard to Rhodesia, because we have only at present had one side of the question in this House in the monstrous attacks made by the hon. Member for South Donegal. I feel something ought to be said in answer to that, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not said more in dealing with the statements of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for South Donegal accused the existing Chartered Company as being a gang of swindlers responsible for the massacre in Matabeleland and charging ruinous rents to white settlers.
    Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. If the hon. Gentleman is to be entitled to make a speech now, I want to know will I be entitled to make a speech also. This is strictly perhaps not a point of Order, but I wish to ask that question.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is really not a point of Order. I believe there is a general understanding that as soon as possible after 7.30 we should take the Education Vote.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I had intended to reply to the attacks which have been made upon the Chartered Company by the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) because they are untrue. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give his decision in reference to the Chartered Company before the dissolution?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member has asked me whether I shall be able to give my decision before the dissolution.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I mean before the prorogation.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think it is quite possible I may be able to do so before the prorogation. Lord Gladstone has only arrived to-day and I wish to consider the matter with him.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not wish to stand between the House and a discussion of the next Vote, but I wish to seek an early opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for South Donegal, and I regret the right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the accusations which have been made, and which may have a serious effect in South Africa.
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member will have his opportunity on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. HUNT: Although I am not satisfied that I have received a proper reply from the right hon. Gentleman as there seems to be a general wish to take up another Vote, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    COLONIAL SERVICES.—(Class V.)
    Resolved, "That a sum. not exceeding £603,014, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-

    1205
    ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [Note.— £137,000 has been voted on account.]

    CYPRUS (GRANT-IN-AID).—(Class V.)
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus." [Note.—£49,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move to report progress.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I find that I cannot do that, because if we report Progress the Chairman will leave the chair, and we cannot go on with the other Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman may withdraw the Vote.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Then I ask leave to withdraw this Vote.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    BOARD OR EDUCATION.—(Class IV.)
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,480,621, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid." [Note.—£5,250,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I make this Motion in order to afford an opportunity of discussion to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who, I understand, are very desirous of bringing forward certain questions in regard to the Administration of the Board of Education. I must express my regret that not more than three hours and twenty minutes will be available for a discussion of the important question of education in this country, towards which so many millions of money are to be devoted. I regret this all the more, having regard to the fact that we are not to have the benefit of
    1206
    that introductory speech which the present President of the Board of Education has always made when introducing the Estimates, and in which he has given us a very full survey of the condition of education in this country at the present time, and the progress that has been made during the past year. I regret it the more because we understood two years ago that a comprehensive measure of educational reform was to be introduced into this House, and I had hoped, and I have no doubt many of my hon. Friends also hoped, that the President of the Board of Education on this occasion would have been able to give us some idea of the principal provisions of that measure, although it may not be introduced this Session. It was even more necessary that he should do so considering the statements which have been made on various platforms, if not by himself, certainly by one of his colleagues, as to the grave defects of our present system of education, and as to the methods proposed to remedy those defects.
    The President himself, together with the Permanent Secretary, has lately visited Germany with a view to inquire into some of the details connected with elementary education in that country, and I think he will be the first to state that the condition of elementary education in this country is not so bad as has been represented, certainly by one of his colleagues. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to give us an account of his visit to Germany which we are all very anxious to hear. I think the President of the Board of Education will be ready to support me when I say that I believe, on the whole, elementary education in this country is more advanced than in Germany, although not so advanced as in some parts of France. As regards practical instruction it is only in recent years that the Germans have introduced any practical instruction at all into their schools. Not long ago the idea of putting up workshops in connection with their elementary schools would have been absolutely ridiculed by German educationists, but recently when they came over here and saw what we had done they went back and wisely imitated us in that respect. It is so often stated that Germany is in advance of this country that I think it is as well to say something in favour of the educational system here. Our elementary education is fairly good, but it is certainly susceptible of improvement in certain directions.

    1207
    Here I desire to call attention to a matter to which I have referred to on more than one occasion, but it is only by reiteration and insisting upon a subject that we can get anything done. The point I wish to refer to is the inadequate and insufficient encouragement which is still given to practical instruction in our elementary schools. I am very glad to learn that the Board of Education are proposing to encourage manual training in our training colleges. That is a very wise step on their part, because unless our teachers are conversant with the methods of manual teaching the good results which we expect to derive from that method of instruction are not likely to be realised. I may add that in France every instructor in an elementary school is obliged to go through a course of manual training, and I hope that before long our training colleges will give that instruction which is so indispensable to successful teaching. I notice from, the Board's Report that during the Session 1912–13, in seventy-one areas in England no provision whatever was made for instruction in any branch, of handicraft. It is true that the number of scholars has increased from 241,733 in 1910–11 to 259,393 in the years 1911–12. But this is a very small proportion of the 6,000,000 pupils who are being educated in our public schools. If, in addition to handicraft in all its various forms we include domestic subjects and gardening, which is taught in some of our schools, the total number of children who are receiving manual instruction of any kind at the present moment does not exceed 800,000. That is to some extent, but not wholly, the fault of the Board of Education, and it is for that reason that I refer to this subject now. Handicraft teaching, which, in the opinion of all recognised authorities in this country is of the greatest possible value, and is of equal importance with what we generally understand as the three R's, is still regarded by the Board of Education as a special or extra subject, and is not placed in the same position as the ordinary subjects in the code. Notwithstanding certain questions which I have recently addressed to the President of the Board of Education the manual training teacher, however well trained he may be, and although he may devote the whole of his time to this kind of teaching, is placed in an inferior position to other teachers, and is not enabled at the present moment to come within any State supported scheme of superannuation.
    1208
    I hope that these matters will be considered very carefully, so that handicrafts may be made an essential and obligatory part of our elementary education.
    8.0 P.M.
    Another point I wish to refer to is one of the most important questions which are now under the consideration of this country, and that is the question of the education of children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen. We have heard a great deal about the waste of money and effort in consequence of the fact that such large numbers of children leave our elementary schools and go into different occupations, some of them blind alley occupations, in which they forget a great deal of what they have learned, and when they require to receive more advanced instruction in some of our science or technical classes they are wholly unfit to take advantage of the instruction that is there provided for them. Now this great waste of money on teaching, and its results has generally been recognised, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has done to remedy this defect. Private Members, with more zeal sometimes than knowledge of the difficulties connected with this subject, have introduced Bills into this House, and some of their suggestions have been of so extravagant a character that they could not possibly receive the support of this House. The question I have referred to is to my mind one of the most serious that the Board of Education have to consider, and so far they have left it largely to private members, instead of doing what I cannot help thinking is essentially their duty—that is, preparing a scheme and backing it up by Government support. Much has been said of the necessity of compelling young persons to attend evening continuation classes, but those who make these suggestions too often fail to realise the very great difficulties which are in the way of compelling young persons between the age of fourteen and seventeen to attend classes of this kind. I wish to take this opportunity of placing before the Board of Education through the President some of the questions which I cannot help thinking the Board should consider before asking the local authorities to compel young people to attend classes of this kind. In the first place, it is the duty of the Board of Education to indicate what should be the kind of instruction given to the children who are expected to attend these classes. I have not seen that question dealt with in any of the Bills that have been brought

    1209
    before Parliament, and I am not aware that the Board of Education has yet considered it. If you are to compel children to attend continuation classes you must first settle what sort of instruction you are going to give them, because it is absolutely essential that the instruction should be practical, or otherwise, whether you compel them or not, they will derive very little benefit from the teaching that is given. Therefore, the kind of instruction given seems to me the first matter that ought to engage the attention of the Board. Having decided that, the Board might recommend the local authorities to adopt some approved scheme. At the same time the greatest possible liberty and freedom of action ought to be left to the local authorities, who are in many cases far more competent than the Board of Education to indicate the nature of the instruction to be given. Then it has to be settled whether these continuation classes should be held in the day or in the evening. We have heard from nearly all quarters that evening continuation classes in this country for children between these ages are a failure, and I am inclined to agree. I do not think that it is reasonable to ask young people between thirteen and seventeen to attend evening classes after their day's work is over. You are asking of them a great deal more than they can do, and, if you were to attempt to compel them to do so, you would be compelling them at the risk of their own health and physical development. Therefore, if the evening classes are a failure, as has been stated on numerous occasions, it is for the Board of Education to see in what way they can induce children to attend classes during the daytime, and for that reason it is most important that they should put themselves in communication with employers of labour, because it is only by an arrangement with employers of labour that we can induce them to allow their employés to attend classes in the daytime, and at the same time, we hope, not take away from them any of the wages which they earn. That is another question which I think should be considered.
    There is something else. Can we say at the present time that there exist buildings in which these day classes can be held? I am not aware of any. You could not expect day classes to be held in the ordinary elementary schools. You would require separate buildings in which the classes could be held. It appears to me
    1210
    that all those who have made wild statements about compelling children at the present time to attend day continuation classes have failed to consider some of the most important questions which have to be solved before any such scheme can be brought into general operation. At the present time one does not know what the instruction is to be, and in what buildings that instruction is to be given. Another important question is who are to-be responsible, if children are to be compelled to attend these classes, for such compulsory attendance, and, I would say further, under what Department of State? It would be very difficult to compel parents to send their children to school and to fine them if they failed to do so; and it would be equally difficult to compel children to attend and punish them if they did not do so. It has not yet been settled under what Department of State these continuation schools should be held. It may not be generally known that in Germany, and I believe also in France, these continuation schools are held under the Board of Trade and not under the Board of Education. The reason assigned is that the instruction should be of a practical character, adapted to the occupations in which the children are to be engaged, and it is thought that the Board of Trade is better qualified than the Board of Education to deal with trade instruction as distinguished from academic education. As I have stated, the evil is recognised, and the question is, What remedy should be provided?
    I would ask the Board, in taking this matter into their grave consideration, not to be influenced to too great an extent by what they see being done in Germany with regard to these schools. We have heard a great deal about the system of continuation schools in Germany, and particular notice has been made in this House of the schools which are established in Munich. We have not heard from the President of the Board of Education and the Permanent Secretary what is their opinion of the schools which have been established in Munich. I think anyone who has made himself acquainted with the continuation classes in that city will certainly recognise that they cannot be very well initiated in this country. We have to recognise that the whole conditions of industry are different here from what they are in other countries, and nothing is more unwise

    1211
    than to attempt to transplant from any foreign country a system of education which is found to be attended with good results there. I was very surprised to find that so great an authority as Lord Haldane has spoken in the most favourable terms of the system of schools existing in Germany, and particularly in Munich. He went so far to say that this country is in grave peril of losing its commercial position in consequence of our not having schools of the same kind. He said, in a speech made not long ago:—
    "The British workman finishes his education at thirteen. In many parts of the Continent their training was now going on to sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen, not a training merely in general education, but in the chief points of the calling which the workman was going to exercise in the future. We should have to face that in six or seven years from now."
    We have had to face that for the last twenty years, and I do not hesitate to say that the system of training in connection with the workman's trade does not stop in this country at the age of thirteen, or at the age of eighteen. It goes on to the age of twenty-one or even later. There is no country in Europe in which the facilities offered to a workman to continue his education in connection with his trade are equal to those that can be obtained in this country. I hope for that reason that we shall not hear much more about the continuation schools in Munich. I have looked into this matter and have found that in these schools, instruction is provided for chimney-sweeps, for stokers, for printers, for hairdressers, and for butchers. I find that for every twenty-five apprentices in the city of Munich a separate trade school is started. The schools are held in the day time, and the hours of attendance are about six or eight in the week. There are about fifty different trade schools in the city of Munich. We want in this country to establish continuation schools for children when they leave the elementary schools, and before they enter any economic occupation. These schools, on the contrary, are for those who are already apprentices, and who have found useful employment. It is to the advantage of employers that they should have the opportunity of sending their apprentices to a school where they will learn the details of their trade, which it is the duty of the employers to teach them. Compulsion is not necessary, because, of course, the employers are only too glad to have the opportunity of sending their apprentices there.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: May I ask whether some of the children do not go straight from the elementary schools into these other schools?
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Very few of them. Of course, both in Germany and in France there are higher schools into which many of the children are drafted. That is particularly the case in France. Of course, these continuation schools, either in this country or in any other country, are only intended for those who are unable to attend higher elementary or secondary schools. One is glad to note that a much larger percentage of the children in this country have the advantage of secondary education now, and I should be very glad if we could see further encouragement given to those central schools, or higher elementary schools, which are included in our national system of education, but which for one reason or another do not appear to have been so successful as we might wish to have seen them. I suggest, therefore, that before attempting to introduce compulsion for children of the ages to which I have referred, in place of the voluntary efforts which are already being made, we should settle those matters to which I have drawn the attention of the Committee. Personally, I do not think that any course would be better than that the Board of Education should at an early period appoint a Departmental Committee consisting of representives of local education authorities, of employers, and of other persons engaged in education, to consider the various important questions which I have ventured to bring under the notice of the House.
    Sir JAMES YOXALL: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down contained some very valuable suggestions and some wise criticisms, not only upon existing conditions in our elementary educational system and continuation system, but also upon some of the remedies which are brought to us by enthusiastic persons from abroad. I would, if I might go so far, point out to my hon. Friend that perhaps he himself may have appeared to lay a little too much stress upon the importance of what is called manual training in our elementary schools. I agree that for a very large number of children, perhaps the majority, at our public elementary schools, manual training is a thing to be afforded and encouraged, but I would also point out that there are in every school a

    1213
    considerable number of children who are fitted for other than manual occupations, and I would therefore plead that the balance of instruction between scientific and literary, and manual and practical, that which will fit children not only to make a living, but also to live, should be maintained as far as possible. I also agree with my hon. Friend in what he said as to recent efforts by private Members to affect the conditions and by-laws with regard to the age of school attendance. Again and again in recent years we have had introduced in this House by private Member's Bills of too large a scope for a private Member's Bill, proposing changes, alterations, and amendments of too drastic a nature for the private Member or the promoters of a private Member's Bill to hope to carry through this House. I agree also that the efforts of private Members having failed, the onus of some effort in this direction lies more strongly on the Board of Education, and putting these together with the suggestions which the hon. Member has put forward that we should have legislation to secure something like compulsory attendance at continuation schools—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with a question of legislation. He must confine himself to the administration of the Education Board under the existing Statute law.
    Sir J. YOXALL: I was going to suggest, In face of proposals of the kind to which allusion has been made, it would be well for the Board of Education to devote itself to extending and improving the system in ordinary elementary schools, and to making better provision for continuation education than now exists. One essential way of improving your system of elementary education is, of course, to provide more money for the purpose from central sources. We have had during the last few months from the right hon. Gentleman very valuable statements as to what the Board of Education intend to do upon this point. We understand they propose to take the earliest opportunity for so changing the arrangement of Grants to public elementary schools as to encourage, by further monetary aid, those local educational authorities who do their duty in this respect very well, and to penalise to some extent those who do not do their duty very well, and also by general provisions to secure an improvement in the work done in public elementary schools.
    1214
    If there can be added to that some administrative provision with regard to existing by-laws, giving power to the Board of Education to do away with such by-laws as permit of irregular and interrupted attendance at school; if, for example, the half-time system of attendance in Yorkshire and Lancashire could be abrogated; and if the local authorities' by-laws regarding the optional leaving of school earlier than the statutory age could be modified and discouraged, these things, together with an improved system of Grants, and a more complete system of attendance at public elementary schools would go far to prepare children, while in these schools, for continuing their education after they have passed the school age, and might help to make them more anxious to go on voluntarily with their education after leaving school. These are points to which, no doubt, my right hon. Friend has already directed his attention, but I should like to impress upon him that he cannot too soon or too forcibly endeavour to bring them about.
    There are questions with regard to the money already promised by the Board of Education to what are known as necessitous school areas. I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir Henry Hibbert) will deal with this subject in his speech, but I am anxious that the city I have the honour of representing in this House should, to as large an extent as possible, receive aid out of this Grant, and we shall be glad to hear from the President of the Board of Education what are the proposals he intends to put forward and, if possible, what are the amounts which may be granted to new participants. There is a question with regard to certain schools in London at the present moment to which I wish to draw attention. Inquiries have been made in the London county area as to the structural conditions of many of the schools. A number have been scheduled in three classes, according to the defects in their structure and the need for improvements in the buildings and playgrounds, as well as the necessity for lighting the rooms. I am very far from saying that that action of the Board of Education is not entirely justified, and ought not to have been carried out. As far as I am concerned, I am not particularly interested in the aspect of the question which affects the denominational teaching in many of these schools; but I do wish to draw the attention of the Board of Trade to the fact that by these

    1215
    schedules and by the administration of the board which is to arise under Schedule A and the recommendations for improvements, the position of many teachers in these schools may be seriously affected. These teachers have served efficiently for many years in circumstances, to say the least, of much discouragement, and now they find themselves in danger of losing their posts altogether, and of not being able to obtain similar positions elsewhere. The closing of these schools may be a very serious thing for some of these teachers, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep that in view, and to do anything he possibly can for them whenever occasion may arise.
    Reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for the University of London to the fact that teachers of manual training in the public elementary schools are excluded at present from any system of State superannuation which is extended to other teachers. He might have added that the teachers of domestic subjects, which are of the greatest possible advantage to the girls, are likewise excluded. These teachers are often very highly qualified, particularly those in domestic subjects, who have to pass through along and expensive training in schools especially established for that purpose, and who are now doing most excellent work. The system of instruction in manual and domestic subjects is of comparatively recent establishment when compared with the teaching in public elementary schools, but surely the time has now arrived when the Board of Education should take into consideration provisions for extending to these teachers the advantages in regard to providing for old age which are accorded to the other teachers. I understand a Report has been presented to the Board of Education by a Committee which examined the question of the Superannuation of Teachers in Secondary and Technical Schools and Colleges, and I am told also that the recommendations of that Committee would enable those teachers who instruct in manual and domestic subjects in secondary schools to enter into the prospective scheme of superannuation. But that would not make provision for teachers of these subjects in the ordinary elementary schools. I am glad to gather from the Estimates for next year that a sum of money is being provided for the purpose of financing this system for the superannuation of teachers in secondary
    1216
    and technical schools, and I hope that when the Board of Education are perfecting their plans for this purpose they will take into consideration, so far as they possibly can, the cases of the teachers to whom I have just alluded, and I also trust they will take into consideration another very important suggestion, namely, that the service given originally in public elementary schools by teachers now engaged in secondary schools shall count for purposes of superannuation. That is a detail of great importance which I do not hesitate to draw to the careful attention of my right hon. Friend.
    I hope I may be permitted to say, with regard to the general administration of the schools by the Board of Education, the inspection of the schools and the oversight and care of the Board of Education in respect to the schools as a whole, that it is not easy to discover an opportunity for finding much fault. That may be a negative way of stating the matter, but in the past so much fault has been found and so many occasions for finding fault have existed that to comment on the absence of the need to find fault is a compliment. I desire to tender to my right hon. Friend and his officers the thanks of many people in this country who feel that they have now at the head of the Board of Education sympathetic and understanding persons, who are as anxious as anybody possibly can be to help the schools financially more than has been the case in the past, and to give as much help as they possibly can to the local authorities and the teachers as well. But there is one Department of the Board of Education which I must exempt from these remarks. I cannot say that in my own opinion or in the opinion of a great number of persons connected with the art schools of this country, whether they are managers or teachers of those schools, that the work done in the technical branch of the Board of Education is carried out in an efficient or sympathetic way. I have alluded to the desire of the President of the Board of Education to supply more of the sinews of war to the elementary schools, but I find that in the cases of fifty or sixty of the art schools in this country, the sinews of war, hitherto too scantily supplied, have been diminished. A Grant based upon attendance, upon an elaborate system of registration, and possibly in respect of students who are occupied in working during the daytime and are expected to attend the art schools in the evening is not, perhaps, the best form of

    1217
    Grant, but when a Grant based on the attendances of people who are busy all day long is reduced because of a technical failure to complete the number of attendances, though nearly that number has been attained and very good work has been done by the student—when the Grant is reduced and the school weakened, it cannot be said that the Board of Education in that department of its operations is doing what it certainly ought to do and what it can do for the encouragement of the teaching in these schools.
    Art teaching could be made a most valuable form of manual training. It might become in this country what it is in France, a most valuable source of national revenue, wide employment, and national wealth. If in this country we had a department administered, as the technical branch ought to be administered, with sympathy and knowledge—as you find in other countries, notably in France—then many of the complaints made against the work done in art schools would pass away, and in the arts and crafts of this country—the higher forms of manual work especially, and of design and artistic craftsmanship—the effects would soon be seen. One result would be a very considerable expansion of the exports from this country of artistic products made by the workmen trained and encouraged in that way. So far as I have been able to observe, the Board of Education, advised as they are by an honorary Committee, whose services are lavishly rendered although their advice has not always been of the most valuable kind, have in one way or another during the past three years, by regulation and by other administration, exercised a depressing effect upon the art schools of the country. The right hon. Gentleman himself for the first time on the part of a President of the Board of Education recognised the work done in these art schools by permitting an exhibition of the work to take place in a room in the Victoria and Albert Museum. That in itself has done something to honour and uplift the work; but when by a change in the system of examination and by various regulations which, so far as I am able to judge, are based upon no cogent or intelligent view of the duties and work of a Department which has to deal with art schools in this country, Grants are reduced, ex-elementary school children are prevented from going to the schools, the number of students is not in-
    1218
    creased but reduced, and the teachers in those schools—excellent men and women as many of them are—are discouraged and depressed, it is high time my Tight hon. Friend should devote his personal attention to this matter and discover for himself whether or not in that Department of his Board the operations are conducted with the same degree of intelligence and sympathy as they are in the other Departments.
    It is with some regret that I venture to offer these criticisms, because in most respects the direct reverse is to be said. I feel so strongly upon this matter that I venture to say that unless some change in the administration of the Board with regard to its work takes place before very long, then all the good art work which has been done in this country since the days of the Prince Consort will have to be set at nought and undone. There is a parallel case in the exceedingly official administration in connection with the Victoria and Albert Museum. I see opposite an hon. Member who is interested in the formation of a Parliamentary Committee to deal with the subject of art. It is not too soon that such a Committee should be formed. If such a Committee had been in existence, perhaps the outrage recently committed at the Victoria and Albert Museum would never have taken place. What has happened there within the last two years? It is an action worthy of the Vandals. The Ceramic Gallery, which was in its day and time a very considerable advance in art feeling in this country, and which is historically connected with the development of art at South Kensington and the art schools of this country, has been pulled to pieces, much of the fine work destroyed, and all to satisfy the architectural Puritanism of some members of the Advisory Committee at the Board of Education. It, is most deplorable that this should be. Attention has been drawn to it again and again in the Press, but apparently no effect whatever has been produced on the Board of Education. It may be that persons outside, distinguished artists, public men interested in art, the trustees of the National Gallery and of the British Museum and others, who protested in the Press and elsewhere, are all wrong, and that the Board of Education and its officers, are perfectly right upon this matter. If that is the case we shall hear from the President of the Board later on on what grounds this action has been taken in regard to the Victoria and Albert

    1219
    Museum, the Ceramic Gallery and so forth, and the paintings upon the walls and windows. I understand the windows have not only to be pulled out, but broken to pieces—at any rate they have disappeared. I hope we shall hear from him on what grounds that has taken place, and in what way he justifies the action of the technical branch of his Board which reduces Grants to schools of art when they need more money, which reduces the supply of students in the schools of art, and which upsets the managers and the governors of the schools, and the teachers.
    Sir HENRY HIBBERT: In view of the statement of the President of the Board of Education, and also of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a largely increased Grant is being given for education next year, I do not intend to say much about the elementary side of education, but I should like to make a few remarks on necessitous school areas. The President of the Board of Education, speaking on the Finance Bill on 23rd June, said:—
    "The £515,000 could be properly divided into two amounts, £438,000 for necessitous areas, and £77,000 for the provision of meals, which would meet about half the cost of providing the meals incurred by local education authorities during the year. Of that £438,000 for the necessitous areas, approximately £75,000 would be distributed amongst fifty-seven necessitous areas, who already are expending £350,000 of the necessitous areas Grants, and that and the other £175,000. would be in addition to the £350,000 These thirty-four authorities have not shared with the fifty-seven authorities, although their education rate has been over Is. 6d. in the £, and therefore it is proposed to distribute the amount of the excess over Is.60d. in the £ among these thirty-four areas previously omitted."
    What I want to know here is why should this £438,000, so far as necessitous school areas within county council areas are concerned, not be shared by them. The Act of 1902 gave local education authorities power to charge from one-half to three-quarters of the cost of buildings, and I contend that the Board of Education have no right whatever to penalise those local education authorities who have taken advantage of the Clause which I have mentioned. Take my own area, for instance. We have taken advantage of that Clause to this extent: We have provided, or arranged to provide, places, by building new schools, for 35,874 children at an expenditure of £534,652, and we have never hesitated since the appointed day to build a school where a school was required, or where the inhabitants of the parish interested could tell us that a fair proportion of children would attend that school. What is the
    1220
    position in the counties? I represent the Education Committee of the County Councils' Association, who feel very deeply on this question, who have debated it on numerous occasions, and have made representations to the Board of Education on it, but without result so far. In England there are 250,000 areas in the counties where the rate is from Is. 6d. to 2s. 9d. in the £. In Wales there are 186 areas where the rate is from Is. 6d. to 2s. 7½d. in the £, and yet with the exception of Anglesey and Glamorgan, not one among these areas will, at any rate as far as we can gather, receive any assistance as a necessitous area from the Board of Education. I take it that all counties which pay taxation to a central authority, say, like the Board of Education, expect to get something of their expenditure in taxes back again. The assessable value of the counties of England and Wales, not including London, is £71,000,000 out of £199,000,000–35 per cent. of the whole. I am not speaking for my own country, because we have had hitherto only two of these necessitous areas, though several other areas will soon fall under the same category. I am pleading for the county councils generally. But in my own county we pay 1–25th of the whole taxation of the country and we get nothing at all back, not even in the two areas we have which are necessitous school areas. The question, I know, is an exceedingly difficult one. It bristles with problems which are both financial and religious, and I therefore contend that if any departure is made from the Act of 1902, it ought to be incorporated in a new Education Bill. I am far from believing, although my own county imposed three-fourths of the cost of a new school on the parish served, that that is the proper amount. I think it is too much. I think one-fourth would be quite sufficient. But at the same time I am firmly convinced that in the interests of economy, and no less the interests of education, you must have some charge, or you will be compelled to build schools almost at everyone's back door.
    The next questions I wish to deal with are in regard to secondary education. The President of the Board stated on 23rd June that the success of a nation undoubtedly depends upon the extent to which the population has been educated and trained. I think every Member of the House will agree with that statement. We have also heard that the Chancellor of the

    1221
    Exchequer has promised an additional Grant of £560,000, £395,000 of which next year is for secondary as distinct from technical education. I contend that even with these Grants the amount is absolutely inadequate. Up to 1902, little had been done at all for secondary education. What is being done to-day? My expenditure out of the rates for 1912–13 amounted to £117,500 for higher education. What share did the Government pay of that? I find that the total expenditure of the Lancashire Education Committee on higher education is £231,887. The Government Grant amounts to a little over £79,500, and it represents 34.3 per cent. of the total cost; the rates provide £117,440, which represents 50.6 per cent. of the cost, while the fees themselves amount to £34,768, or 15 per cent. of the cost. I contend that at least one-half of the cost of secondary education, particularly in a county area where it is extremely difficult to administer, should be borne by the Board of Education. On 23rd June the President of the Board of Education said that:—
    "Some authorities have thought it necessary to establish secondary schools, but other authorities pass by-laws which tend to restrict the age and encourage children to leave school at an early age."
    While that may be the case with some few authorities, and I have no doubt it is, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself supplied the answer to it when he said that it was no doubt caused by pressure from the ratepayers and ratepayers' associations. If this is so, and if education is essential to the national prosperity, then I agree with the Kempe Committee that there should be a distinction between the richer and the poorer areas, and between areas which spend much and areas which spend little upon education. I sincerely hope that in this respect the new Government Grants for secondary education next year will be Grants in relief of already existing taxation and not, as they have been hitherto, Grants to encourage you to spend a larger amount of money in order to earn them.
    In my county we attach great importance to secondary education. We wish that every child, boy or girl, in the county shall have the advantage of an education which will enable him to get on in life, and in order to do that we have authorised a minimum fee in all our secondary schools of three guineas per annum. We endeavour to induce children to come from the elementary school into the secondary school before twelve years of age. The result of these low fees is that each child we educate
    1222
    in a secondary school costs £8, after allowing for the Government Grant. We go a little further. Formerly the Board gave local science and art Grants of £4, £7, and £10 for the first, second, and third years respectively for each free place made available in a science or art school. Now these Grants have been withdrawn, and as a condition of earning the higher Grants of the Board we are compelled to give 25 per cent. of free places. Our position is financially worse. I do not wish the House to misunderstand me for a single moment, I attach the greatest importance to the provision of free places, but I do think that when the Government insisted on 25 per cent. of free places being given in secondary schools, a Grant commensurate with the loss incurred by the education authority should have been given to that authority.
    There is another thing in connection with this subject. In addition to the loss of £8, we pay the travelling expenses of those who live far from a secondary school, and in many cases we pay a maintenance allowance. Possibly everybody in the House looks upon Lancashire as a commercial county pure and simple, and it will probably surprise hon. Members when I tell them that, in addition to being a commercial county, we are the second dairy county in the country. We have to bring children long distances, in order that they may enjoy the advantage of a good secondary education. In many cases the distance is too far for the children to get home again at night without an enormous amount of trouble, and a great amount spent in railway fares. Therefore, in those cases, we pay maintenance allowance for the children, and all this adds to the enormous cost of secondary education, which, we contend, should be met to a larger extent than at present from the taxes, instead of from the rates. Eighty-seven per cent. of the children in our secondary day schools are from the elementary day schools, and nearly 35 per cent. of the places in our schools are free. If you come to the fifth and sixth forms, you will find that 57 per cent. of the fees are remitted.
    Another cause of expenditure is the necessity of getting good teachers and paying them well. You cannot pay the price for a secondary school teacher which that teacher deserves, after the high and expensive education which he or she has had, if you have to pay the amount entirely out of rates. The taxes must

    1223
    come to our assistance. There is another point which I mentioned last year when I spoke with reference to a revision of the Board's Grants to secondary schools. At present no Grants are payable by the Board of Education in respect of pupils under ten years of age attending secondary schools, whereas, in respect of children between five and ten attending public elementary schools, Grants varying from £2 to, in our case, £2 1s. 4¾d., may be obtained. Further, no Grants are payable by the Board for children between ten and twelve, unless they have been previously in attendance at a public elementary school, whereas a Grant averaging £2 1s. 4d. would have to be paid in respect of such children if they were in attendance at a public elementary school. In connection with that, when presiding over the Committee of the County Councils Association last week, I received the following letter from Cheshire County Council:—
    "The attention of the Cheshire Education Authority has been called by the governing body of the county secondary school, Crewe, to the working of the above article as affecting the Government Grant. In the particulars of the Board of Education Grant for lust year is the following: 'Grant under Article 36 (a), twenty-seven pupils at £2=£54.' The head master reported that of these twenty-seven pupils seventeen had been receiving instruction during the school year in the same form with those over twelve years of age, and for whom the Board of Education paid a Grant of £5 per head. It was considered that in cases where pupils under twelve years of age are taught in the same form as pupils over twelve, it is a hardship that a smaller Grant should be allowed towards their education, because the cost of educating such pupils is not less than that of educating pupils over twelve years of age; further, that pupils under twelve are frequently the brightest in the class."
    I think we are all agreed, at all events those who follow education matters very closely will agree, that it is absolutely essential that if a child is to reap the full advantage of secondary education, he or she must enter a secondary school not a day later than twelve years of age. Therefore it seems only reasonable to expect that a Grant should be made in respect of any child at a secondary school, irrespective of age, provided that that child would be eligible for a Grant in an elementary day school. There is no reason why the Grant to children under twelve should be lower than the Grant for children over twelve. I made a remark similar to this when speaking on the Estimates last year, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) said in reply that he hoped the President of the Board of Education would not take too serious notice of the
    1224
    suggestion which I made that he should give the maximum Grant of £5 per pupil payable in respect of children under twelve in secondary schools. Then he went on to say:—
    "If you allow children under that age to come into secondary schools, you may very well have places in them absorbed which ought to be reserved for the excellent pupils who are coming from elementary schools."
    I do not at all agree with that opinion. It is not, at any rate, a course which would be followed by my Committee. In furtherance of that opinion I may tell the House that in September, 1911, we built a large secondary school at Eccles, a non-county borough in Lancashire, with accommodation for 391 pupils. The schools cost us £16,643, and it is now considered too small. It was built in 1911. My committee did not at once say, "We are going to refuse some of the children who come to this school because they are children from an elementary day school or children who crowd out other children who would pay fees." Without a moment's hesitation we said we would enlarge the school, and so I am inclined to believe would all education authorities who have the interests of their pupils at heart. I wish to go on now to the higher technical side of education We all attach an enormous amount of importance to technical education. Both hon. Gentlemen who preceded me have spoken of its desirability. I notice that in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Committee on the Financial Statement, he spoke as follows:—
    "The other Grants are for technical, secondary, and higher education, to make it more accessible to the masses of the children, to extend its sphere of influence where children show any aptitude to take advantage of it."
    Then he went on to say:—
    "We compare very unfavourably with Germany and the United States of America in this respect—very unfavourably. There there is adequate provision for technical training, secondary and higher training for every child who shows any especial gift for taking advantage of it, and I consider that this fact is a greater menace to our trade than any arrangement of tariffs would be."
    9.0 P.M.
    In spite of that, and without wishing to weary the Committee with statistics, I can only say that while the trade of this country has increased enormously in the last ten years, the trade of Germany has increased to a very much larger extent, and that whereas in 1903 Germany was only £44,000,000 behind us in our exports of produce and manufactures, in 1913 she was only £29,000,000 behind us. And I certainly do assume the mantle of a

    1225
    prophet and tell the House that before ten years have elapsed the exports of the produce and manufactures of Germany will be the largest of any country in the world. I attribute that, in a very large measure, to the technical and scientific training which her sons receive. Legislation has greatly aided technical education in this country. The passing of the Technical Instruction Acts has been of inestimable value to us, supplemented by the Education Act of 1902, which undoubtedly has been a source of part of the immense prosperity we have enjoyed in recent years. Of course a very great deal depends upon the energy and perseverance of our people. So far as technical education is concerned, it is answerable to a very considerable extent for the very large expansion of our trade—in Lancashire at any rate. I can say, again in consequence of burning the midnight oil on the part of these students, that to-day at least 50 per cent. of the looms in Lancashire are owned by men who a very few years ago were operatives, and that the commercial predominance of Lancashire and Yorkshire is maintained by the constant flow of men from the operative classes. A question was asked some time ago as to whether no children went direct from the elementary day school to the evening continuation school. In my county, taking the county as a whole, non-county boroughs, urban and rural districts, at least 32 per cent. go direct from the elementary day-school to the evening continuation school. It was also stated that you could not expect boys, after a hard day's work, to go to an evening continuation school. I have always contended that there should be some sorting age, when the wheat should be sorted from the tares, and I am very much inclined to believe that, not by adopting a scheme of compulsory evening continuation schools, but by endeavouring to persuade the children themselves, and bringing a little influence to bear on the parents, you get by voluntary methods into your evening continuation schools exactly the class of boys and girls upon whom it is in the interests of the nation to spend money.
    The Grant which we are going to receive in aid of technical instruction is a small one. I would like the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education, to recognise that the technical schools, particularly the higher technical
    1226
    schools in this country, are doing a national work, and that we are educating in the higher branches of education a large number of students who will spread all over the British Dominions. I remember very well a case in point of a poor boy, who was a collier in Wigan, a boy with an enormous amount of grit. He attended the evening classes in a mining school after working in the pits the usual time, and he is now one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines in India. I could give numberless examples of a similar kind. At the ordinary school-leaving age education is only just begun, and if an adequate return is to be expected from primary education, education must be carried forward. The right hon. Gentleman promises £100,000 out of the £560,000. The higher technical institutions in this country are small in number. The equipment of many of them is absolutely inadequate. The teaching staff consists of highly trained full-time masters. We cannot afford it out of the rates. Two or three years ago I was told by a very great authority that there are more day students in the technical school or college at Charlottenburg than there were in the whole United Kingdom. I regret it, and incidentally it is to the disadvantage of the trade and commerce of this country. We must not lose sight of the fact that the higher technical school is to all intents and purposes the artisans' university. Why cannot we have from the Board of Education Grants similar to those which they gave to Scotland? I have been making a comparison, and I find that the English Grants are for a minimum of fourteen hours per student, and the Grants in Scotland are for a minimum of ten hours per student. Why is there this difference? Take the rates of Grants under 2 Chapter 2 of the Regulations, I find that in England—this is for literary and commercial subjects—the Grants are from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d., or specially from 5s. to 8s. In Scotland the amount is 5s. 10d. in the first year, 10s. in the second year, 15s. in the third year, and 25s. in the fourth and succeeding years. Why cannot we have the same Grant?
    Take division 2 (art), and division 3 (science). In art the Grant in this country is 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d., and in special cases up to 15s. In Scotland they are the same as in literary and commercial subjects, from 5s. 10d. up to 25s. in the fourth and succeeding years. In science, in England, the Grant is 2s. 6d. to 15s.; in Scotland,

    1227
    8s. 4d. in the first year, 13s. 4d. in the second, 20s. in the third, and 35s. in the fourth and succeeding years. In England the amount of the Grant payable bears definite relation to any institution's expenditure. In Scotland, so long as the Grant is earned, it would be paid up to the maximum of three-fourths of what is termed "approved expenditure" of the institution. How does that work out? Take two schools in England and Scotland where the approved expenditure is the same, £5,600. In the case of Scotland, if the Grant is earned, three-fourths of the approved expenditure would be paid (£4,200), leaving a balance of £1,400 to be met by the authority. In England the Grant earned would be £3,000, leaving a balance of £2,600 to be met by the authority. Why this difference between England and Scotland? You may say this would lead to extravagant expenditure. That is not the case in Scotland, because they are not an extravagant nation. Further than that, the Board is quite well able to pick out cases of extravagance. I am rather inclined to believe that the Board themselves are inclined to consider this matter, because I find in Circular 795, 6th June, 1912, the following:—
    "The Board desire to give notice that it proposes under the terms of Article 15 to call annually for a full account of income and expenditure in more important schools aided under the Regulations for technical schools. It is desired that accounts of this kind, compiled on a uniform basis, should be available in order that the Board may have accurate knowledge of the cost of technical education of the more advanced types."
    Then it goes on to say:—
    "It is especially necessary to obtain such information in view of the possibility that the cost of maintenance may at some date become an element in the assessment of Grant for the more important schools."
    I hope that the day is not very far distant when the Board of Education will put us on exactly the same financial footing as they do Scotland. There is one other item of which I wish to speak, and that is with regard to internal and external examinations. This is a serious question. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his eulogy of the Board of Education and its staff, from whom I have received the greatest kindness, courtesy, and consideration, I am, as he was, forced to make this exception. There is a serious tendency at the present time on the part of the Board of Education to override by means of regulations the powers of the local education authorities as vested in them by Act of Parliament with respect to higher education
    1228
    Unfortunately, this is not confined to the Board of Education, but is a common complaint with respect to other Government Departments. I dare say you may have noticed in the papers that the Urban District Councils' Association met in London quite recently, and a resolution was passed calling attention to the powers which the various Government Departments ascribed to themselves which are not sanctioned by Acts of Parliament. The lever which is used in all cases is the conditions which are attached to Grants made by the various Departments. Dealing with the question of education the Act of 1902, Part II., Section 2, Subsection (1), states:—
    "The local education authority shall consider the educational needs of their area, and take such steps as seem to them desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary, and to promote the general co-ordination of all forms of education."
    This is a great charter of liberty given to local education authorities, and it was intended by the framers of that Act to be a charter of liberty. The local education authorities are only asked to consult with the Board of Education, and then they may take such steps as seem to them desirable. The point I wish to make is illustrated by the recent action of the Board of Education with respect to internal examination in evening technical schools. The Board of Education in the Regulations state that they are prepared to endorse the certificates of students, provided those certificates are awarded on the results of internal examination at the end of the five years' course conducted by the teacher assisted by an external assessor. The local education authorities of Lancashire and Cheshire are not in favour of such a scheme. We have acted for a great many years under a union known as the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes. The union has been in existence for something like seventy-five years, and marches with the times. On the council of that union you will find representatives of all the education authorities of Lancashire and Cheshire. In addition to that, there is an Advisory Committee of teachers with which the council consult not only as to the syllabus which is framed, but, after the result of the examination is known, in order that the council may determine whether the syllabus has been such as to suit the capabilities of the students and the needs and necessities of the district. The idea of the Board of Education to substitute internal for external

    1229
    examinations called for a deputation from this union, which met the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. Their plea to the President was that it—
    "should be permitted that the various authorities within the area of operation of the union's work should, if they so desire, adopt external examinations, and that the results of those external examinations, combined with the record of the students' work throughout the session, should be accepted by the Board of Education as sufficient evidence for endorsement."
    The Regulations of the Board of Education are so framed that the opinions of the local education authorities, who have power given to them by this Section of the Act of 1902, are ignored. I think I may safely say that they have not received that consideration which I think they ought to have had. I submit that their powers under the Act have been overruled, and also the fundamental principle that the Regulations of any Government Department should be so framed as to comply with the Acts of Parliament. In this case local education authorities should have the option of stating whether they desire external tests or not, and if they deliberately choose external examinations, the Board of Education should not refuse to accept them as evidence of efficiency. In the face of this it is passing strange that whilst one branch of the Board of Education, the secondary branch, is going in for external examinations, another branch of the Board, the technical branch, is doing all they possibly can to get rid, of them. Let me read some of the conditions of this circular, and then you can form your own opinion of them. It is desired in Circular 776, in the first place, that the teachers shall frame their own schemes of work; secondly, that they shall draw their own syllabus; thirdly, that they shall conduct their own examination; and, fourthly, to issue their own certificates in the final year of the course, the examination to be conducted by the teacher in conjunction with an external assessor. The Board consider such an arrangement is sufficient to maintain the standard of efficiency. I should like to appeal to the Members of the House who have sat for examination in any profession, or in anything calling for examination, whether that examination would be considered satisfactory if they were examined and the certificate given to them by the very men who taught them? We have the greatest confidence in my county, as I think you may have all over the country, in the bona fides of your teachers, but at the same time you have
    1230
    got to consider that the teachers are your paid officials, and that you must have some outside appraisement of the work which they do. I do contend that this setting up of an internal examination in the face of the work which this Lancashire and Cheshire Union of Institutes has done, and in face of the work which the City Guilds of London Institute has done—and I gather that is also threatened—warrants the grave consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: I am sorry time does not permit dealing with the many very valuable points dealt with by the last speaker pithily and with expert knowledge, which he possesses in an eminent degree. I thought until the last five or six minutes of his speech that it would only have been necessary for me to express the hope that if his side ever gets into power he would be the President of the Board, but during those last minutes I got very alarmed and I decided I could not express that hope. If there were time I would like to discuss in detail the attitude the hon. Gentleman has taken up, and that apparently his committee in Lancashire has taken up, in regard to this very excellent change on the part of the Board of Education in regard to the dealing with students and teachers, and their work and their education generally. I will only say this to the hon. Gentleman and to those who think like him, that we are pre-eminently the country wedded to a system of external examination. We have held on to it when all the enlightened educationists of the world have long ago abandoned it. In the universities they would regard such a suggestion as he has made with horror, and the suggestion that any kind of person who will have no association with the students can impose the final tests and the tests on all occasions. It is wholly necessary that we should apply the same broad, sane ideas in education—
    Sir H. HIBBERT: I think it is an admitted fact that the examinations at Oxford and Cambridge are practically external examinations, and that no teacher of the students would be allowed to sit on the examining body which sets up the syllabus for the examination.
    Mr. E. JONES: My point is that the gentlemen who conduct the examinations and who are associated with the general drafting of the syllabus are not

    1231
    external individuals who have nothing to do with the district. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be an appraisement of the work, that it should be frequent and exhaustive and detailed, but that can be better done by inspection of a thorough and proper kind than can ever be done by promiscuous tests. An occasional written test, for which pupils are worked up, is not, after all, a proper appraisement of the work that has been done, either from the point of view of the teacher who has been responsible or the point of view of the teacher. If time permitted I would like to discuss in detail why I think the Board of Education has been excellently advised in this matter, and that I welcome the movement very much indeed. It is an old controversy that goes down to the very roots of the meaning of education and its purpose, and therefore cannot be disposed of in a few minutes. Before going to the general aspects, I want to put forward a plea to the President over a matter that has happened in Wales. The hon. Member (Sir H. Hibbert) spoke with legitimate pride of the work of the Lancashire County Council in the realm of secondary education. If he will permit me to say so, I think Lancashire has a good deal to do yet before it will have done what my little country of Wales has done in the last few years in secondary education. I believe the hon. Member knows that we do not spend £3 per head upon scholars and come here complaining that it is too much to spend, but that we spend four, five, six, and in some places seven times that out of our local means upon cur scholars and pupils in various parts of Wales. It is a great system of secondary education, which up till recently has been the admiration of all educationists from America and from the Continent, as well as from this country.
    This system was in the hands of a Central Welsh Board, the first Board of a National character set up in Wales, and more or less representative and democratic in its institution. That body for many years did very admirable work, until falling, as I am afraid the Lancashire Education Committee is beginning to do, into the trap of its own efficiency, it began to regard papers and certificates as more than the real sinews of character and culture, and degenerated in the last few years. Subject to that criticism of the last few years we do in Wales owe a great
    1232
    debt to this Central Welsh Board which, out of nothing, built up this big framework of secondary education throughout the whole of the land; particularly in the poorer rural districts and out-of-the-way parts of the country. Recently certain officials, and such an accident can happen to the best conducted authority in any part of the land, have been found guilty of very, very serious defalcations in their offices, and there have been very painful disclosures in the Assize Courts, and a situation has arisen with which, of course, the President of the Board of Education is bound to deal. I want to ask the President to be careful, and I want to utter a word of warning as well as a word of appeal with regard to this matter, which is vital and serious to the whole Welsh people. Since this Central Welsh Board was constituted by Act of Parliament, a Welsh Department of the Board of Education has been set up. As was natural—I do not complain of it at all—this Department immediately had to endeavour to get all the ropes into its own hands. Bit by bit it had to get hold of the work, and in doing so the Department necessarily came into conflict with the officials and others of the Central Welsh Board. For several years it looked as though a very nasty fracas was going to take place between the two authorities; but, owing to the great tact, statesmanship, and skill of the officials at the head of the Welsh Department, they managed to come to some kind of working agreement with the Central Welsh Board, and they have, during the last year or two, succeeded in making an arrangement which does not give rise to much overlapping. The Welsh Department has been very beneficial to the Board. We are indebted to them for their criticism of the action of the Board in the over-emphasis upon papers, certificates, and all the miserable things that signify very little in the real education and its effective culture of the mind and character of the pupil. The Board of Education, through its Welsh Department, tried successfully to alter the point of view, and necessarily came into keen conflict with all the aspirations and work of the Central Welsh Board.
    Now that this occurrence has happened in the financial department of the Central Welsh Board, there is a danger that the President may be led by his officials to pounce upon the Central Welsh Board and take action which may mean its destruction. This is the warning I want to give: The President must remember that this

    1233
    Board, in spite of the sad occurrences of the past few weeks—which hurt the Welsh people more than anybody else, and which the Welsh people will take good care to deal with in their own way, thoroughly and drastically, through their representatives—is a national body, democratic in its origin, and representative of all the authorities and educational institutions in Wales, and that any attempt to destroy it because of this accident, or to supplant it, will lead to an uprising amongst the Welsh people which I would be the last man to wish to bring about his head. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether it is not possible to appoint some kind of Committee altogether outside the Department or the Central Welsh Board, to go into the whole question of the relations between the Central Welsh Board and the Department itself to try and delimit the work, and to consider how far the constitution of the Central Welsh Board is to be altered before he brings in his Bill. I think he will need Parliamentary power to alter that constitution, and I should like him to have the advice of such a Committee before he does it in the forthcoming Education Bill. In regard to the general aspects of the questions raised to-night, I was distressed to find that the hon. Member who spoke last did not follow the hon. Member who opened the Debate in a wise and sane balance as to the technical and continuation education of this country. I was really surprised to find the hon. Member, who knows so much about the question, after the remarks of the hon. Member for the I niversity of London, still giving expression to the exploded fallacy that Germany has a much more magnificent system of evening continuation and technical schools than we have. It has nothing of the kind. The hon. Member for the University of London was quite correct. It is true that Germany has its Charlottenberg, but it is a mistake to suppose that that is a school for artisans from top to bottom.
    Sir H. HIBBERT: I did not at all refer to it as a university for artisans.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: The hon. Member rather gave that impression, because immediately after speaking about Charlot-tenberg as the grand ideal, he spoke about artisans and technical schools. I accept his correction. I thought it necessary that that should be pointed out. There are schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire—in Manchester and Bradford—which, for efficiency and adaptability to the needs of this
    1234
    country, are superior to anything that can be found in Germany or anywhere else. We have a system of continuation and technical schools, higher ordinary technical schools and trade schools, and so far as the system goes it is superior to anything in Germany from the elementary schools-to the top. The only difficulty is that we have not the same number of students availing themselves of the opportunities for instruction in these schools that they have in Germany. The hon. Member for the University of London put his finger upon the one weakness. The thing to-which we in this country have to address our attention is not in the higher technical ranges, but in that dangerous period when boys are just leaving the elementary schools. That is where the great lapse is with us. Until we can solve that problem—and I would join with the hon. Member for the City of London in pressing the Government to set to work to solve it—we shall go on wasting valuable money which is needed for this great work of education. Whatever your system, whatever your school, you have to base it all on the education of the children of the common people. While I join with everybody in commendation of the advances which have been made, of the excellent schools in the towns and now spread over great parts of such counties as Lancashire and others where they have enlightened education authorities, it is still true, and we must give expression to the fact, that we have what I would' call slum schools—not schools in slums, but schools which are only fit to be described as slums in themselves—in-sanitary, dripping with water, ill-equipped, no pictures, no brightness from top to bottom, with books worm-eaten and germ-filled, and unfit to be put into the hands of children.
    We have hundreds of these schools still left up and down the land. In London, in every big city, in counties, whether Lancashire or elsewhere, there are these dens and hovels which ought to be a disgrace to an enlightened nation, and are certainly not places to which delicate children should be sent. I trust that the President of the Board, irrespective of the protests of urban councils, many of whom are sinners in this respect will keep up his pressure in this matter, and see that the children have proper schools to sit in, and proper equipment for their education. But supposing you get rid of all these bad buildings, and have equipment and

    1235
    apparatus of the finest kind, you have still to remember that the teacher is the crux of the whole question of education. The President of the Board has been questioned several times, both by myself and other Members, as to what is being done in regard to the supply of teachers. Up to a few years ago it looked as if we were gradually arriving at the time when all the children in the land from the infant schools would be in the hands of properly trained and competent teachers. During the last few years the tide has set back, and the dearth of teachers has become so serious that very soon authorities will be at their wit's end to comply with the Regulations of the Board of Education. The President in reply to my question said, "Oh, this is a matter for the local authorities." If it had been left to the local authorities ten years ago, they would have kept the supply, but it was the interference of the Board of Education, the putting of the screw upon the local authorities by the Board, that created the situation in which we now are. Since then the Board of Education have forced a new policy upon the authorities. They have been following that for years. Since it is the Board of Education that has done this, it is the Board of Education that ought to get the local authorities out of the muddle. It is useless, therefore, for the President to come down here week after week, and to say that the tide is going out more and more, and going dangerously out, and in effect that he is a mere piece of driftwood on this tide and it is for the local authorities to bring the tide back again. I can assure the President from what I know of the local authorities that they will not cope with it. The President knows very well that his training colleges in London, for instance, this year cannot fill their seats with students. They cannot get sufficient students to occupy their places. It is but a few years ago that we could not get training colleges sufficient. You could not get colleges for 40 per cent. of those who applied to get in. To-day you have training colleges begging for pupils.
    Unless the President and his officials of the Board of Education know some scheme by which they are going to deal with this shortage of teachers it is evident that some kind of Commission or Committee should be appointed to go into it to aid the President and the local authorities to try and find out whether or
    1236
    not a solution cannot be found. I want to ask the President to try and get the facts. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is not in possession of the facts of what is going on in the schools, and I will tell him why. The existing inspectors in many districts are gentlemen who were directly responsible for forcing the local authorities from the position they occupied in regard to this training of teachers up to ten years ago. The same inspectors are there to-day. They see that instead of an overwhelming number of candidates for the profession the colleges are begging for candidates and cannot find them. Those same inspectors, therefore, naturally do not put the President in possession of the full and alarming nature of the change that has taken place. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these men do not know what is going on with many of the local authorities to-day. There is a shortage of teachers. Inspectors do not know all, and therefore the President does not know. Those concerned take care that a certain number of qualified teachers are in the particular school ready by the time the inspector turns up. Immediately the inspector's visit has taken place those qualified teachers are shifted to other schools where the inspector will go in turn. I know a district where that has happened, where the inspector will go in his turn; in the meantime the supplementary teachers who have no qualification, some of whom are married, and should not—
    Sir H. HIBBERT: Can the hon. Member tell us where those schools are situated?
    Mr. E. JONES: Of course I cannot now tell you where they are for obvious reasons.
    Mr. G. C. HAMILTON: You said you knew the district?
    Mr. E. JONES: Certainly I do. I said I knew the schools, and I know the teachers.
    Sir H. HIBBERT: Cannot you tell us?
    Mr. E. JONES: No, I cannot give publicity to it for obvious reasons, because somebody would be persecuted.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Why should they be?
    Mr. E. JONES: Why should people be persecuted for giving information to the President of the Board? I was simply pressing upon the President that he ought to

    1237
    make these inquiries, and make quite certain that the schools are staffed according to the figures given to him. I simply wanted to point out to the House that it is no use the President of the Board saying that the supply of teachers is going down. That shortage will increase more and more. It is no use for the President to say, "I can do nothing; I can only wring my hands, and appeal to the local authorities whose scheme ten years ago I destroyed"—that is the Board—and not, of course, the right hon. Gentleman, but one of his predecessors. It is no use the President simply wringing his hands and say he will do nothing. The schools will one of these days be so tremendously understaffed—many of them are now—that the staffs will be much less qualified even than a few years ago. It is so serious a matter that I feel that I must press upon the President to try and see whether he cannot have some kind of conference with the local authorities to try to do something, and at once, in this matter.
    Mr. HOARE: Anyone who reads the many Reports of the Board of Education, and who follows the speeches of successive Presidents on this Vote year by year, would imagine that our system of national education at the present time was perfect. What is the actual fact? From the President of the British Association to employers and workmen, and men and women of all classes, the criticism is urged that the results of our present system are quite inadequate when they are compared with the £30,000,000 of public money that we are now spending upon it. What can you expect, what do you expect, when you start with 300,000 children in your elementary schools, who, according to the medical officer of the Board of Education, are underfed? What can you expect when 600,000 of them suffer from illness and infantile complaints? What further can you expect when no less than 500,000 are employed out of school hours, some of them a very long time, when obviously they cannot take full advantage of the teaching that is given them in the schools? Only the other day I read a report which was made to the York Education Committee. In it a case was quoted of a small boy of twelve who was working for no less than forty hours a week outside the hours of class at school. How can you expect good results if there are children in that case, children in great numbers both in the town
    1238
    and country schools? Further, what can you expect when three-quarters of the children in the elementary schools end their education at the age of thirteen, and something like half of them then drift into blind-alley employment?
    Lastly, what can you expect when there is no system of continuation classes for boys and girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen? In London only in the last few weeks we have had a remarkable instance of the absence of continuation teaching for London boys. Great efforts have been made to make the voluntary continuation classes popular in London. What do we find? We find that while 123,000 boys, between the age of fourteen and eighteen are in permanent employment in London, only 5,510 are attending evening schools. In face of all this, what have the Board of Education been doing? It would not be in order for me to allude to the promises which have been held out in the last few years of educational reform, but it is in order to say that the postponement of the Education Bill has complicated to a very great degree these problems of educational administration. It is also in order to say that if the President of the Board of Education had given greater support to the Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle with reference to the employment and attendance of school children, many of these problems would be far easier of solution than they are at the present moment. It seems to me that the greatest muddle which is to be laid at the door of the Board of Education is the muddle with reference to the supply and training of teachers. As the last hon. Gentleman who spoke said, it is upon the teacher that all these problems really depend. It is useless to attempt to introduce manual training into the school; it is useless to attempt to reduce the number of the classes if you have not a supply of adequately trained teachers.
    What is the present state of affairs? At the present moment we are no longer threatened, but we are actually faced with a dearth of teachers. This fact is, in my opinion, not a little due to the haphazard policy which the Board of Education have adopted in this connection. Let me give two or three examples. In 1906 the Board of Education embarked upon a policy of building municipal training colleges. Since then they have made Grants of no less than £500,000 to the local authorities for the building of these colleges,

    1239
    and since that time the places in these colleges has been increased by the number of 4,000. That is all very well but it is not very much good if you have not got the students to fill these places, and I am informed at the present moment that there is scarcely a college in the whole of the country that is not threatened with many empty places when the term begins in September next. I am informed that the London County Council are actually contemplating the closing of one of their colleges for the reason that there are no students with which to fill the places. Secondly, I think the Board of Education are to blame for having very suddenly revolutionised the training of students. I am quite aware that under the old pupil-teaching system there were several grave drawbacks. At the same time the fact of suddenly insisting upon the adoption of what is known as the Bursary system—that is a training in secondary schools—has meant as its direct result the stopping of the supply of students, particularly in the rural districts.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Who did it?
    Mr. HOARE: It must stand to reason that in country districts where there is no secondary school accommodation available it is difficult, and in many cases impossible for the country child to go through the Bursary system, and as a result to become a teacher. And lastly, I think the Board of Education are to blame for not having adopted any consistent policy. They have issued regulations with reference to the training that they require of teachers, and having issued them they have withdrawn them. The result has been to introduce a feeling of uncertainty which I believe has made many young men and women disinclined to enter the profession. The result of all this is that the young men and women entering the profession in 1913–14 were only 4,486, whereas in 1906 the number of those entering the teaching profession was not less than 11,018. It will, therefore, be seen that just at the very moment when we want more, and not fewer, teachers to carry out the requirements we all desire in the schools, the number of those entering the teaching profession has diminished by considerably more than a half, and those leaving the training colleges this term number, as the President of the Board of Education told me two days ago, only 5,300, whereas the vacancies
    1240
    in the teaching profession at the same moment amount to 7,000. I think these facts shows how serious is the problem with which those engaged in the administration of public education are faced at the present moment. I do not think that in the last two or three years the Board of Education has given sufficient thought to this very grave state of affairs. Now what is to be done I In the time at my disposal I can only pass hurriedly over two or three suggestions that I desire to make. I have already alluded to the need of the Board of Education adopting some consistent policy.
    I agree fully with what the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Edgar Jones) said as to the desirability of some general inquiry as to what is the demand for teachers over the whole country at the present moment. But I think the President of the Board of Education might take one or two other kinds of action as well. I think he might give greater encouragement to the various schemes drawn up by the local authorities. In the last Annual Report of the Board the hope was held out that the Board would give encouragement to schemes other than the bursary system and other than the pupil-teacher system. I cannot make out that up to the present moment the Board have done very much in that direction. Four authorities have made application for Grants under this head, and at the present moment none of them have received any financial assistance. I hope in the course of next year that we shall see a considerable development in this respect. I think also the President of the Board of Education could make the teaching profession more attractive in rural districts if he gave encouragement towards the provision of housing accommodation for the teachers in rural schools. I have had several cases brought to my notice in which it has been found exceedingly difficult for teachers to obtain suitable accommodation in country villages. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might do worse than offer local authorities Grants for the building of suitable accommodation for teachers in country schools. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman gives Grants for the building of training colleges he might equally give Grants for the building of teachers' houses.
    I think further he should do more towards helping local authorities to meet the growing expenditure which has been forced upon them by teachers' salaries.

    1241
    At the present moment almost four-fifths of the expense of elementary education goes in teachers' salaries. I do not criticise that for a moment, because it is in the order of things, but I would suggest, although it cannot be an ideal form of Grant, that the best way to raise teachers' salaries, which is very much needed in many country districts, would be to offer a direct Grant towards the cost of those salaries. That again would not be out of keeping with the general policy of the Board which gives Grants from £38 to £53 towards students before they become teachers. I cannot see why if you give Grants in one case you should not also give Grants to these people when they have passed through their training and have become certified teachers.
    10.0 P.M.
    In this connection I desire to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Education with reference to those older teachers, who, I understand, do not come under the superannuation scheme which has recently been adopted by the Departmental Committee of the Board. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to bring what are known as the pre-1912 teachers within the benefits of that scheme. I pass from that to the only other subject which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee. It seems to me that the Board of Education have given too little attention to the training and the supply of teachers. On the other hand, I think they are giving too much attention to the question of bricks and mortar. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] I take, as an example the case of the non-provided schools in the county of London. In April of this year the local authorities and the correspondents of the non-provided schools in London were amazed to receive a circular from the Board of Education making many extensive demands for structural alterations. In this circular no fewer than 150 non-provided schools, or about one-third of the non-provided schools in London, were included. These schools are not only Church of England schools, but include Roman Catholic schools and Jewish schools. We are as anxious as anyone that the non-provided schools in London and elsewhere should be in every way upon as high a standard as the provided schools. But it seems to me that the demands which the Board of Education made were in certain respects unreasonable and unnecessary.
    1242
    Does this Committee realise the real state of affairs? Since 1902 a sum of about £750,000 has, I understand, been spent upon bringing the non-provided schools of London up to the standard required by the Board of Education and the London County Council. By a great effort and by the generosity of voluntary subscribers this work has been done. In carrying it out the managers of the non-provided schools were certainly under the impression that they would be left to themselves for a considerable period, and both the Board of Education and the London County Council were under some obligation to them. They sanctioned the plans and the expenditure, and on the strength of this understanding many schools have spent large sums of money. I have here a number of cases in which the managers of these schools have spent thousands of pounds, and by doing so they have obtained the sanction and the recognition of the public authorities. I have one case in which no less than £15,000 was spent upon a school with the express sanction of the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education. I have thirty-seven other cases of schools upon which no less than £71,500 have been spent under similar conditions.
    What would the closing of these schools mean? It would mean, first of all, that to provide accommodation for the 50,000 children in them the ratepayers of London would have to find a sum of no less than £1,500,000. More than that, it would mean that a great reform which the London County Council has recently adopted for the reduction of the size of classes to forty in the case of ordinary children, and forty-eight in the case of infants during the next fifteen years, would be brought to a standstill. The London County Council under this arrangement are already finding 80,000 new school places, and it must be obvious, if they were required to find 50,000 further places, that the scheme could not be carried out. Again, if these schools were closed a large number of teachers would be displaced, and many of them, owing to their age, would find it extremely difficult to obtain fresh employment. It is worth noting in this connection that the London Teachers' Association have realised the gravity of this point, and have passed a resolution protesting against the action of the Board. Further, if these schools were closed, a great hardship would be inflicted upon many parents in London who prefer denominational schools. And what useful purpose would

    1243
    be served at all? If it could be urged that these schools were turning out children worse taught and of worse character than the children turned out by the provided schools, then I should say that the President of the Board of Education was amply justified in taking what action against them he thought fit; but can he say that in any way the children that are turned out by these 150 schools that he has scheduled are inferior to the children turned out by any 150 other schools, provided or non-provided, in the whole of the county of London?
    I, therefore, hope that, in view of the facts, the President of the Board of Education will be in his action both discriminating and sympathetic. Let him realise that we are most anxious to have the best schools possible. We want extensive playgrounds just as much as anyone else, but let him remember that in a crowded area, a crowded city like London, there are often great and sometimes insuperable difficulties in obtaining playground space. First of all, the non-provided schools have no powers of compulsory purchase. I have at my disposal cases in which the managers of non-provided schools have been anxious to obtain increased playground space, but, owing to the absence of the compulsory power of purchase they have been unable to obtain it. Let him also realise the great cost that in many cases this would impose upon the school. I am informed that to obtain playground space in London costs six times as much as it does in any of the other great towns of the country. Let him further realise that, although it may be difficult in some cases to obtain increased playground space, there may be other ways of providing space for the playing of the children in the schools. For instance, it may be possible to make use of play rooms in the schools, and, more important than that, it is possible in many cases in London to make much greater use than is being made at the present time of the public parks. It has often seemed to me that the public parks in London are to a great extent wasted. It would be much better for the children and for everybody concerned, if, instead of playing in the necessarily confined space of an asphalt playground, they could play regular games in the public parks. This is not a party question at all. I understand that many of those engaged in the administration of education
    1244
    in London on all sides of politics agree with much I have said. I have alluded to the resolution which was passed by the London Teachers' Association on the subject in February last. I cannot, I think, do better than read from it a short passage in conclusion. It is as follows:—
    "That this meeting of teachers in London of non-provided schools, whilst expressing its approval of the progressive improvements of the structural condition of non-provided school premises, is of opinion that, having regard to the complete and exhaustive survey of non-provided school buildings undertaken by the London County Council subsequent to 1st May, 1904, a period of rest, consolidation, and development should' now be assured to such schools."
    I hope that when the President of the Board of Education comes to reply he will be able to give us some reassurance upon this very serious problem.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: I would like to draw the attention of the Committee for a few moments to the Dowlais Roman Catholic School case, which has been causing a great deal of anxiety in South Wales during the last few months. I think it would be perfectly sufficient if I merely put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he is aware of most of the facts of the case. I would like to ask him whether he and the Board of Education entirely agree with Section 49 of the Report of Mr. Barker, the gentleman who went down to hold an inquiry into the whole of the case. I would like him to understand that throughout the whole of this matter I wish to keep separate and apart the two parts of the subject. There is first the question of the charges against the head mistress, which, I understand, is sub judice at the present moment, and there is the question of the dismissal of the eighteen teachers, which I think may very properly be brought up for discussion. The point on the question of the eighteen teachers is really and truly whether he, as President of the Board of Education, if he is in agreement with the whole of Section 49 of Mr. Barker's report, is also in agreement with the local education authority, who will not only pay these teachers' salaries, but the whole of their salaries, especially having in view the fact that the local education authority, although it has not paid the whole of these teachers their salaries, has already deducted from those salaries superannuation money. The third and last question I have to ask is, whether the right hon Gentleman agrees with Mr. Barker's report? As that report stated that these teachers were illegally dismissed

    1245
    by the local education authority, will he cause that authority to do its proper work in its proper sphere? In view of the fact that for three months the children have not been able to attend this school—
    Mr. E. JONES: There is a strike.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: If the Board of Education had held the inquiry earlier that strike would not have proceeded. In view of the fact that there is no complaint whatever against any of the eighteen teachers, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the school can be as efficiently carried on, in view of the work which it has to carry out, if the teachers, who are supposed to be at work in it, have been illegally dismissed by the local education authority?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): I should like, before I deal with the various questions which have been raised, to pay two tributes. The first will be to the memory of Sir William Anson, a prominent figure in these Debates for many years, whose death the whole House and country deplore. Not only have Members of the Opposition suffered a great personal loss, but I can assure them that many of Sir William Anson's political opponents regarded him with feelings akin to friendship, and I am quite sure that he endeared himself not only to political friends but to many in every quarter of this House, and the House misses him now, and education, that great cause, misses his very valuable and devoted support. I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the work of the staff of my own Board, because I believe never, in the history of the Board, has the work been more strenuous, more arduous, or more efficiently performed in the various departments of the Board. Long hours have been the rule rather than the exception, and I think the way in which the work has been done during the past year reflects great credit on every individual member of the staff.
    I have listened with great interest to the various speeches which have been made this evening, and, while I propose to deal with most of the points, I must compress my remarks, as far as I am able, because I desire to give the Rouse and the country some statistical information which, I think, may be of interest on the present occasion. It will therefore be necessary for me to compress my remarks into the smallest possible space, even in connection with the various subjects which have
    1246
    been touched upon. The Noble Lord who last spoke referred to the Dowlais, case, and asked me two or three questions. I may tell him that the Board have considered Mr. Barker's report, and have decided that they cannot overrule the local education authority in refusing to dismiss, the head teacher; secondly, that they have decided that the local education authority did not legally dismiss certain assistant teachers. They therefore at the present time regarded the local education authority as the authority which should pay the whole of the teachers' salaries which they claim The authority, I understand, have taken counsel's opinion and are now considering that opinion. Until I hear further from them, I do not feel that I am justified in saying anything in regard to the action we, as a Board, shall take. I agree-with the Noble Lord that the other question connected with the charges made-against one of the teachers is a matter which is sub judice, and that is also a subject with which I cannot deal at the present moment.
    The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. H. Yoxall) spoke in appreciative terms of some of the work connected with the Board. He also made some suggestions, which I shall bear in mind, in connection with the superannuation scheme for secondary school teachers. I can assure him that the subject-matter of the transition of elementary school teachers into secondary schools, and of secondary school teachers where the Government pay the Grants into elementary schools, will receive very careful consideration in connection with the scheme that is under our consideration. The hon. Member alluded to another topic in connection with the reforms which have been? undertaken in connection with the art classes in the country. I know of no more difficult or thorny subject than a question-connected with art. Opinions differ so-much as to what is good art and what is bad art, and even in connection with the way in which students and pupils ought to be trained in art, that it is very difficult for a person who is not an expert to venture to pronounce any opinion on any of these subjects.
    But I want to say this of the-head of the Department, who was somewhat adversely criticised, that I know-no man in the public service who has worked more whole-heartedly in the interests of the teachers, to secure for them liberty of action in the way they

    1247
    should teach, so that they should teach subjects in a way most calculated to do good, to have regard to the ability of the students and also to the local circumstances, than the head of the Department who was adversely criticised by the hon Member for West Nottingham. He has acted from the first whole-heartedly, with a view to doing his utmost to avoid waste in every branch of technical education. He has saved the country a good deal of money in some directions, but whatever he has saved he has seen that it has been spent with great advantage in other directions. The very fact that he has secured the placing of £638,000, in connection with the work of his Department on the Estimates for this year as compared with £614,000, shows that at any rate he has not been backward in urging the Board to come to his assistance with increased State money, in order to promote technical education, and I am quite sure, when we get the further assistance which we hope to get very shortly, there will be another very great development and a step forward in the branch over which he presides. The other matter for which I was criticised was in connection with the removal of some columns in the Victoria and Albert Museum. These were quite out of keeping with all the exhibits which were intended to be placed in that particular gallery. Most people did not consider that they were very beautiful. If anybody desires that they should be preserved I can assure the hon. Member that similar columns are preserved in the refreshment rooms underneath that particular gallery, and there is no intention whatever to destroy those columns, and they can be seen there for many years to come. In regard to the windows that he so much admires, they are preserved at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and anyone who desires to see those works of art will have the opportunity of seeing them whenever he so desires.
    Then I come to the very interesting speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Hibbert). He asked me one or two questions in regard to the distribution of the Necessitous Areas Grant. Lancashire worked out a scheme of their own by which they find that if a large number of parishes which have very high education Grants are taken separately, they would obtain a greater sum of money than they would under the proposals which have
    1248
    been put forward by the Board. The Board have looked at this question from a broad point of view, and are doing their utmost to distribute the £438,000 in the fairest way between local education authority and local education authority, and we have not departed from the principle which has been in operation during the last three or four years of giving the Necessitous Areas Grant to a local education authority and not to individual parishes which may exist in certain communities. So far as we are able to ascertain the figures, we believe about £498,000 will be distributed to the old participants, and about £290,000 to the thirty-four new participants, but these figures are subject to correction, as we have not yet received the full figures from the various local education authorities. The hon. Member then proceeded to deal with secondary schools, and to urge that-more generous treatment should be given to them by the State. I can assure him that we are proposing to give much more generous treatment to secondary schools, and also to the technical schools, as soon as we receive the necessary moneys voted by Parliament which were foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech.
    The hon. Gentleman sat down after alluding to the subject-matter of the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institute. I am sorry he thought it was necessary to refer to this matter, because in a recent interview with some of my staff I was under the impression that we had very nearly come to an agreement in regard to the course which should be pursued. At the Board of Education we feel that we are justified in inquiring into the whole question of procedure when it is necessary for us as a Board to endorse any certificate, and in connection with their work we recognise that Lancashire and Cheshire have been pioneers in technical instruction, and that great respect is due to these authorities who have united in order to secure the greater proficiency and efficiency of the technical education in those two counties. At the same time, we hold to our opinion that external examinations are not in every case necessary in connection with technical instruction. External examinations are all very well in connection with entrances into the great professions, but we believe that when the work is done by students it is well that the opinions of the teachers who are brought

    1249
    into contact with the students from day to day and have better knowledge of their progress and the value of their work should also weigh in connection with certificates which may be issued from time to time as the result of work being done in these technical schools, and it is only because the union of Lancashire and Cheshire did not appear to us to pay reasonable regard to teachers' opinions that we had some little difference, which I believe to a very large extent has been met, or is in prospect of being met, by the two bodies. I am only too anxious to work smoothly with these counties, because I do recognise the great amount of work which they have done in the past, which they are doing, and which, I am sure, they will do in the future.
    I should like before I deal with the shortage of teachers to say a word or two in connection with the medical branch, because, after all, I regard the health and physical condition of children as an essential preliminary to their education. The mind of a child must, to a very large extent, depend upon the condition of its body, and it is most essential that we should have regard to the health of the child in our elementary school. We try to secure that every child who enters our schools shall be healthy, and that youths of both sexes shall be turned out from our schools not only in a fit state themselves, but that they shall know how to preserve their own health, and in turn become the parents of a healthy race in the future. I am glad to say that 317 local education authorities are now inspecting not only the entrants and the leavers, but are often inspecting the special children, that is to say, the children who are suffering from some ailment, and who are marked out for special examination. In addition to that we have 120 authorities inspecting the children between the period when they come into school and when they leave school. We have 1,097 medical officers engaged in connection with these services. These include 84 women and 300 specialists for the treatment of eyes, ears, and teeth. In connection with teeth I may say that we find half of the children who are in the schools are in want of dental treatment, and I should like to throw out the suggestion to local education authorities that, wherever they find children's teeth not being attended to at home through neglect of the tooth brush, they should take precautions themselves to attend to this matter in the
    1250
    schools of the country. The septic condition of the teeth too frequently leads to the various maladies from which children suffer, and I believe that more regular attention to teeth by parents and local authorities would be money very well spent. In connection with the medical service, two years ago we were spending £47,000 of State money. Last year we spent £130,000, and this year we have on our Estimate £175,000. There are 125 authorities who are employing school nurses at present; 48 are undertaking the X-ray treatment of ringworm; 115 authorities have established their own school clinics or treatment centres; and 300 hospitals are being used for the treatment of infantile complaints. We have in the country 369 special schools for epileptics, mentally defective, physically defective, deaf and dumb, and blind, providing accommodation for 27,000 children. I am very glad that I have been able to secure increased Grants for all these kinds of schools. They are expensive to equip, and the fact that we have been able this year to increase the Grants, which were four to five guineas, up to £12 and £13 for residential day schools, is, I think, a matter for self-gratulation on the part of the House of Commons.
    Then I come to another subject which I think is one of the utmost importance. It is the provision of adequate open-air school accommodation for the children who are ailing, debilitated, anæmic, and tubercular. We have only in the whole country at the present moment 945 places in open-air schools. My medical advisers tell me that half a million children in this country are in actual need of open-air treatment. At the present moment we have twelve schools for tuberculous children, and Grants have been given to these schools, which enable not only the capital expenditure of £90 to be given, or three-fifths of the capital expenditure, but enable the schools to be given £3 per head more for day pupils than we can give to the physically defective schools, that is to say a Grant of £9, and we are able to give to residential schools of this character £20, or £8 more than we give for the physically defective schools. In this way we trust the education authorities will respond to the needs and will be encouraged to make the necessary provision for these ailing children. The hon. Member for Chelsea alluded to the number of children who are inadequately fed, and quoted the number as 600,000. Provision is made for 350,000,

    1251
    and there is a supplementary Grant of £77,000, by which we shall, we hope, be able to continue that work of well doing, giving half the cost to the local education authorities, and we trust that this will encourage them to make provision for all the children who are suffering from malnutrition. I do not think that there is any greater tragedy than to see a child sent to school and expected to learn when that child is not properly or decently fed, and we feel that these contributions will lead the education authorities to make good the deficiences of the past.
    With regard to physical training I am glad to say that it is now accepted as part of the curriculum in all our schools, and has become an integral part of the work in our eighty-six training colleges. There is certainly need for an increase of teachers' classes in connection with physical training, but whatever our shortcomings I am satisfied that we are behind no other nation in the world in regard to the provision which is made in our schools in connection with physical exercise. There is another branch of what I may call medical work carried on in our schools form others. During the last three or four years we have been taking stock of schools for mothers which have existed. There are about 200 of these schools at the present time; thirty-three of them have been receiving Grants under our technical regulations But I believe that with the approval of the Treasury, which we have got, for the distribution of Grants of £5,000 during the coming year in promotion of the work done by these schools, we shall give a fresh impetus to the work which will add a great deal to the knowledge and improvement of infant feeding, infant care and infant health. I hope that this work which has been done under our auspices, may grow and develop rapidly every year, because I am satisfied that not only can we look after the health of the children while they are in our schools, but that we shall see that they are properly nourished and looked after during the period before which they come into our schools, so that the money spent on their education will not be wasted as soon as they are sent to school.
    Then I come to the somewhat controversial subject of bricks and mortar. Whenever I allude to criticisms of building, even if I try to exert the utmost tact, my suggestions always seem to be taken in a somewhat prerogative way.
    1252
    The Board have recently issued a revised edition of building Regulations. We have consulted with the education authorities and teachers as to designs which allow better lighting and better ventilation, of course prescribing the minimum dimensions. We are bound to see that public money is not wasted, and that reasonable economy is exercised; we are bound to discourage extravagance whenever and wherever we can. We proposed the new block Grants under which two-fifths of the loan charges for building will be provided by the State. I believe that this will do a great deal to remove the friction and difficulties which have hitherto prevented the local authorities in every district doing their duty in connection with providing adequate and sufficient accommodation. With regard to playgrounds, I should like to tell the hon. Member for Chelsea that I have endeavoured to deal with this matter in a practical and business way. There is a tendency for the population to draw away from the centre of our towns, and I believe that for the existing population remaining it is very difficult to find adequate playgrounds for the schools. The Board must have liberty to exercise a discretion in regard to accepting playgrounds reasonably adequate and of convenient position in relation to the school. But while we will do anything that can be done to provide adequate playgrounds—and I do not think that the authorities and managers have any great apprehension at this particular moment—I want the hon. Member for Chelsea and his Friends to understand that, so far as I can speak for the Board now and in the future, I cannot promise prolonged life to those who are not prepared to do something to provide the necessary grounds for recreation in connection with the elementary schools of the country. We regard outdoor recreation as being essential to education in those schools, and, whilst we are not prepared to make any unreasonable demand upon the school managers, we shall look at every one of these cases on its merits and do our best to stimulate the authorities to do everything possible in the direction I have indicated. It will interest the House to know that we are now about to restore in some new form the Epidemic Grant which was dropped a few years ago, and which has been asked for very frequently again by the local education authorities, and in the next year's Estimates I hope to include a sum of £50,000, which will encourage and assist the local

    1253
    education authorities to deal thoroughly and comprehensively in elementary schools with epidemics as they arise. I am about to issue additional regulations, so that the authorities may be able to consider any proposals in connection with the distribution of the Grant. I now come to the very important question of the quality of the teaching. Some complaint is made that the quality of the teaching is less thorough than it used to be. If the object is to awaken the child's intelligence and to arouse his interest, you will tend to assign a lower place to mere mechanical perfection. I am unable to find any evidence of wholesale deterioration in the teaching of the three R's.
    I received from all quarters evidence that the children are more alert, more responsive, and, above all, happier in their school life than they were. We have revolutionised in many directions the way subjects are being taught. History is being taught in quite a different way. Recently we revised the chapter on geography, and for most valuable help in this matter we are indebted to suggestions by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder), Dr. Scott Keltie, and others. Many suggestions are made, and if I accepted all the suggestions which the critics regard as indispensable, it would be an impossible task for the teachers, and if I omitted all the subjects which are thought to be superfluous the children would be taught nothing in the schools. I try to adopt the happy medium and leave the authorities every latitude as to the subjects they teach, and at the same time indicate what we normally expect in the different schools. I will just say in regard to the higher grade schools some experiments have recently been made in some of the counties in connection with this class of school, and they seem to be a real necessity. I can assure the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) that they are an unqualified success. As to the supply of teachers, the wastage is about 7,000 per year in our elementary schools. In this figure no allowance is made for any improvement in the teaching staff. We ought to have entrants into the profession of something like 0,000 to allow for leakage. In 1912–13 the entry was 4,325, and there are signs that it will be still further increased this year. The Board has been in consultation with authorities and experts in order to ascertain the causes of the decline, and to see what remedies could be devised.
    1254
    The causes at work are complex, and a complete solution can only be found by making the profession more attractive as a career both in status and in salary.
    The Board have issued a Return showing the remarkable variation in the salaries paid in various parts of the country. The head teacher of a county school is often paid less than the assistant teacher in a town. Good trade has created a larger number of attractive openings in business. Many of the local education authorities have been improving their scales of salaries, but this improvement must become more general if the profession is to attract into it a sufficient number of recruits. It is not merely a question or solely one of raising salaries. Women teachers find it very difficult to find lodgings in many parts of the country. I feel that a comfortable hostel for teachers would be one of the best means of attracting women into the Board's service. Under the new proposals two-fifths of the building charges will be found by the State. A large number of schools at the present time have no room whatsoever where a teacher can take any rest or eat a meal. Another reason is the arduous character of the work which is often placed upon a teacher, especially a young female teacher, when she first goes into an elementary school. The result is that she discourages from entering the profession friends and others who might otherwise do so. If there were a fairer distribution of the work in the school she would probably form a very different opinion of the profession when she entered upon the work for which she had been trained. We have revived the pupil-teacher system in rural districts, but we have done it in a very different way from that which formerly existed. The old pupil-teacher system failed because it was frequently the hopeless case of a tired teacher instructing a tired pupil. This will mow be avoided, because the pupil-teacher will not be allowed to count on the staff, and he may not teach more than half-time. We propose to give Grants increased from £20 to £42 for pupils living outside the range of secondary schools; the pupils will be taught partly by head teachers and partly by subsidiary central classes. There are other matters connected with this question to which time will mot permit me to refer.
    In regard to supplementary teachers, there has been in the last four years a

    1255
    decline of 4,000, but we still have 13,000 unqualified teachers left in the schools. The Board propose not to allow even the appointment of these supplementary teachers in urban schools, while in rural schools new appointments will be limited to infant classes and the lowest class of older children in a small school. In regard to the leaving age, out of the 600,000 children who leave our elementary schools each year, 35,000 are half-timers, 13,000 leave under the age of thirteen, 176,000 leave at the age of thirteen—on their birthday or thereabouts, 336,000 leave during the age of thirteen, and only 40,000 remain after the age of fourteen. The fact that 176,000 leave at the age of thirteen shows what an enormous proportion leave the very first moment they have an opportunity of doing so. Although they are to a large extent more alert than they used to be, yet they have just reached the age when they are capable of understanding the reasons and principles of what they are learning and how to apply their knowledge. Recollect that if children do not learn by fourteen to use their fingers, their fingers become thumbs. How much can be done to teach children if they are kept at school may be seen by a visit to a London County Council Central School by anyone who takes an interest in the subject. The greatest blot on our system is that the great mass of our elementary schools have to submit to losing large numbers of their scholars just when a good teacher could do most for their mental, moral, and physical development. We have a continuation system which is purely voluntary and almost exclusively connected with evening teaching. I want to do justice to evening schools, but I would point out that in regard to the proportion of students under eighteen in attendance at evening schools, only 5 per cent. between fourteen and eighteen are estimated to be still in attendance at elementary schools, secondary schools, and other places of full-time education. Of the 2,391,000 left available for evening schools, only 14 per cent., or 334,000, are in nominal attendance during a single year. The percentage of pupils who begin at the beginning of the course and go on continuously is only fifty-three, and while the aggregate student hours that can be worked by juvenile students is 287,000,000, the actual is 18,500,000.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: What does the Board of Education do to prevent that?
    Mr. PEASE: The only remedy is by legislation. I have no power to compel authorities or parents, and I can only make representations to the authorities and parents, and urge the latter to keep their children at school. I do all I can to encourage employers to meet the necessities of the case by freeing their children during the daytime for educational purposes. The general body of employers are willing enough to fall in line if the same requirements were made on everybody. German employers themselves recognise that the education their lads get is of advantage to the firms, and a real asset, and no employer desires to go back to the old system. My time is about finished, and therefore I cannot deal with matters that I should like to deal with; but I should like in conclusion to say that there are many defects in our system of education which can only be remedied by attention of the law. These include a compulsory continuation system and the abolition of the religious difficulty that exists in our elementary school. So far as I can judge, apart from the great defect to which I have alluded, with the additional monetary help that the education authorities are about to receive from the Exchequer, there is no reason for us to believe as a nation that we have not got very much to learn from other countries. Our prosperity, from an educational point of view, is, I think, assured, also our future as a nation if we will only put our house in order.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  AUSTRIA AND SERVIA.

    DECLARATION OF WAR.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask whether the Government have any fresh information to give us now in regard to the present position in Europe?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The only information I can give is the simple matter of fact that we have official confirmation, both from Vienna and Nish, that war has been declared.

  MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Cost of Structural Alterations).
    (1) Where any premises, which with the consent, or knowledge of the landlord are used by the tenant as a dairy, by reason of any Milk and Dairies Order cannot continue to be so used unless the premises are altered or improved, the tenant may make such alterations or improvements as are reasonably necessary to enable the premises to continue to be so used, and recover from the landlord such proportion of the expenses incurred in executing such of the alterations or improvements being of a structural nature as may be just and equitable under the circumstances of the case, regard being had to the terms of any contract between the parties.
    Provided that the tenant, before beginning to execute any such structural alteration or improvement, shall serve on the landlord notice in writing of his intention to execute the alteration or improvement together with particulars thereof; and

    (a) If the landlord within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice, undertakes to execute the alteration or improvement within reasonable time the tenant shall not proceed with the execution thereof;

    (b) If the landlord, within such time as aforesaid, serves notice on the tenant requiring that the reasonable necessity of the alteration or improvement be determined in manner provided by this Section, the tenant shall not proceed with the alteration or improvement unless and until it is so determined to be reasonably necessary or except in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions, if any, attached to such determination.

    (2) An alteration or improvement shall not be deemed to be reasonably necessary if, having regard to the cost thereof, the nature of the premises, the conditions of the contract of tenancy, and the other circumstances of the case, the discontinuance of the use as a dairy of the premises, or the part proposed to be altered or improved, may reasonably be required by the landlord.
    (3) Any question as to the reasonable necessity of any alteration or improvement or as to the proportion of the expenses to be paid by the landlord shall in default of agreement be determined—

    (a) where the premises form part of a holding to which the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, applies by a single arbitrator in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to that Act as modified by this Section; and

    (b) in any other case, by a court of summary jurisdiction.

    (4) An arbitrator shall so far as practicable act on his own knowledge and experience and shall not, except in such cases as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries otherwise direct, hear counsel or expert witnesses.
    (5) Section fifteen of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, which enables a landlord to obtain an order charging a holding with repayment of the amount paid or expended by him in respect of an improvement to which that Section refers, shall apply to any payment or expenditure made or incurred by a landlord in respect of any alteration or improvement to which this Section refers executed by the landlord or a tenant on a holding to which the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, applies.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir THOMAS ROE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I venture to express the hope that this New Clause will meet with the approval of the House. A very similar Clause appears in the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, and a similar Clause also appeared in the Milk and Dairies Bill of the last and preceding Sessions. At the present time the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops Order, 1885, puts upon the occupier of a dairy or cowshed the obligation of carrying out any requirements of the local authority there-under whether those requirements relate to the sanitary condition or the structural condition of the dairy. In many cases cow-keepers occupy their premises on short tenancies and it is most unfair to ask such an occupier to carry out alterations to the structure of the dairy which will materially enhance the value of the dairy and at the

    1259
    expiration of the tenancy continue for the benefit of the landlord. In such cases it is believed that the local authorities often hesitate to enforce, and sometimes abstain from enforcing, the provisions of the Order on account of the inequity of putting such a serious charge on the occupier.
    The Clause is carefully framed so as to safeguard the position of the landlord. Before the tenant can recover from the landlord any portion of the expense of carrying out structural alterations he must serve twenty-eight days' notice on the landlord, and on receipt of that notice the landlord may either undertake to carry out the alterations himself or he may serve a counter notice on the tenant requiring that the reasonable necessity of the alterations shall be determined by arbitration or by a court of summary jurisdiction. It is thought that the machinery of the Clause will work well and that it will enable local authorities to secure the carrying out of necessary alterations in cases where hitherto they have been reluctant to do so on account of their inability to require the landlord to bear any part of the expense incurred in improving his freehold. This Clause is one which will be in harmony with the other Clauses of the Bill, and I trust that the House will, in their wisdom, decide to support it.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to second the Motion.
    It is obvious that this Bill is one to safeguard the health of the public, and it proposes to place new responsibilities upon the producers of milk and the salesman. It is going to make the production and sale of milk more expensive, and if extra burdens are thrown upon the small men it may have the effect of driving them out of the trade altogether. That would throw the trade into the hands of the bigger men and would probably lead to the sale of milk being a municipal undertaking. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is not the object of this Bill. In fairness and justice to the smaller men, I think this Clause might reasonably be added to the Bill. The Clause has been drafted well, and it holds the balance between landlord and tenant The interests of both are safeguarded, and I confess that I cannot see why the House should not now accept
    1260
    this Clause unanimously. Since my name has applied to this Clause I have received many letters from people interested, telling me how pleased they are that a Clause of this kind is going to be proposed.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I sincerely hope that the House will not accept this new Clause, because if they do I fear that it will wreck the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this measure, gave us to understand that the Clauses in the former Milk and Dairies Bill relating to premises were not intended to be placed in this Bill in order to smooth its passage through the House, and he promised to deal with premises if at all through the medium of the Order provided for in Clause 2. If this Clause is incorporated in the Bill it will cause many difficulties and the first of them will be consequent upon the fact that a large number of premises are at present used as cowsheds which were never intended for the purpose, and which are now used by a concession on the part of the landlord owing to the recent development of the milk-selling trade.
    Many of these buildings are barns and other like premises never intended for that purpose and if the tenant seeks to throw a charge upon the landlord to meet the expense he has incurred in transforming them into buildings suitable for the housing of cattle the first effect will be that the tenant will get notice to quit the premises as not having-been intended for the purpose and likely to cause the landlord an amount of expense which he never anticipated. The result would be that milk production would be seriously hampered, and not only that but milk itself would become a much more costly product owing to its increased scarcity. My other objection to" the Clause is that it is irrelevant to a Bill of this character. It is relevant, if at all, to an Agricultural Holdings Bill. In my humble opinion, a large amount of what is desired in this Clause can already be effected under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, and what cannot be so effected can only be properly secured by an Amendment of that Act and not by any extension of the Milk and Dairies Bill. I certainly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Clause, because I am quite sure that it will imperil the passage of the Bill.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I would also respectfully appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Clause upon the House on this occasion. I have not the slightest objection to the proposal in this new Clause in so far as it brings the liabilities of the landlord more rapidly into force, but I feel that you cannot deal satisfactorily with the whole problem of premises that applies not only to rural dairies, but also to every milk shop in the east end of London and all large towns. You cannot deal with the problem of the premises thoroughly, exhaustively, or really effectively by means of a Clause brought into the Bill at this stage, or by this particular Clause. Part' of the Clause is already, in my opinion, law, part of it can be best done by an Agricultural Holdings Act Amendment Bill, and that part which refers to small premises in large towns would require, I think the He use will agree, to be dealt with separately, because in every case you v ant to make the premises better, and to do it in such a way as not to interfere with the trade and not to give improper privileges to the landlord or to make it too easy for him to hamper the trade. These are difficult questions, to which I hope the House will address itself when it has a better opportunity, but I would appeal to the House whether it is not worth while allowing this Bill to become law. It has behind it an immense con-census of opinion, both in town and country, and we ought not to lose a Bill which is good so far far as it goes, by putting into it a Clause, admirable in intention, good in many of its particulars, but yet inadequate to deal with the very subtle and difficult problem of the premises.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I would like to add a word to the arguments used against this proposed Clause. If hon. Members realised how wide the interpretation of the word "dairy" will be, they would see at once the danger of inserting such a Clause. The word "dairy," in addition to the ordinary meaning which we probably associate with it in our minds, includes:—
    "Any farm, cowshed, milk store, milk shop, or other place from which milk is supplied on or for sale or in which milk is kept or used for purposes of sale or manufacture into butter, cheese, dried milk or condensed milk for sale."
    1262
    And so on. I am not at all sure that it does not include the A.B.C. shops, but at all events it includes a very wide type of premises. Practically all buildings on farms would come under this definition. It is certainly not right, if a tenant turns a farm into a dairy farm that he should be allowed to impose an obligation of this kind on his landlord merely by giving him notice that he is keeping cows and using the farm as a dairy farm. It takes a long time for a landlord to get rid of a tenant or stop a thing of that kind. Suppose a landlord receives information, either by way of formal notice or otherwise—that a farm which may be intended for other purposes is being turned into a dairy farm at the commencement of a yearly tenancy, it will take him nearly two years under the existing law to insist on any change and during that time he may have been compelled to entirely alter the nature of the buildings in order to bring them within the requirements of the Act.
    I can give the House a case of quite recent occurrence in my own district and within my own knowledge. A man took a large cottage standing in about a quarter of an acre of garden ground together with a range of buildings which had Been previously used as a wheelwright's shop and a wood store, backing on the main road, without ventilation, drainage or anything of the kind. The man had some grass land on a different estate on the other side of the road and the first notice the landlord had that the cottage and shed had been turned into a dairy came in the form of an intimation from the sanitary authority that a nuisance was being committed and that the buildings were unfit for the purposes for which they were being used. In fact fifteen or sixteen cows were being kept in the wood shed. If this Clause were put into the Bill before the landlord could alter that state of things he would be compelled, whether he liked it or not—and whether the farm was suitable or not—to put these buildings into the necessary sanitary condition for keeping cows. I would urge on the House that even if at any future time it desires to have a Clause of this sort in a Bill it should insist on consent and not mere knowledge on the part of the landlord.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): To the principle of this Clause little objection can be taken. Viewed in isolation and by itself one could accept it.

    1263
    If structural alterations are necessitated then I think it is right the landlord should be called upon to do his share. But this Bill says nothing whatever about structural alterations: they are not mentioned in the measure from the first page to the last. It was different with the Bills of my right hon. predecessor—the present President of the Board of Trade. His Bill did contemplate making certain structural alterations in dairies and cowsheds. The Scottish Bill contains a Clause to that effect, but in view of the fact that this Bill does not touch this question, and we prefer to rely on the powers, such as they are, in the existing law, I submit to the House it is not necessary to introduce the topic by importing into the Bill the Clause proposed by my hon Friend. Remember that this Bill, if it is to pass, must pass as a generally agreed measure, and as it is quite clear that this Clause meets with considerable opposition from both sides of the House I trust my hon. Friend will be good enough not to press it.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I wish to emphasise one fact whether my hon. Friend presses his Clause to a vote or not, and it is that this is a compromise measure, I am surprised that because it is proposed to put in something which does not please the farmer or dairyman, we should be told that the Bill will be lost. Those of us who have been sitting for a long period upstairs on this Bill have no desire that it should be lost, but we are not prepared to allow this occasion to go by without emphasising the price which will be paid for getting it through if this Clause is not to be put to a Division. The Clause is absolutely required. So required was it considered that it was put in previous Bills by the Government themselves, and it is in the Scottish Bill which has passed through the Scottish Grand Committee and will have behind it, when it comes before the House, the whole force of that Committee. It is a thoroughly just Clause. Under this Bill dairymen throughout the country will have to put their places in different repair from that in which they are at the present time. It is said that the Bill does not deal with structural matters, but the moment the inspector goes round to enforce the provisions of the Bill he will have to deal with structures that are used by the dairymen. All this will fall on the farmer or the person who owns the dairy. Because we have
    1264
    asked for what is just and fair, namely, that the person should be compensated for some of the unexhausted improvements he puts into the buildings, we are told that if we go on with the Clause the Bill will be lost.
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member who has just sat down feels so strongly on this question it is surprising that he did not bring the matter forward in Committee. This matter was not raised in Committee. I understand that when the Bill was before the Standing Committee, the limitations which the right hon. Gentleman sketched out on the Second Reading of the Bill were duly observed, the Bill was treated as one dealing with the regulation of the milk supply, and all questions of buildings were strictly left out of account. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope this Clause will not be read a second time.
    Sir T. ROE: In view of the very strong remarks made as to the Bill being endangered, may I ask the permission of my Seconder to the proposal being withdrawn?
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Further Power to stop Supply of Milk within any County or County Borough from any Dairy without such County or County Borough.)
    (1) In any case in which the medical officer of health of any county or county borough is of opinion that tuberculosis is caused or is likely to be caused by the consumption of milk supplied from any dairy without such county or county borough, the council of such county or county borough, or the medical officer of health thereof, may stop the supply within such county or county borough of milk from such dairy until the supply of milk therefrom is stopped by the council of the county or county borough in which the dairy is situate (in this Section referred to as "the responsible authority") or the medical officer of health of the responsible authority, or in the case of any difference arising between the council of such county or county borough and the responsible authority as to the necessity for stopping such supply until such difference is determined by the Local Government Board.
    (2) For the purpose of this Section the council of such county, or county borough and the medical officer of health thereof may exercise all such powers as would have

    1265
    been exercisable by them under the provisions of this Act if such dairy had been situate within such county or county borough
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This is one of a series of Amendments I have put down at the instance of the London County Council. Its object is to prevent the undue curtailment of their present powers to prevent the sale of tuberculous milk in the Metropolis. As the Bill stands the position of the responsible London authority will be considerably worse than it is now. Since the passing of the General Powers Act, 1907, the London County Council have taken strong measures to prevent the sale of tuberculous milk. They have found no less than 1,100 tuberculous samples on sale in London. They want to be able to continue this work. They do not wish, during the time that the local authorities are perfecting their organisation, to find that the milk supply of London has become less satisfactory than it now is. The object of the Clause is to enable them to take immediate action to prevent the supply of tuberculous milk without waiting for the local authority in the county from which the milk came to take steps and make an order. Similar power to this was proposed in the Milk and Dairies Bill of last year, and I think that is a strong argument if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to its re-insertion in this measure.
    The London County Council has no idea of excluding milk in this way in every case where they find it tuberculous. The natural and the usual course will be to communicate at once with the county councils from which the milk has come and leave it to them to stop supply, but we have to remember from bitter experience in the past, that in certain districts there is a distinction in the minds of the local authorities between the importance of the producers' interests and the interests of the consumer. It is quite "possible that you may find some county councils rather slack in administering the new order, and if they are slack it will mean that the milk from the area infected with tuberculosis will go on being sold in London for a very long time. The Local Government Board cannot interfere until they have held a local inquiry which
    1266
    will take probably some months, and then when they do interfere they have only the obsolete and clumsy device of a mandamus.
    I think this power would be a great security to the milk supply of London. The London County Council do not in any way wish to invade the territory of the rural county councils. The Clause, as it is drafted, gives, for the purpose of this Section, to the London County Council and to councils who ask for this power to go outside the area and stop the supply, all powers which they exercise at present or which they would exercise if the dairy was situate in the county of consumption. That is necessary to ensure that proper compensation should be given under Schedule 3 in the Bill in cases where the milk has wrongfully been prohibited from being sold in the county, and it is in no way intended to use it to enable the London County Council to inspect dairies without the permission of the local medical officer, and if it would make it easier for rural county councils to agree to this Clause I should suggest that their difficulty might be met by saying, "Provided these powers mentioned in Sub-section (2) would not enable any county councils to make inspections on its own account outside its own area."
    Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Although I sympathise with the purpose the hon. Member has in view I am afraid I cannot possibly accept the Clause. It does not apply, of course, only to London, but to all counties and all county boroughs and it would enable any authority of a county or a county borough to stop the supply within its own area of milk from any dairy which it thought was supplying tuberculous milk. It is not to have any power of going back to that dairy and verifying whether or not the milk comes from that particular dairy. It is not to have power to take any steps to secure a remedy for the defect, but it is simply to issue a fiat that the milk from a particular dairy is to be stopped. The scheme of the Bill is that in circumstances such as these the medical officer of the borough or place in which the milk is being sold has a right to call upon the medical officer of the county from which the milk comes to make immediate inquiries into the circumstances and to take all steps necessary to stop the supply of milk.
    There are elaborate provisions in the Bill in Clauses 3 and 4, and in the Second Schedule, to enable this to be done. The

    1267
    case of tuberculosis, after all, though important, is not one of immediate urgency. In the case of scarlet fever or diphtheria we ought to stop the supply instantly. We ought to know whether a great deal of the milk does or does not contain tubercle bacillus, but it is not necessary to stop instantly the supply of milk from particular dairies. The effect of the Clause proposed by the hon. Member would be, I am sure, to cause much friction between the authorities that issued such notices and the localities in which the farms were situated, and against which Orders were issued. The Committee sat for seven days, and this proposal was never made there. I hope the House will retain the Bill as it stands in this regard.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of Sale of Tuberculous Milk.)
    If a person—

    (a) Sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or suffers to be sold or offered or exposed for sale, for human consumption or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption; or

    (b) Uses or suffers to be used in the manufacture of products for human consumption;

    the milk of any cow which has given tuberculous milk, or is suffering from emaciation due to tuberculosis, or from tuberculosis of the udder, or from acute inflammation of the udder, or from any of the diseases specified in the First Schedule to this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, if it is proved that he had previously received notice from an officer of a local authority, or that he otherwise knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have ascertained, that the cow had given tuberculous milk, or was suffering from any such disease.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, after the word "Act" ["First Schedule to this Act"], to insert the words, "or has permitted the cows or their milk to be handled by any person or persons suffering from any disease liable to infect or contaminate the milk."
    This Amendment must really be read in conjunction with two or three later Amendments, and it will save time if the House will allow me to explain the nature of the proposal now. Under Clause 2 the
    1268
    purposes for which special and general Orders may be made respecting milk and dairies include the following:—
    "(b) the inspection by persons authorised by the local authority for the locality in which the dairy is situate of dairies and persons employed in or about dairies."
    Clause 11 provides:—
    "If any person obstructs any inspector or other officer of the Local Government Board or any medical officer of health, or any veterinary inspector or surgeon, or other officer of or person employed by a local authority, in the execution of his powers under this Act or any Milk and Dairies Order, or fails to give any such officer all reasonable assistance in his power, or to furnish him with any information he may reasonably require, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    If we turn to Clause 15 we find that the penalty for committing an offence against the Act is £5 for the first offence, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence £50, and so on. I beg to say that these penalties, owing to their magnitude, are obviously intended to be applied to persons engaged in the dairy trade for profit, and not to persons employed at a daily wage in milking cows, cleansing churns, or anything of that kind. If these powers were rigidly enforced for inspecting persons connected with a dairy in order to ascertain whether they are in a state of health, and otherwise fit persons to be employed in a dairy, the Act will meet with a great deal of opposition, and I think the opposition will be justifiable. The purpose of my Amendments, the first of which I am now moving, is to make it quite clear that, the liability for the cleanliness of the dairy and for all matters in connection with the health of the cows being placed on the farmer or the dairy keeper, the liability for employing healthy people who are reasonably cleanly in their habits shall also rest on the person engaged in the industry for profit. The Amendment places that liability on the farmer or dairy keeper in exactly the same way as Clause 1 says:—
    If a person—
    "(a) Sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or suffers to be sold or offered or exposed for sale, …"
    and so forth, the milk of any cow which has given tuberculous milk, he shall be guilty of an offence against the Act.
    He has got not only to see that the cows shall not be animals suffering from acute inflammation of the udder or any disease specified in the first Schedule to the Act, but also that neither the cows nor the milk is handled by any person or persons suffering from any disease which is liable to affect or contaminate the milk. No doubt the effect of this effort to get a purer supply of milk will be to increase the cost of milk. A person engaged in the dairy business will have to comply with all the provisions of this Bill, and I think it perfectly reasonable and fair, to avoid all this friction which will occur from the inspection of every person engaged in or about a dairy, to leave to him the liability for the cleanliness and health of the persons engaged in the dairy, just as you leave the liability for the cleanliness and health of the cows which are being milked upon the farm on the person who is engaged in the industry. Therefore I think that if this Amendment and the following one, which is practically consequential are read together, with the omission of these provisions in Clause 2 and Clause 4 for the compulsory inspection of persons, we shall have a simpler Bill, which will undoubtedly work very much more smoothly, and will be very much more logical.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to second the Amendment, because I cannot help thinking that this system of compulsory inspection of farm labourers will cause a great deal of inconvenience and irritation in the country districts. Though the Bill talks about dairies yet the term "dairy" includes a farm. Consequently a person employed in a dairy means every person employed on a farm. Consequently every farm labourer whether he is engaged in the business of handling or milking cows will come under the provisions of this Clause and be liable to compulsory medical examination. As the Clause is framed it is apparently a sort of harmless examination, but one has to look for the intention of this Bill to the Bill of last year which was a little more elaborate in its provisions. The effective operation of this Bill rests with the Local Government Board, which may make Orders for the inspection. The Bill of last year set out what the intention then was. It provided that the medical officer of health of any sanitary district or any officer of the sanitary authority acting on his instructions shall have power at all reasonable hours to enter into any dairy situate within the district and inspect the dairy, and the medical officer of health
    1270
    shall have power at reasonable hours to inspect the persons employed in or about the dairy. It is perfectly clear from that, having regard to the interpretation of the Bill, that this is compulsory examination for every labourer engaged on a farm, and not only the labourer himself, but his wife, if she has a job on the farm, or his daughter.
    I have no hesitation in saying that it would be very bitterly resented in the countryside, particularly accompanied, as it is, by very heavy penalties—penalties of £5 for his refusal to submit to medical inspection, or refusal to allow his wife to be submitted to medical inspection; £50 penalty for a second offence, and for a continuing offence £2 a day. Surely that is not reasonable legislation. I strongly protest against the words remaining in the Bill in their present form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Hon. Members opposite call out "agreed." What, would they say if a similar provision were put in a Bill for compulsory medical inspection of trade unionists who handle tools? But we know that compulsion is an element in all Radical legislation. You have it in the Shops Act, in the Coal Mines Acts, in National Insurance, and in Home Rule. It seems to me that there is always a policeman behind every Radical measure. I am concerned for a countryside district where a very large number of labourers are employed, and I very strongly protest against this provision being introduced into the Bill rendering these people, who are unable to protect themselves, and who are indirectly represented here, liable to be subjected to compulsory medical examination. It is said: "We do not intend to examine them all."
    When I referred to this point on the Second Reading the President of the Local Government Board stated some case of a man with a sore hand who had been employed in milking the cows. That is no case on which to base power enabling-a medical officer of health, or any person whom he may employ, to subject to compulsory medical examination every man engaged on a farm. It will be said, it was suggested in Committee, that this power was necessary to discover consumptives and people of that sort engaged in the dairy business. We are all agreed that consumptives should not be employed in actually handling the milk. But this goes far beyond that. If it were limited to people actually handling the milk I should perhaps not have so much objection to it. But by this

    1271
    Clause any busybody or medical officer of health could hunt up consumptives all over the land. That is a very unreasonable provision indeed. We have had in the countryside quite enough in the way of inspection. Most hon. Members know how the countryside has suffered from the administration of the Swine Fever Regulations, the consequence being that where pigs were once a source of profit to labourers, one hardly sees a pig now. All this is the result of this inspection and interference with people who are endeavouring to the best of their ability to carry on a perfectly proper business. Where is that system going to end? Are you going to examine every man who handles food; the baker, the fishmonger, the butcher, the greengrocer. I venture to think these words are wholly unnecessary in order to secure the object we have in view to secure milk for the people, but is simply part of a system which has grown up of interference with the people and their liberties.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Members really have two proposals in view. They propose to omit from the provisions in the second Clause the part which would allow the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture to make regulations to allow the inspection of persons employed in the dairy, and as a recompense they propose to put into Clause 1 a penalty upon any person who allows a person suffering from a dangerous infectious disease to have any part in the handling of the milk or cattle. With respect to the second proposal which is now before us, I submit it is quite unnecessary because it is already the law of the land. Under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act of 1878, an Order in Council was made in 1885 which includes this provision which now has the force of law:—
    "It shall not be lawful for any person following the trade of cowkeeper or dairying or purveyor of milk to allow any person suffering from dangerous infectious disorder or having recently been in contact with a person so suffering to milk cows or handle vessels used for milk for sale," etc.,
    and presenting penalties for any breach of that regulation. Therefore it is quite clear so far as the Amendment which is now before us is concerned it is unnecessary, and on that ground I ask the House not to
    1272
    accept it. With respect to the further Amendment, which, as it is linked up with this, I submit I am in order in discussing, that would strike out a part of the Bill which is essential for its proper working. The two things are necessary in this connection. In the first place it is above all things desirable to see that the milking business should be conducted with cleanliness.
    Everyone who has made a study of this matter knows that it is most desirable to impress upon the agricultural community, all the agricultural community, that they should do what the best farmers already do, namely, see that their cows are milked in a cleanly way. It is therefore necessary that the inspectors when they go round examining these matters should have the opportunity of observing whether the persons who actually engage in the milking of the cows and in handling the churns and other vessels have or have not got filthy hands. Secondly, this provision in the Bill aims at the detection of dangerous diseases, not by any general medical inspection, which is not contemplated. It would not be for a moment dreamt of for every labourer and farmer and farmer's wife who might be engaged directly or indirectly in milking cows, but where an epidemic does break out, where there is diphtheria or typhoid fever or other disease which is traced back to the farm it is essential that the medical officer should be able to examine the persons medically to see whether or not they are responsible for the contamination of the milk.
    Let me give the House two or three recent cases that have actually occurred. In Bradford in 1912, 112 persons got typhoid fever due to milk infection from an unrecognised case of typhoid fever. At Chelmsford in 19'10 there were twenty-five cases of diphtheria due to an unrecognised case of diphtheria in the house of the farmer who supplied the milk. In Folkestone and various Kent districts in the years 1905–9 there were no fewer than 323 cases of typhoid fever in several successive outbreaks coming from five different farms, owing to the employment of one man who was what is called a carrier of typhoid fever; that is, he had had typhoid fever, been cured of it, but carried in his body the germs of the disease, which infected the milk at each farm to which he went. Under these circumstances, as similar cases come to the knowledge of the Board year by year, it is obviously necessary that there should be power to

    1273
    secure medical inspection in these cases. For these reasons I trust the House will confirm the decision of the Committee which considered this point carefully, and retain the provision of this Clause.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I am in entire agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that it is essential that people who have the handling of cows or milk should be liable to inspection. My complaint is that the words of the Bill go much beyond that. The Bill speaks of "persons employed in or about dairies." The right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the opinion of a large number of Members of the Committee that would make almost every employé on a dairy farm liable to inspection.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I can save the time of the House. I had hoped that hon. Members interested in this question would have put down an Amendment which I suggested, namely, to omit the words "employed in or about dairies," and make the Clause read "persons in or about dairies who have access to the milk or to the churns or other milk receptacles." I promised to consider that, and I shall be glad to move it.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of Power to Make Orders respecting Milk and Dairies.)
    (1) The purposes for which general and special Orders with respect to milk and dairies, hereinafter referred to as Milk and Dairies Orders, may be made by the Local Government Board under Section thirty-four of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, as amended by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1886, shall include the following purposes:—

    (a) the registration with local authorities of all dairies;

    (b) the inspection by persons authorised by the local authority for the locality in which the dairy is situate of dairies and persons employed in or about dairies;

    (c) the prevention of danger to health from the sale for human consumption or from the use in the manufacture of products for human consumption, of infected, contaminated, or dirty milk;

    (d) the prohibition of the addition of colouring matter and the prohibition or regulation of the addition of skimmed or separated milk, or water,
    1274
    or any other substance, to milk intended for sale for human consumption, or the abstraction therefrom of butter-fat or any other constituent, and the prohibition or regulation of the sale for human consumption of milk to which such an addition or from which such abstraction has been made, or which has been otherwise artificially treated;

    (e) the regulation of the cooling, conveyance, and distribution of milk intended for sale for human consumption, or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption;

    (f) the labelling, marking, or identification of churns, vessels, and other receptacles of milk for sale for human consumption or used for the conveyance of such milk;

    (g) authorising the use in connection with the sale of milk of the term "certified milk," prescribing the conditions subject to which milk may be sold under such designation and prohibiting the use of such term or designation in connection with the sale of milk in respect of which the prescribed conditions are not complied with.

    (2) A Milk and Dairies Order with respect to the inspection of cattle in a dairy may authorise the person making the inspection to require any cow to be milked in his presence and to take samples of the milk, and to require that the milk from any particular teat shall be kept separate and separate samples thereof furnished.
    (3) If any person is guilty of a contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of any Milk and Dairies Order, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
    (4) Milk and Dairies Orders shall be made by the Local Government Board with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
    (5) All Milk and Dairies Orders shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parlimaent within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, or to the

    1275
    making of a new Order. If the Session of Parliament ends before such forty days as aforesaid have expired, the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next Session as if it had not previously been laid.
    The Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall apply to any such Order as if it was a statutory rule within the meaning of Section 1 of that Act.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a) to leave out the word "registration," and to insert instead thereof the word "listing."
    I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend that an Order shall be made requiring a farm to be licensed. All that he intends to convey is that an Order may be made by the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture empowering local authorities to make a list of the dairies in their districts. That, I think, is a harmless thing to which nobody can object. If it was to be read as a licence it might be taken that unless a farm was on this register it should not be allowed to supply milk. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that that is not the case. I have not the slightest doubt that so long as he is President of the Local Government Board that that intention will be carried out. But the House has got to remember that we may have another President of the Local Government Board who may look at the Act of Parliament and take the meaning of the Act from the Act itself. The simplest way is to put into the Bill all it is intended the Bill shall do.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment. When the Bill was in Committee I pointed out that registration necessarily implies some conditions precedent to such registration. If a list is intended the word "listing" should meet the case.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The purpose is to draw up a list by the local authorities so that the inspectors may know to which places they have to go. It is not intended to introduce any system of licences. We have inserted the word "all" before dairies so as to make it plain that all dairies are to be registered, and are entitled to be registered. The word "registration" is the word that appears now in the Order for the registration of dairymen—all these are registered though not the dairies—and it is desirable that in regard to the dairies and not the firms
    1276
    merely that own them, that this, too, should obtain. "Listing" is a term that does not appear in any Act of Parliament. The word "registration" appears constantly, and everyone knows what it means. It does not mean that it implies conditions, nor does it mean a system of licences, but in order to make the matter quite clear I will give the hon. Baronet a Parliamentary assurance that when we draw up our Regulations—and this is a matter that has to be dealt with by Regulation—it shall be made clear that the register is to be a register, and not a mere list for the purposes of the inspector.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "local" ["registration with local authorities"] and to insert instead thereof the word "sanitary."
    The effect of the Amendment is that the registration shall be made by the district councils rather than by the county councils. The district councils are already the sanitary authorities, and administer the local Dairies Orders, and the suggested arrangement would be the more convenient. In Clause 16 the Local Government Board have the power to say which authority shall register. They may name the district councils, but this Amendment would make it certain. The Amendment is one that I have been asked to bring forward by the Rural District Councils Association, and it is, I think, a very reasonable one. It is felt that these councils should be safeguarded, and that these powers should not be shared by the county councils
    12.0 M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the intention that the sanitary authorities shall be as a rule the registering authority, and the only reason why I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment is that I am advised that in small counties such as Huntingdon there may be general agreement that one authority should exercise all these powers in those small areas, and that district councils might wish the county councils to take over the whole of the business with regard to the milk supply. That is why this discretion is allowed to the Local Government Board in this matter. It is intended that our regulations shall in any such unusual cases confer upon the district councils the powers they already have of being the registering authority.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say it shall be the district councils unless the Local Government Board otherwise order?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It comes to that as the Bill stands.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a Parliamentary assurance to that effect?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already said that is our intention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move in paragraph (b) to leave out the word "employed" and to insert after the word "dairies" the words "who have access to milk or churns or other milt receptacles." The Clause would then read: "(b) the inspection by persons authorised by the local authority for the locality in which the dairy is situate of dairies and persons in or about dairies who have access to the milk or churns or other milk receptacles."
    Mr. PETO: I should like to point out these words are extremely wide. As the paragraph stands it says "persons employed." The right hon. Gentleman proposes to substitute for the word "employed" the words "who have access to the milk or churns or other receptacles." Under that every person about the parish might be liable to inspection. Instead of limiting, these words extend the number of persons to be inspected. If he proposed to inspect other persons in the neighbourhood of the dairy who have access to the milk churns, etc., I should take another view.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The word "employed" was objected to by many hon. Members in the Committee on the ground that it might be difficult in its technical meaning, in that a small holder or other person who was working for himself would not come under the provisions of the Section as he ought to do.
    Question, "That the word 'employed' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words "who have access to the milk or churns or other milk receptacles," there inserted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph (e), to leave out the word "cooling."
    1278
    The Sub-section would then read "the regulations for the conveyance, and the distribution of the milk intended for sale," etc. I want to leave out the word "cooling" because in my district all the farmers have cooling apparatus. If this word is left in it will be within the power of the Board of Trade to make regulations allowing the local authorities to inspect the cooling apparatus, and to make a regulation that Jones' cooling apparatus is not one they approve of, and that Smith's apparatus must be put in. That might put the farmers to a very great expense in taking out the apparatus he has got in use in order to put in another. It might be possible that in the case of change in the local authority, or a new medical officer, they might say "you have put in Smith's cooling apparatus. I like Brown's, and therefore you must take Smith's out and put in Brown's." If these words are left in we shall be doing something which will cause great inconvenience to the farmers without securing a better or purer supply of milk. It is absolutely necessary a farmer, on anything like a large scale, who sends his milk any distance from the farm must cool it because, if he does not, the milk will be spoiled when it arrives at its destination, and the buyer will not have it. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will meet me by leaving out those words.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All those whom I have consulted in reference to this Bill attach much importance to the cooling. I hear on all hands that there are few things more important with a view to preventing bateriological infection in milk than to secure an efficient cooling before it leaves the farm. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Banbury) comes from a district where the milk is already cooled, but I am afraid that that is not so over a considerable part of the country, and a good deal of milk is sent away which ought to be cooled if it is not to give rise to danger to health. All these regulations require the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture, and I am sure they would not agree to any regulations for the cooling of milk oppressive to farmers and the agricultural industry. If they did so the regulations have to come before this House and hon. Members could pass an Address to alter them. Not only that, but the House of Lords has to consider this matter, and I am

    1279
    sure the hon. Baronet can safely leave his case in the hands of the other House if not in mine. If he omits these words we shall have no power of any sort to make regulations, no matter how reasonable or necessary they may be to secure proper cooling.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I admit that I have great confidence in the other House, but I do not know that I have great confidence in this House discussing a question of this sort after eleven o'clock at night. I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that all he desires to do is to insist that milk shall be cooled and not make particular regulations as to the machinery by which it is cooled, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move in paragraph (f), after the word "identification," to insert the words "and the sealing or closing."
    We know, as the result of some bitter experience, that a large portion of the impurities of milk gets into the milk in transit between the premises of the producer and the premises of the salesman in the town, and there is no uniform procedure on the various railways in connection with the sealing or closing of churns. The result is that under this Bill there will be very great danger of the farmer or other milk producer being charged with certain penalties or even of having the supply of his milk stopped in consequence of impurities getting into the milk at a railway terminus over which he has no control whatever. There is no uniformity of procedure. On some railways churns are allowed to be closed, and on others they are not. I want to put it into the power of the Local Government Board in case of necessity to make an Order dealing with this matter and of so ensuring against the farmer or other milk producer being unfairly penalised in respect of impurities for which he is not responsible.
    Mr. STANIER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This is really one of the most important parts of the whole Bill. I have in my hand an account of the prosecutions at the London Sessions revealing the practice of borrowing from other churns. It was clearly put forward that at Paddington Station milk was borrowed from one churn and put into another. If
    1280
    that sort of thing is going on, you will be totally unable to follow the milk from the producer to the consumer. I also gave a case the other day at Liverpool Street Station. I think that those two cases clearly show that we must have the Amendment moved.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather sorry the right hon. Gentleman has done that, because the result might be that my hon. Friend might desire to send something up from Gloucestershire, or wherever it is that he lives, to London, and the cheapest way would be to put it in a churn. That is the reason why the railway companies have objected to the sealing. They did not know whether advantage might not be taken of their kindness to send in a churn something which would cost much more to send in another way. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend should have seconded the Amendment, in view of the fact that he is a railway director and must know that might occur. If the right hon. Gentleman will make regulations to prevent fraud on the railway companies, then I have no objection, but I am rather sorry that he should have accepted it in such a hurry.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (g).
    This paragraph is absolutely unnecessary, and it will do much to curtail the milk supply. It was not in the Bill when it was before the House for Second Beading. The Bill is, I think, wisely drawn with the object of providing clean and pure milk. Less than that we ought not to be content with and more than that we do not require. Therefore I think it both unnecessary and unwise, after demanding that the milk shall be clean and pure, to introduce this paragraph which makes it possible for any one to obtain a certificate. It is unjust to give any section of milk producers a privileged position. We are requiring milk producers generally to produce a clean and pure article. I have met many dairymen who, although they hold that the Bill is somewhat drastic, seeing that they have always done their best to supply the public with a clean and pure article, yet recognising there is a feeling that greater precautions ought to be

    1281
    taken, are ready to carry out the provisions of the Bill. But having conformed to the requirements therein laid down, they object to any Government label being given to any part or any Section of the milk which may be produced.
    The production of the milk at the present time is somewhat unprofitable owing to the increased and increasing cost of labour for milking, the great expense of replenishing herds when cattle the from disease, and the growing cost of feeding stuffs. Many people have for these reasons already had to give up cow-keeping, and if we introduce in this Bill unnecessary and harassing conditions I venture to say they will result in still further diminishing the milk supply of this country, which would be a calamity to the poorer classes of the people. I have had a deputation of dairy keepers who have urged me to resist to the utmost the introduction of this preferential treatment. Only last Saturday I received a deputation of Essex farmers who asked me to tell the House that they, as large milk producers, were strongly opposed to this preferential treatment being given to any section of those engaged in the industry. They are quite willing to conform to the requirements of the Bill and to supply clean and pure milk, but they object to any differentiation, such as this paragraph would allow, being introduced. It would afford an opportunity to wealthy cow-keepers to have a special examination and secure a special milk certificate after a special veterinary inspection, and that would give them an established position which would discount or reduce the value of other milk supplies not certified in the same way.
    Having called upon all dairymen to produce clean and pure milk it must be detrimental to their interest and unjust if not indeed a breach of faith to the dairymen and to those of us who have taken pains to persuade the dairymen in our Constituencies that it is necessary they should conform to the provisions of this Bill, if, when they have agreed to do so, you introduce, as was done in Committee, this preferential treatment, which will act to the advantage of wealthy cow-keepers by enabling them to produce certain certificates that will ensure higher prices for their milk. I venture to say it is the duty of this House to do all it can to secure a pure and clean supply of milk for all people, rich and poor alike, and not to establish a point at which
    1282
    certain certificates will be obtainable which will enable the holders thereof to charge higher prices, to the detriment of the general body of milk producers. I hope the House will hesitate before they inflict such an injustice on the milk producers of this country. They are rendering a great public service, and it would be calamitous if by any vexatious preferential treatment under this Bill men were deterred from carrying on that industry. We should apply our endeavours to seeing that all milk is pure and clean, that poor and rich alike have an article which is above suspicion, and that no preference is given to any part of that pure and clean supply.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Bill in its original form goes quite far enough without this paragraph. It is quite sufficient to endeavour to secure a uniform supply of clean milk, so far as that is possible. It is not necessary to draw a differentiation between different classes of milk in a Bill of this kind. There is no doubt that when the regulations which are to be issued by the Local Government Board are put into working order they will arouse quite enough resentment among dairy-keepers throughout the country without any addition of this kind to the Bill. I know that some o£ my hon. Friends desire to see various classifications of milk. I presume they wish to have certified milk, pure milk and milk, just as you have new laid eggs, fresh eggs and eggs. That might be left to private enterprise. There are many farmers who send sealed bottles of milk from their dairies up to London. They are able to do that of their own initiative and to charge rich customers an additional price for that class of milk. It is quite sufficient for the House to leave that sort of thing to private enterprise, and I hope that they will therefore reject this paragraph.
    Mr. ASTOR: I sincerely trust that the House will keep this paragraph in the Bill. It is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. I cannot quite make out why my hon. Friends wish to take it out. It must be due to a misunderstanding. I cannot understand hon. Members representing farmers and dairymen or agricultural interests wishing to take the paragraph out of the Bill. There are some provisions in the Bill which act as a restraint, there are many penalties

    1283
    contained in the Bill, there are many provisions which harass the farmer or dairyman which are compulsory. This proposal is purely optional. It is in the nature of a reward to the dairyman or fanner who goes out of his way to produce a particularly clean milk. It does not interfere with the Bill as it stands. The Mover of the Amendment said he wanted all milk to be pure and good. I have read my hon. Friend's speeches on milk. I know that he agrees with me that milkers should have clean and dry hands, that the herd should be tested and that the herd should be free from tuberculosis. He does not want to have dirty in the milk. He wants the flanks and udders of the cow to be clean. I am sure he will agree that we should encourage those things, but we cannot do it by legislation. You cannot by Act of Parliament say that all milkers are to have clean and dry hands. You can only secure it by rewarding those farmers and dairymen who take special and peculiar care to see that their milkers have clean and dry hands, that the udders and flanks are clean, and so forth. You can only do this in some such way as is proposed in this paragraph, by protecting the producers of the milk which we call certified milk. At present there is nothing to prevent the milk seller taking a churn of milk, dividing it into two samples and selling it under two different names.
    There can be nothing worse for the milk trade than the knowledge that a man can take a churn of the same milk and sell some as ordinary milk, and some as invalids', children's, certified or guaranteed milk. There can be nothing more injurious to the milk trade than the knowledge of this. There is a great demand for this sort of certified or children's or invalids' milk, whichever you choose to call it. The right hon. Gentleman some months ago said such milk was now sold in London, but that there was no guarantee that the purchaser was getting the article which he thought he was buying. That is to say, at present it is quite easy for an unscrupulous dealer to defraud the public. The proposal really is to provide infants' or invalids' milk for which there is a demand. It is done in Denmark, and in the United States of America.
    I have an extract published by a Government Department in the United States of America, showing that the influence of certified milk in reducing mortality among infants and children is beyond
    1284
    estimation, and another that the result of giving certified milk to infants and children, as shown in the decrease in the death-rate, is a matter of common knowledge. I could bring forward much more evidence to the same effect. If this certified, guaranteed or children's milk really has the effect of reducing the infantile mortality, if it has been tried and this is found to be the case, how could any hon. Member suggest that it could be taken out of this Bill? There is no compulsion. No one is compelled to produce, sell or buy certified milk. It is entirely optional. This proposal was put down in Committee upstairs, and it had the names of Members representing all parties. It was backed by hon. Members on this side, by hon. Members representing the agricultural interest, by Liberals, and by Members of the Labour party. It represented all interests, and it was passed by the Committee unanimously, and I sincerely trust the House will keep it in the Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Spear) said this provision of the Bill introduced unnecessary and harassing conditions. This provision introduces no conditions at all which a man does not readily himself adopt. It does not require anyone to produce certified milk and it does not require any farmer to subject himself to any unusual conditions against his own will. We know that it will not be possible for many years to come to-secure that our herds shall all be free from tubercle and that all milk shall be absolutely cleanly. We will gradually work towards it. It cannot be done at once; but in the meantime, there are a certain number of farmers who produce milk who are willing to see that their herds shall be free from tubercle, and take the utmost precautions to secure that the milk shall be absolutely pure. It is necessary to-protect those farmers—to give them some terms which shall be a guarantee that they shall be protected by law, so that anyone else who comes into competition with them, and pretends to adopt the same precautions but really does not do so, shall be liable to penalty.
    That is the only purpose of this provision. It cannot be left to private enterprise, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) suggested, because you cannot have a legal guarantee by merely leaving it to private enterprise. Private enterprise might produce a supply of good milk, but at any moment it is liable to competition of

    1285
    people who sell ordinary milk under the same name without having taken the precautions which their rivals have conscientiously adopted. Most important of all, perhaps, is it that if some farmers produce pure milk certified and get a high price for it and make a good profit, they will be an example to all the other farmers in neighbouring districts, and so gradually a high standard of milk production will spread throughout the country. This proposal was urged upon me by a very authoritative deputation introduced by Sir Thomas Barlow, and other scientists of distinction, but I was unwilling to put a provision in the Bill before ascertaining the feeling of the House. The matter was discussed in Committee, where there was an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of this proposal and no Division was taken against it, and I trust the House will retain it in the Bill.
    Mr. FORSTER: If I thought the intention of this Sub-clause was really going to be an injury to the general body of milk producers, as is suggested by my hon. Friends, I should support them in advocating its withdrawal; but, frankly speaking, I do not think it is going to prejudice the position of the milk producers in the least. There are, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a certain number of milk producers who go in for the production of what one might almost call super-milk. There are a certain number of people who wish to use it. If the farmers tan get a higher price, and if the consumers are willing to pay a higher price, for the excessively good article, I do not see why they should not be allowed to do so. But I think there is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that it is now open to anybody to use the term "certified." If we are going to bring the whole of our milk production under these Regulations, I think that it is not unreasonable that the word "certified" should be restricted to those who conform to the Regulations and restrictions. On the whole, speaking for myself, I think the Sub-clause ought to be retained.
    Mr. GARDNER: Although I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would see that this Sub-section was administered reasonably, I have not that confidence in the Department for all time to feel satisfied that it would be safe to extend to them the powers contained herein. I think the powers are dangerous and
    1286
    should not be entrusted to a Department. If you get pure milk from healthy cows, clean and uncontaminated, I venture to say you have a first-class article, and if we could be sure that these Regulations were limited to that, and that alone, I do not know that there would be much objection to the Sub-clause; but I do not know to what extent it might be carried, and I do feel strongly that we have to bear in mind that the Department makes what Regulations they think proper, and if they make a standard of milk in the direction of a certain percentage of butterfats unobtainable by the ordinary farmer.
    I cannot see how you are to avoid casting a reproach upon a large number who have not the opportunity to produce milk of a standard such as might be set up. Now it is all very well to say you can have milk of various grades. The certified class of milk in the mind of everybody would rank above a class not certified, although the latter has all the qualities of first-class milk. I say that the good-class, respectable dairymen are those upon whom the dairy-farmers must rest to get a reasonable return for the efforts they put forward, and no respectable dairyman can afford to admit that he does not sell first-class milk. Therefore if first-class milk is to consist' of certified milk, he must turn to certified milk, and if the conditions of obtaining a certificate are to be such as I express a fear they might be, that would put out of court a large number of farmers who can produce a thoroughly good article but cannot come quite up to the standard that might be set, with the result that they would have to take a smaller price for their article or probably go out of the trade altogether.
    You want as much milk as ever you can get of a good high standard. I do not see how you can have it of higher value for the large mass of the people than the quality of which I have spoken, and you can only get it if you keep the largest possible number of farmers in the industry. But if you are going to pass a Clause of this sort you throw out a large number who cannot compete with people who have the opportunity, perhaps, of producing this certified milk, with the result that you get a less supply of the article you really want. I do not know how a continuous certificate is to operate. Let the milk be as good as it will to-day, it may be bad to-morrow or the day after, and, if you are going to certify milk, it

    1287
    would have to be applied to every day's milk so as to ensure that you get what you wish. I venture to say with some knowledge of those carrying on the business that it is impossible for a farmer to conform to any regular standard if he has to conform to every-day conditions. You may have a first-rate herd of dairy cows; you may fix your standard what you like—you fix it perhaps at 3½ per cent. of butter-fat; you can get that standard in the evening when it may be impossible to get it in the morning. In producing this milk for market you cannot avoid the diversity of standard that now obtains everywhere. You cannot avoid it, because your cows have to be milked at greatly varying periods, with the result that the morning's milk is below standard, and the evening's milk above standard. I believe a learned Judge on the Bench said that sort of thing ought to be altered and could be altered.
    I wish that theorist on this question had to tackle the conditions under which milk is produced. He will find from the labour point of view alone that the farmer cannot carry on the trade and produce the kind of milk that might be wanted. At present he has to set to work at 4.30 in the morning. He cannot possibly keep the men all day, with the result that to carry on his operations he has to have a period of some thirteen or fourteen hours between one milking and the other, nine hours in one case and thirteen or fourteen in the other. That being so, it is not possible for him to conform to the conditions that might be laid down. He has plenty now to worry him in carrying on the business as well as he does, and I think that if this Clause stands it will be a discouragement to a large number of people who really support this Bill and desire to see it become law but do not desire to see anything in it which would make it more difficult for the farmer to continue in the trade and make a reasonable profit. We want more and more farmers to come into the trade. My hon. Friend (Sir John Spear) said this Clause was not in the Bill when it was introduced. It is therefore no affront to the Government to ask them to withdraw it or to vote against it, and if he goes to a Division I shall support him.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Local Government Board) has referred to what
    1288
    took place in the Committee upstairs when we were discussing the Amendment then proposed by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor). The impression conveyed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I think, was that this Clause as it stands was exactly as it was then proposed, and was carried unanimously. We were told that a prolonged discussion took place in connection with this question. It was a long discussion, and there was a very strong expression of opinion that it was a doubtful procedure that was being put into the Bill, and if you will look at the proceedings of the Committee you will find that it was not put into the Bill until concessions were made to those who were doubtful about it. Considerable concessions were put into the Clause as it was originally proposed by the hon. Member for Plymouth.
    I think this is a question that should not be hurriedly swept to one side as some hon. Gentlemen seem to think. We all want milk of a high quality; but we were not satisfied to let the Clause go through until we had amended it in the Committee, and also until we got strong representations from the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Local Government Board) that in any Order that was issued no distinction would be made which could be used as a trade mark by a big firm. It is no use concealing the facts from the House. There are many supplies of pure milk, but we all know there are big concerns who have advantages which the smaller milk producer cannot have, and they would be able to get a standardised article under the sanction of the Government which would virtually have a Government monopoly under the cover of the Government certificate.
    We all desire to prevent that, and I think after the discussion upstairs in Committee and the Amendments which were made that it is possible that the Clause might be improved at the present time if the right hon. Gentleman would give it his consideration and see that no designation of milk would pass into use which would not protect the smaller man against the great monopolies who have a large hand in and a heavy control over the milk supply of the metropolis and other large places, and who to a large extent have at their mercy the farmers who send the milk in. It is sent in to these large firms, and the farmer does not come for one moment into direct contact with the consumer. I

    1289
    think that is a serious thing, and I ask the House not to sweep it away as something which is not worthy of consideration.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: I think the contention of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Gardner) as to the difficulty of keeping up a high standard is met by the insertion of the provision for continuous inspection in these cases. Anyone who expected to supply the certified milk would obviously have to be prepared to provide samples at frequent intervals to show that the standard was kept up. It is not, as has been said, a standard of butter-fat; I should imagine it would deal with the case of those people who wish to get milk only from herds that have been tested for tuberculosis, and whose milkers are clean, and milk supplied in bottle and bottled at the farm itself. Surely it is reasonable if people are prepared to pay for milk of that kind that there should be some means of ensuring that it is what it purports to be.
    Hon. Members have said it is necessary to get cheap milk and that this would make milk more expensive. I think it would have the opposite effect. If you do not have this certified milk you may have an agitation for milk all round the majority of consumers can afford to pay for. I think you can prevent that only by enabling milk to be produced to meet the two different classes of demand. The average producer cannot supply this higher standard, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) has said. If he attempts to do so he is liable to competition on the part of those who want to take fraudulent advantage of the name. Take the case of bottled milk. People bottled milk, instead of 4d. per quart, sometimes Is. a quart. If you look through the window when the bottled milk is being delivered in the morning, you will often find that what these people are paying an extra 8d. per quart for, milk as bottled on the farm as they imagine it to be, it is really bottled at their very door, and is possibly infected by the lips of the man who delivers it as he licks the label which he puts on the bottle to say it is pure bottled milk.
    Mr. SANDYS: As a representative of an agricultural constituency though not a member of the Committee may I be permitted to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Spear). One of the results that would be bound to follow from the inclusion of this Clause would be a falling off in the milk
    1290
    supply, which is the very opposite to that which we want to get by this Milk Bill. Another point I would like to urge is that this was not originally in the Bill. We all know the suspicion with which the agricultural community looks upon all new proposals of this kind which result in the further inspection of their industry.
    It would be an unfortunate thing if this part of the Bill were left in, because, in my opinion, it does not really tend towards the general purposes of the Bill, and it may lead to difficulties in the administration of it when it is put into operation. It seems to me to give an unfair advantage to the big producer, because there is no doubt whatever he will be in a position to obtain these certificates and to obtain a higher price for milk, and these opportunities will not be open to the smaller producer. That is a consideration worth attending to. This is a general Bill to improve the standard of milk all over the country. Is it desirable in a Bill of this kind to set up two standards of milk—one for the poorer classes and the other for the richer classes—to have one standard of milk for the poorer classes and another standard of milk for the richer classes? What we want to do is to improve the general standard of milk all over the country, and if you make a distinction of this kind, you really defeat the broad and real objects of the Bill itself. Now, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) said that this proposal was something in the shape of a reward for clean milk, for dairies carried on under the most favourable conditions possible. But, if he looks at it from the point of view of agriculturists, he will see it is not so much a reward for exceptional milk as that it would result in putting a slur on the milk which was not so certified, and for which farmers were not able to obtain these particular certificates.
    Then, the hon. Member went on to say—and I was rather surprised to hear it—that, in regard to all these matters you could not carry them through effectively by legislation. That is my opinion, but it seemed to me to be an argument against the proposal rather than in favour of it. As a matter of fact, those dairymen who do, under existing conditions, produce an exceptional class of milk are unable, in the ordinary commercial way, to demand an exceptional price for it. We all know that. I do not like this idea of a Government guarantee. I think it is

    1291
    open to many objections, and if it is introduced in respect of milk in this way, of course, further demands will be put forward for Government guarantees and Government certificates in all directions. I really think that it is a proposal which we ought to look at with very great suspicion. I think, also, that it is a very unworkable proposal. No hon. Member who has spoken in favour of it has given any clear idea, indeed, as to how these inspections should be carried out. One hon. Member said they were practically to be continuous inspections; that seems to me to be a quite unworkable proposal. Others said there should be periodical inspections. Well, as the hon. Member who last spoke pointed out, there are great elements of unfairness and injustice in periodical inspections taking place in the varying conditions that exist. Altogether, it seems to me to be a part of the Bill which would be very much better struck out, in the interests not only of the agricultural community, but of the general consumers of milk throughout the country.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I am asked to say, on behalf of the Agricultural Organisation Society, which contains, mainly, the small farmers rather than the large, that they hope that this House will retain this Clause. They have got now a large number of cooperative milk depots in various parts of the country, whose object largely is to maintain a high standard of the milk, and to secure that no milk which is not of a high standard passes out of those depots. They contend, and properly, in my opinion, that it is only fair that some preference should be given to such milk. The hon. Member for Tavistock opened his remarks by saying that it was not fair to put any section of milk producers in a privileged position. To that I entirely demur. If milk producers produce a better article, and attain some standard of purity for
    that article, it is only fair that they should have a privileged position.
    After all, what is milk? Is milk an article containing, say, a bare 3 per cent. of butter fat and 5,000,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre, say a salt-spoon; or is it an article containing 5 per cent. or more of butter fat, or only 7,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre? In one case, it is worth at least double what it is in the other, and if that is the case surely it is only fair that we should do, in this country, what is done, and done without difficulty, in Denmark and in the United States, to give some sort of a guarantee to such milk, after a periodic inspection, and to ensure that those who really desire to obtain good value for the money they pay for milk, do obtain what they ask for. In those countries, so far from doing any injustice to those who do not put certified milk on the market, it levels up the whole milk supply and enables the poorer part of the population to obtain much purer milk than they ever got before.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I should like just to explain that although I was a Member of the Committee, I was not there that day being called away to the funeral of a very near relative. I would say just this word. All the arguments of hon. Members against this Amendment seem to me to arise as if they thought that this Bill was going to be a failure. We take a higher standard than they do. We say that this House is responsible for seeing that all milk is clean and pure, and therefore, having supported a Bill which will accomplish that purpose, we do object, in the interests of the general producer, to any preferential treatment being given to the wealthy section of dairymen.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'term' ["of the term"], stand part of the Bill."
    The House Divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 52.

    Division No. 203.]

    AYES.

    [12.56 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Clough, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bigland, Alfred

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Boland, John Plus

    Crumley, Patrick

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cullinan, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Brace, William

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Astor, Waldorf

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Devlin, Joseph

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Doris, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duffy, William J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Falconer, James

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Kendall, Athelstan

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Maclean, Donald

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Glanville, Harold James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Goldman, C. S.

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robinson, Sidney

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Manfield, Harry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Gulland, John William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hackett, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hancock, John George

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

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sheehy, David

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Molloy, Michael

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Shortt, Edward

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Muldoon, John

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Stanier, Beville

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Hills, John Waller

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Webb, H.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shee, James John

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    King, Joseph

    Pratt, J. W.

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Sandys, G. J.

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cassel, Felix

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cautley, H. S.

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

    Currle, George W.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Rutherford, John (Lanes Darwen)

    John Spear and Mr. Hicks Beach.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Further Amendments made:
    Leave out the word "term" ["of the term 'certified milk' "] and insert instead thereof the word "designation."—[Mr. H. Samuel.]
    Leave out the words "term or" ["term or designation"].—[Mr H. Samuel.]
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move to insert after paragraph (g)
    (h) The procedure to be followed in the bacteriological examination of milk and the methods to be employed for this purpose, together with such data as shall be necessary for the interpretation of results so obtained.

    1295
    I desire to give the Local Government Board further powers with regard to bacteriological examinations, and I have no doubt that if they have these powers they will immediately use them. The Act mentions frequently bacteriological examinations, and as there is nothing on which there is more difference of opinion and more trouble than bacteriological examinations it is necessary that the Local Government Board should lay down definite rules as regards the method by which these examinations should take place. The Board should say definitely whether all that is required is a microscopical examination; whether that is sufficient or whether inoculation of the animals is to be added; if so, how long the animal is to remain under observation; or if it is only to be a microscopical examination what method of straining ought to be used, and other details. Unless that is done there will be great divergence of opinion, and neither the purveyor nor the distributor will know exactly how to conduct examinations in order to agree with those of the examiners.
    It is equally necessary that it should be stated definitely what inference should be drawn from such results, because there again there are vast differences of opinion. It is usual for these examiners to use different methods, and unless a uniform method is employed all over the country, the distributor and purveyor will never know how far he is liable. It is very easy to formulate such Regulations. We have them in the United States. In the United States they are very strict about the purity of water, and the Association of Bacteriology has strict regulations and rules as to how bacteriological examination is to take place. There will be no harm in inserting this Clause containing the powers I wish to have given to the Board, and I trust the President will see no objection to inserting it in the Bll.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am advised that it would not be practicable to prescribe by an Order of the Local Government Board what shall be the procedure to be followed in making bacteriological examinations of milk or the methods to be followed by the bacteriologists. It would be turning a text book on bacteriology into a Regulation, and my Department could
    1296
    not take that duty upon itself, and if it did, the bacteriologists throughout the country would regard it as an unwarranted interference with their professional functions.
    Clause 7 goes as far as we can in this respect. It is laid down that provision shall be made for such facilities for bacteriological or other examinations of milk as may be approved by the Board, that is to say, that the Board takes power to provide for a bacteriologist being appointed, to see that a man of repute and whose methods are recognised to be sound is employed for bacteriological examinations; but we cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman desires, and if we did prescribe the methods we should have no means of enforcing them unless we had an officer of our own watching the bacteriologist conducting the examination.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. GARDNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "require" ["to require any cow to be milked"], to insert the words "at the usual time of milking."
    I wish to do that. I will not say to prevent harassing the farmer, but still to make the operation of this Act as easy as possible for him. I can easily understand that if an inspector comes in and makes the farmer go into his shed and turn out animals for inspection the animals disturbed will not be only those for examination but others in the shed might be disturbed. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, but if he would I should be glad. At any rate I move.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The words in the Bill follow precisely the Clause inserted in over 100 local Acts of Parliament, which, so far as we know, have given rise to no difficulty of any kind. Of course, as a rule a person would meet the convenience of the farmer, but, if it were made a statutory obligation, it might give rise to a controversy in particular cases which should be avoided. The words are not necessary, and might give rise, in our view, to difficulty, and be of no advantage. I should, however, be glad to accept the two following Amendments of the hon. Member, which would effect some verbal improvement in the Clause.
    Mr. GARDNER: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "and" ["kept separate and separate examples"], insert the words "to take."
    Leave out the word "furnished" ["separate samples thereof furnished"].—[Mr. Gardner.]
    Mr. FORSTER: Before we come to Clause 3, I should like to ask how far the Government really wish to go to-night? We have done our best to keep the Debate strictly business-like. We have been discussing this matter for two and a quarter hours, and have really made considerable progress. I understand it is not the wish or intention of the Government even to attempt to force the Bill through the House when all parties are doing their best to expedite the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how far he thinks we ought to go to-night.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must ex press my acknowledgments to hon. Members opposite and in all quarters of the House for the manner in which they have endeavoured to expedite the proceedings to-night, and I should certainly not desire to carry the Bill further than hon. Members opposite would wish me to do. Perhaps we may take this one other Clause, in which, I think, there are hardly any points, and then move to report Progress.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Stop Supply of Milk likely to Cause Tuberculosis.)
    (1) If the medical officer of health of a county or county borough is of opinion that tuberculosis, is caused, or is likely to be caused, by the consumption of milk supplied from any dairy in which cows are kept within such county or county borough, the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the reports to be made and the steps to be taken with a view to stopping the supply of milk from the dairy, and with a view to stopping such supply orders may be made in accordance with that Schedule, subject to such right of appeal and the payment of compensation in such cases as are provided therein.
    (2) Where an order stopping the supply of milk is made under the said schedule a
    1298
    dairyman shall not be liable for an action for breach of contract if the breach is due to such order.
    (3) If any dairyman whilst any order made in accordance with the said schedule prohibiting the supply or use of milk is in force supplies or uses any milk in contravention of this order he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
    (4) The Local Government Board may by order direct that the council of any non-county borough within the county, which is a local authority for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1911, shall exercise and perform within the borough the powers and duties of the county council under this and the next succeeding section, and where such an order has ben made with respect to any non-county borough this and the next succeeding section shall apply as if the borough were a county borough.
    Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "is of opinion" ["county borough is of opinion that tuberculosis"] and to insert instead thereof the words "shall certify."
    I consider it is one of the worst features of the Bill that most extraordinary and wide discretionary powers are given to the medical officer of health, and in regard to a point on which most of the doctors—most of the authorities—disagree themselves. The reason why I wish the words changed is simply that any medical officer of health might give his opinion simply to show that he knows better than the scientific experts who are generally employed by the large farmers, but more particularly my reason for wanting the words changed is that it is almost impossible to come to a proper conclusion without bacteriological examination, and one has to consider in this matter the producers and the distributors, and it seems to me that the Committee in their consideration omitted the interest of the large distributors altogether. If this Clause remains as it is now, the distributor who is dependant on the opinion of the medical officer is liable to very injurious consequences which certainly ought to be avoided. It is well known that his testimony, if pitted against the authority of the medical officer of health, is worthless, and the Authority will always accept the testimony of the medical officer of health in preference to the aggrieved person.

    1299
    Of course there is power of appeal, but if a producer comes into Court he knows very well that the case will appear in the papers and will do him a deal of damage, and he would rather have his milk condemned than have it advertised all over the place that he has been selling unsound milk. It must not be forgotten what fearful punishment this inflicts, especially on the very large distributors in towns, simply on the opinion of the medical officer. The whole of his supply is stopped. He will not be able to supply his customers with milk for two or three days—perhaps longer. He loses his customers, who will go elsewhere, and it does his business considerable harm. All I ask is that the medical officer should not have such absolute discretionary powers as to be able simply to say he is "of opinion." He should say something more definite, and take more responsibility in the matter. I think the words I propose here will give him this responsibility, and I trust that, in order to safeguard the interest of the producers, the President of the Local Government Board will not object to change the words in the Clause.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not merely a question of the medical officers' opinion that the milk is tubercular which enables proceedings to be taken for that stoppage of a particular milk supply. In the first place, when he is of opinion that the milk is likely to cause disease he may set on foot the whole machinery of the second Schedule in order that the matter may be put right, that is to say, he must first report to the local authority, then he must secure bacteriological reports, then the person responsible for the milk may be called before the local authority to give an explanation. The local authority, after taking all these steps, then, and not till then, is in a position to take proceedings with regard to that particular milk supply. It is impossible to leave the Bill in a workable shape without putting these words in, because no medical officer can possibly certify that particular milk will cause tuberculosis. He can only say it is likely to do so. He can merely express his professional opinion. He cannot give a certificate that it will cause disease as a matter of fact. He may form his opinion, and then the local authority has to get
    1300
    these reports and ask for explanations, and obtain bacteriological examinations of the milk. In these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "borough" ["The Local Government Board may by order direct that the council of any non-county borough "] to insert the words "or urban district."
    I moved this in the Committee and desire to again ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) to consider the claims of these large bodies, the urban councils. Many of them have certain powers over milk under the existing law. They are large and populous places. I know the impression is abroad that the urban district councils are very small bodies representing small areas. The fact is that a large number of them have larger populations than many of the non-county boroughs, especially some of the non-county boroughs which come under the 50,000 limit of population. I know we have urban districts with a population of 100,000 and even 150,000. There are others above 50,000. I have in my own constituency two rapidly rising to 30,000 each. I think the Local Government Board might give the powers to them under the Bill and I am sure they are fit for it and would be quite equal to the task. I will not labour the matter but would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not allow the Clause to extend to urban districts of 10,000 or 15,000 and over, that would let a great number in.
    Mr. NUTTALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If it were only a case of admitting these larger urban district authorities, and giving them the same powers as the other local authorities, the case of my hon. Friend would be almost unanswerable. But it is not so. My own feeling in the matter, and I am sure the feeling of the House generally, is that you must not have a dual system of inspection in respect to the same matter or closely analogous matters. This raises what we all know to be the very complicated question relating to local authorities. Certain local authorities have powers under the

    1301
    Diseases of Animals Act. They are large powers analogous to those given in the Bill by this Clause. They have powers to receive notification of any cow which is suffering from tuberculosis, or disease of the udders, or any other disease. They have powers to direct veterinary examinations and to receive reports, and in the case of animals affected by disease to order them to be slaughtered, and to pay compensation, and they can take steps for the protection of the milk when animals are suffering from disease.
    All these matters come under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1878, and if hon. Members will refer to the powers proposed to be conferred by the Clause they will clearly see that they are powers and duties which ought to be performed by the same officers. I am not touching the Diseases of Animals Act in this Bill; I cannot amend it. Therefore I have to take the position as it stands now, and that is to give these powers to the authorities which already possess the analogous powers. I am taking the same authorities now. No urban district council has powers under the Diseases of Animals Act and that is why I am not including urban district councils. This matter was fully discussed in Committee and it went to a Division, and my hon. Friend's Amendment was defeated by 28 to 6. That vote was in favour of the Bill as it now stands and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it now.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Wednesday).

  COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS. (QUALIFICATION) (No. 3) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir H. VERNEY in the Chair].
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

    ACQUISITION OR CAPITAL (OLD SINKING FUND).
    Resolution reported,
    "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."
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the Resolution reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the 7th day of this instant July, and then agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—[Dr. Macnamara.]

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL) BILL.
    "To provide Money for the purpose of the Acquisition of Share or Loan Capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited." Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 345.]
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  INEBRIATES BILL.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury about a Bill which is down for to-morrow night, after eleven? I think it is called the Inebriates Bill. It has not yet had a Second

  1303
  Reading, it has 55 Clauses, and a controversial schedule, and I do ask whether, at this late period of the Session, this Bill ought to be presented to us, late tomorrow night, for Second Reading? Surely there can be no hope of passing it this Session, it is opposed on both sides of the House.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Percy llling-worth): As the hon. Member knows, there has been some debate on this Bill. Of course, if the Bill is warmly opposed, it disappears this Session, and we cannot get it through I understand, though that is not the case, and I hope we may be allowed to get the Second Beading, in order to enable the Committee upstairs to consider its provisions.
  Mr. BOOTH: My point is that there has been no debate on the Bill.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I should like to join with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Booth) in pointing out that there has been no debate whatever on the Bill this Session. There are several hon. Members who want to discuss the Second Reading,
  1304
  yet the Bill has been put down to-morrow night, I think, after eleven o'clock, as the Third Order. That is to say, two other Bills are going to be discussed before the Second Reading of this Bill comes on. I do appeal to the Patronage Secretary to take it at some other time—after eleven o'clock, if he likes—but some other time, and not to put it down after two other Bills, both of which will entail considerable discussion.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I may say that the Bill was only put down on the understanding that it was to be taken if time permitted. There has been—I think I am within the recollection of the House—some debate on the Second Reading.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: Not this year.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: This is the adjourned Debate.
  Mr. BOOTH: It was only about a minute and a half. There was no debate. Nobody moved it, nobody explained it.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes before Two o'clock a.m., Wednesday, 29th July.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  FOREIGN WORKMEN.
  FOREIGN WORKMEN.
  Government Offices (New Buildings).
  Government Offices (New Buildings).
  Cunard Steamship Company.
  Cunard Steamship Company.
  London University.
  London University.
  O'Beime Estate, Fahy, County Leitrim.
  O'Beime Estate, Fahy, County Leitrim.
  Colonel O'Hara Estate, Loughrea, County Galway.
  Colonel O'Hara Estate, Loughrea, County Galway.
  County Kerry (Land Purchase Liabilities).
  County Kerry (Land Purchase Liabilities).
  Prison Warders (Ireland).
  Prison Warders (Ireland).
  Irish Arms Proclamation Order.
  Irish Arms Proclamation Order.
  Irish Training Colleges.
  Irish Training Colleges.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (OVERTIME RATES OF PAY).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (OVERTIME RATES OF PAY).
  FLEET MOBILISATION.
  FLEET MOBILISATION.
  Royal Garrison Artillery, Jersey.
  Royal Garrison Artillery, Jersey.
  Grazing Tenancy, King's Island, Limerick.
  Grazing Tenancy, King's Island, Limerick.
  Teaching of Hygiene.
  Teaching of Hygiene.
  Rhodesia (Land Settlement Ordinance).
  Rhodesia (Land Settlement Ordinance).
  Cinema Films (India).
  Cinema Films (India).
  Fatal Accidents in Factories.
  Fatal Accidents in Factories.
  Female Factory Inspectors.
  Female Factory Inspectors.
  Metropolitan Police (Sick List).
  Metropolitan Police (Sick List).
  Bishop's Fees.
  Bishop's Fees.
  Heavy Motor Traffic, Harrogate.
  Heavy Motor Traffic, Harrogate.
  Housing (Loans to Local Authorities).
  Housing (Loans to Local Authorities).
POST OFFICE.
  CLASSIFICATION (GREENOCK).
  CLASSIFICATION (GREENOCK).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TINTAGEL (LETTER DISPATCHES).
  TINTAGEL (LETTER DISPATCHES).
  Vaccination (Scotland).
  Vaccination (Scotland).
  Russia and Persia.
  Russia and Persia.
  Wages of Railway Servants.
  Wages of Railway Servants.
MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
To be printed. (No. 196.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be printed and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 197.)

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL.
ISLE OF THANET GAS BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
ST. ANNE'S-ON-THE-SEA IMPROVEMENT BILL.
HAYWARD'S HEATH GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
WADHURST AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
SOUTHEND GAS BILL.
BRECON AND MERTHYR TYDFIL JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
DE TRAFFORD ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
  FALKLAND AND PLUSCARDEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTERN ROAD AND IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCE) BILL.
PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Latymer and the Lord Stanmore be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Selby and the Lord Gorell; read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
Special Orders dated 24th July 1914—
1. Entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Consolidated Order (Ireland), 1914;
2. Entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Consolidated Order (Ireland), 1914:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 198.)

TRADE MARKS BILL. (No. 199.)
  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL. (No. 200.)
  Read 1ª, and to be printed.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this being one of the class of measures which are of a semi-public and semi-private nature, I do not intend to delay your Lordships in saying anything upon it in moving the Second Reading. I understand that it will appear before a Committee of your Lordships' House in the course of the next few days, and in those circumstances I will content myself by formally moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*LORD GORELL: My Lords, in rising to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I think that I owe the House some explanation why I should be venturing to trouble you with a measure which may seem somewhat long and complicated, at a time when your Lordships' thoughts and attention are occupied by so many other grave matters. Your Lordships will remember that as the result of a Motion in this House rather more than five years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the law and its administration in divorce and matrimonial causes, and the subject of the publication of reports of such causes; and after a long and exhaustive inquiry by that Commission, which represented very different views and opinions, two Reports were presented which agree on the need for many reforms whilst disagreeing on two points to which I will refer in a moment. Those of us who are interested in these reforms and who believe that the law should be amended for the good of the State and of morality generally had hoped that His Majesty's Government might have been able to take some steps in the matter, if not upon the lines recommended in the Majority Report, at any rate upon the lines of the agreed recommendations. But
190
that hope disappeared in view of an answer given by the Prime Minister in another place to the late Sir William Anson, whose loss those of us who had the privilege of working with him deeply feel. In that answer the Prime Minister said that there was no prospect at the present time of the Government dealing with the matter, and it was therefore left to private initiation. Your Lordships have in this House three persons who were associated with the work of the Royal Commission to which I have referred: the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York, who may, I hope, be present here to-day; the noble Earl, Lord Derby; and the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England—the latter two of whom, however, were forced, owing to the pressure of their public engagements, to resign their membership of the Commission before the Commission came to its conclusion. I therefore felt that a duty devolved upon me, as having been secretary of the Royal Commission, of endeavouring to carry forward the reforms recommended by that Commission, the need for which was at first prominently brought forward by its chairman, and which he had so very much at heart.
The object of this Bill is stated in the Memorandum which is prefixed to it, and which I have amended since it was originally issued to make it as comprehensive and clear as possible. The Bill is based on recommendations common to the Majority and the Minority Reports, and its object is to state the law in a form embodying all the principal recommendations which received the assent of all the Commissioners, and I have set out those recommendations in the Memorandum. I hope that I have carried out that object faithfully. It is a difficult Bill to draft for one who is not a Parliamentary draftsman, and I am sure that any errors are due to lack of skill and not to lack of effort. I also hope that its object will not arouse serious discussion or criticism. I venture to think that it is remarkable that on such a controversial subject there should have been such a large amount of agreement since, as I have said, only two points were left outstanding on which the Commissioners did not agree. The first is the question of causes, which has always been a vexed and very difficult question, and one which—although I have my own view upon it—I have not thought it practicable to bring before your Lordships, since I hope only to put forward pro-

191
posals upon which there is agreement and upon which there is a reasonable hope of effecting reform. The second point on which there was not agreement, though on this there was agreement on principle, was the question of the jurisdiction of the Court. With regard to that, the Minority Report expressed the view that it was of course incontestable that no one ought to be deprived of his legal rights through poverty, and concurred with the Majority Report that local Courts exercising jurisdiction of the High Court ought to be established. But I understand that this must necessarily form the subject of a Government measure, and I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time with academic discussion. I hope that I shall he able to show your Lordships that the proposals Which are contained in this Bill are fair and reasonable in themselves and would effect a very useful measure of reform.
I now come to the provisions of the Bill itself, and I do not propose to go into very great detail because if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading that can be better dealt with in Committee, but there are many details which I have tried to make clear in the Memorandum. There are four broad points dealt with in the Bill, two of which deal with the jurisdiction of the High Court, one with the jurisdiction of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and the last deals with the question of the publication of reports.
With regard to the question of the position of women in relation to the law of divorce, as your Lordships know, at present, whilst a man is able to obtain a divorce on the ground of adultery alone, a woman has, to obtain a divorce, to prove either incestuous adultery, bigamy with adultery, rape, or certain unnatural offences, or, what is the more usual thing, adultery coupled with cruelty or desertion. This state of the law takes its origin in private Acts, and the Act of 1857 was only introduced with a view to remedying procedure and not the law itself, as was stated by the Attorney-General, Sir Richard when that Act was under discussion. I need not point out how vastly the position of women has altered since those days, and I venture to think that the time has arrived for removing this inequality which is felt to be a very serious grievance.
The reasons for making available for a wife in a suit against her husband the same
192
grounds for obtaining a divorce as are permitted to a husband are these. First of all you have the unanimous recommendation of all those who have studied this question, and also the practical unanimity of all those who gave evidence before the Royal Commission. Secondly, I venture to think that the distinction which at present exists is not based on any sound principle either of law, since such a distinction does not exist in a suit for judicial separation, or in ethics, and here I should like to quote the words used by Mr. Gladstone during the course of the discussion on the Bill of 1857 on this point. Mr. Gladstone said—
"I believe that the evil of introducing this principle of inequality between melt and women is far greater than the evil which would arise front additional cases of divorce a vinculo; and I take my stand, in the first place, on this, that, if it be assumed that the indissolubility of marriage has been the result of the operation of the Christian religion on earth, still more emphatically I believe it may be assumed that the principle of the equality of the sexes has been the consequence of that religion. You have in the very earliest times some traces of what approaches to it; but it is the special and peculiar doctrines of the Gospel respecting the personal relation in which every Christian, whether man or woman, is placed to the person of our Lord that form the firm, the broad, the indestructible basis of the equality of the sexes under the Christian law."
A further point is that there is no such distinction existing in the laws of Scotland or in the laws of the many countries which permit of divorce on the ground of adultery. I do not think I need occupy your Lordships' time in detailing them, but I could if your Lordships wished.
There is one other very important consideration which I venture to press on your Lordships, and that is, that where two standards exist the lower is apt and is tending to be taken, and the existence of those two standards has undoubtedly created a very bitter feeling among women that justice, certainly in this respect, is denied to them. Those who did not take the view which I am putting forward in this Bill expressed an opinion which was considerably in advance of that taken at the time of the Act of 1857, since they would go as far as to permit a divorce on the ground of continuous adultery, which at present—surely an unjust position—would not be a ground for divorce, their objection to making adultery alone for the woman a ground for divorce being based on the possibility of obtaining a divorce for a single act. With regard to that, I venture to think that those who take that view

193
have not given sufficient weight to the medical aspect of the question. The Royal Commission of which I had the honour to be secretary had before it several distinguished physicians, who gave very striking evidence, and that evidence has been borne out in a remarkable way by the evidence which has been given before the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases, of which my noble friend on my right (Lord Sydenham) is chairman. I do not want to go into the details of that, but; there are one or two broad points which I feel I must put forward. First of all, I think it is incontestable front the evidence given before both Commissions, that practically every married woman who suffers from these diseases suffers owing to the vice of the husband, and that it is practically certain that if the husband is infected she will be too. I do not think anything could be more striking than the evidence given on that point with regard to the effect of these diseases on the birthrate, which is not taken into consideration on this question. One distinguished witness before the Commission said that one-fourth of all possible children died before reaching their first birthday owing to these causes. When one studies that evidence and appreciates the appalling sufferings which are inflicted on innocent wives and innocent children, involving possible blindness, deafness, and insanity, I venture to think it is only right that a woman, knowing the risks which may ensue to herself and possibly to her children, should have the right to say that she is not prepared to take, those risks, a right the exercise of which could be very fairly left to her. I therefore hope that your Lordships in this will come to the conclusion to which the Commissioners came, and to which the Minority assented, that—
"no satisfactory solution of the problem, which is raised as to the personal relations between husband and wife, can be found except by placing them on an equal footing, and by declaring that whatever grounds are permitted to a husband for obtaining a divorce from his wife, the same grounds should be available for a wife in a suit against her husband."
I pass now to the second point in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court—the question of nullity of marriage and presumption of death. These questions are dealt with in Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. As your Lordships know, at present a marriage requires certain conditions and formalities, such as age, consent and so on, but misrepresentations, even though
194
fraudulent, or concealment do not, apart from duress or imbecility of mind amounting to insanity, a fleet the validity of the marriage, and the result is that however much a person may be deceived into marriage by fraudulent statements or the concealment of facts by either party, or however unfit for marriage the other party may be, unless that unfitness amounts to impotence, the marriage is binding. The Commissioners thought that in the interests of the State and of morality, and of possible children, a marriage of the kind to which I have referred should for certain causes be capable of being annulled. Those causes are set out in Clause 4 of the Bill, and I will deal with them briefly.
Clause 4 (1) (a) merely restates the existing law. Paragraph (b) deals with a case of unsoundness of mind or a state of incipient mental unsoundness—that is to say, cases where though the person is technically capable of giving such a consent as the jury or Court must hold to be a consent, he or she is really incapable or unfit to enter into the obligation of marriage. The other points are epilepsy and recurrent fits of insanity, which are clearly shown by the medical evidence to be extremely hereditary complaints, involving almost certainly the producing of insane or epileptic children or idiots. By Clause 4 (1) (c) a person is allowed to have a marriage annulled where the other party to the marriage was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form. Evidence on that point was given before the Royal Commission on Divorce Laws, and the point has again been most forcibly brought out before the Royal Commission over which my noble friend Lord Sydenham presides. Every witness who has dealt with this question is agreed that persons suffering from these diseases are quite unfit to marry, and all are agreed that something should be done, and I venture to hope that these proposals will meet with your Lordships' approval. The fourth case mentioned in these paragraphs is rare, but is a very gross case of fraud. All those provisions are carefully safeguarded in the provisos at the end.
With regard to presumption of death, which is dealt with in Clause 5, the position at present is that a person cannot be convicted of bigamy who marries in the lifetime of the absent spouse if that person

195
has been away for seven years without news, nor if that person has been absent in circumstances which reasonably suggest the belief that he or she is dead. The absence may be so long—the Statute indicates a period of seven years—as would lead anybody to believe that the question of death had arisen, but though a Court of Probate can deal with the property of such a person, yet a marriage contracted by the other party, if the absent partner should subsequently prove to be alive, would be a bad marriage and their children illegitimate. Therefore the proposal in Clause 5 is to allow any married person who alleges that reasonable grounds exist for supposing that the other party to the marriage is dead to apply to the High Court for a decree of presumption of death, and the Court, if satisfied that such reasonable grounds exist, is empowered to make a decree nisi of presumption of death, which would enable the person to contract the second marriage which could not be attacked. That provision is safeguarded by the proposals in the other subsections of the clause, which would enable the King's Proctor to take all steps for seeing that the matter was properly looked into.
I now pass to Part II of the Bill, since the other provisions in Part I are mainly procedure Amendments, though I will refer to two of them at a later stage. Part II deals with the jurisdiction of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, which has been, as the result of the inquiry by the Royal Commission on Divorce, found to be very unsatisfactory. There was an absolutely general consensus of opinion on that, and the evidence of many witnesses showed what evil effects are produced by separation orders. The Royal Commission pointed out that the proper principle to apply to such Courts is that their orders should only be granted where they are necessary for the reasonable immediate protection of the wife or husband, or the support of the wife and the children with her; and that orders which have, in fact, the effect of permanently separating married persons should not be made by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction but should only be made by the High Court. I am in hopes that that may be the local branch of the High Court which was contemplated by the Royal Commission, but as that does not exist I have left it in the Bill as it now stands as the High Court. I have taken
196
pains to keep the two provisions—that is to say, of protection and of maintenance—which were previously often confused, separate, having dealt with the first, protection, in Clause 9, and with the provision of maintenance in Clause 10. There are other clauses in this part of the Bill which may appear technical. I think that the details which I have supplied in the Memorandum will enable your Lordships to follow them, but if there are any further particulars which your Lordships desire about them, I shall be pleased to give them.
I pass to the fourth point, the question of the publication of reports of divorce and matrimonial causes. Upon this question again the Royal Commission had a considerable amount of evidence, including evidence from distinguished representatives of or members engaged in the journalistic profession, and they also had the laws of foreign countries on the subject supplied to them through the courtesy of the Foreign Office. With regard to the laws in foreign countries, it is of interest to notice that where those laws do not prohibit publication altogether they restrict it to a very marked degree. Two views were put forward with regard to publication. On the one hand, that it was beneficial as being a deterrent to the commission of acts of immorality, but that view was very largely disposed of and certainly completely outweighed by the very great detriment that the existing right of publication is to the national morals. On the other hand, most striking evidence was given by a representative of the Chief Constables Association, which embraces nearly all the boroughs in England and Wales, who said that with one exception the ninety-eight Chief Constables in the Association were unanimous in stating that the existing publication had a deleterious effect especially upon young persons of both sexes of the poorer classes, and this evidence was borne out by the very experienced view of Lord Alverstone when he was Lord Chief Justice of England, who stated that the mischief done to children of tender years of both sexes amongst the poorer classes was incalculable. It also has the effect frequently of deterring witnesses who otherwise would come forward, but who are not prepared to face the terrible publicity of that Court. It is also very bad for the children of the parties themselves, though perhaps that does not affect so many.

197
The evils of the present publication of excessive details have been admitted by all responsible parties in the Press. Whilst desiring to retain free play for the Press to express and form a healthy public opinion, the Royal Commission were anxious to restrict the publication of excessive details and to try and steer a middle course between absolute prohibition and the present state of affairs. Their proposals are set out in Clauses 25, 26, and 27 of the Bill. By Clause 25 the Court is given power, which it very probably but not clearly possesses, of closing the Court where in the opinion of the Court that course is necessary in the interests of decency or morality; that is to say, where the details are so gross or where their publication would be prejudicial to P1orals—or humanity—the case where a child of tender years has to give evidence—or justice—where a witness, usually a woman, cannot do justice to his or her evidence on, I will not say indecent, but sexual details before a crowded Court; and under the second part of this subsection power is given to order the whole or any part of the proceedings to be heard in camera. The second subsection gives the power to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. Clause 26 forbids the publication of reports until the conclusion of the proceedings, which would have a very important effect in decreasing the sensational interest which is aroused by day to day reports, frequently accompanied by sensational posters. The clause further prohibits the publication of pictorial representations, which is really only embodying in a definite form of law the practice at present, since the better organs have accepted the expression of opinion which was laid down in 1906, and this provision would only compel those who do not adhere to what the general Press do to follow that indication. It also prohibits the publication of such part of proceedings as is heard in camera. Subsection (2) of Clause 26 makes contravention of this provision a contempt of Court.
In Clause 27—and this is a clause to which in their recommendations the Commissioners attached considerable importance—the Court is required when making an Order to state its reasons in open Court. This provision is inserted for two reasons. Firstly, so that the public generally may be informed and there may be no doubt as to the reasons, no suggestion of favouritism or anything of that sort; and, secondly,
198
to have a deterrent effect since people would come to regard it as a disgrace that in the opinion of the Court their case was regarded as so indecent as to be unfit for publication.
I have now dealt with the four main points, but there are a few points mainly of procedure with which I should like to deal very briefly. By Clause 6 of the Bill it is proposed that the trial should be before a Judge alone, the reasons for this being that at present juries are seldom used—I think there have been only six jury trials during this last sitting. They are not used in Scotland in this class of case, nor in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Moreover, trial by jury undoubtedly makes the trial very much longer, and, because it is longer, more expensive, which is a great hardship in this particular class of case where the husband almost inevitably has to pay the costs of both sides. And the view which is taken by my noble friend Lord Mersey and by Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane, both of whom have great experience, is that better justice is ensured in the trial of this particular class of case by a Judge alone.
In Clause 8 there are certain detailed and technical provisions with regard to domicile. Subsection (1) is to remedy what is at present a great hardship on a British subject domiciled in this country who is resident in one of the Dominions abroad. At present a decree of the Courts there would not be recognised here because he is domiciled here, and very frequently be cannot possibly afford the expense of returning to this country. It is proposed in this class of case that, where he obtains in the Courts of his residence a decree on the ground of adultery, he shall be able to register that decree here as a decree nisi, which would allow the King's Proctor to intervene, and that that decree should then be treated as a valid decree here. Clause 8, subsection (2), deals with the case of a wife deserted by her husband and allows her to proceed as though he were still in this country; and subsection (3) does the same in the case of a woman whose husband has been deported under the Aliens Act. Subsection (4) deals with a case, an illustration of which was afforded by a decision of the French Courts, where the Courts of a foreign country within their jurisdiction declare a marriage between a foreign subject and a subject of this country to be at an end, but our Courts

199
have no power to release that person, who remains married here but not married by the laws of her husband's country. This sub section would remedy that.
In Part III powers are given to Courts to deal with deeds or agreements of separation, which at present they do not possess. This would be extremely useful, particularly to poor persons, to enable them to enforce their payments under these deeds quickly. There are various provisions in Part V which, subject to anything your Lordships may wish me to point out, are, I think, sufficiently indicated by the marginal notes of those clauses. I hope I have not occupied your Lordships' time too long. I have endeavoured to deal as clearly and dispassionately as I could with the case for this Bill, and I hope that I have shown your Lordships that, if you would give it a Second Reading, you would advance one step a pleasure of useful and moderate reform.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Gorell.)
*LORD BRAYE*LORD BRAYE had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move "That the Bill be read 2ª this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to say at once that I have nothing to do with the details of the Bill which is before us. I do not address myself to any of the details. Therefore very few words will explain the position which I have ventured to assume in moving the rejection of this Bill. The principle of the Bill is the one to which I address myself. The principle of the Bill is the facilitating of the means of obtaining divorce. That is the bare principle of all the Acts that deal with this very important topic, notably the Act of 1857, which, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, was the most important measure ever passed in that way, dealing as it does with the very constitution of human society.
Now a matter of this kind is one which can be pre-eminently looked at, and is looked at, from different points of view by different people and by different races of the world. It is a very vast topic, and one of stupendous importance. There are, broadly speaking, two views. One is—the one upon which all these Bills are really based—that the civil contract is made and sanctioned by the State, and is, therefore, dissoluble; that is to say, easily set aside by any authority which the State thinks
200
fit to authorise. That is the view which first obtained in Europe at the unhappy period of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. I need go no further in illustrating that statement than by recalling the doctrine of Luther, who distinctly allowed polygamy. His language is not language that I could repeat in this House; but that is the substance of his distinct doctrine. The doctrine of the dissolubility of marriage—that is to say, the power the civil authority has to dissolve the marriage tie—was the essence, the foundation, the corner-stone of the Reformation; and the great Revolution in France which shattered all the previous ideas which obtained in Europe developed that idea, and the principles of the great Revolution are fast entering into this country. They have already possessed the Governments of many European countries. France, we know, is distinctly anti-Christian in its government. Portugal is, I may almost say, more anti-Christian still. With the exception, therefore, of Austria and Spain, and partly of Germany, the civil Government is constituted the arbiter of marriage, and marriage must be contracted according to the rules and the laws of the Government of those countries. And as those countries openly reject all ideas of a Divine Providence, it follows that marriage is merely a social contract and is only to last during the time the parties who contracted it are agreeable thereto.
I come to our own state of affairs in this country. The great shock which was given to the ancient idea of the marriage tie was brought about by the Act of 1857, empowering Courts of Law to decide on these questions of separation and divorce. It is always well, when yon talk of divorce, to bear in mind that the term may be and is sometimes used by theologians and canonists as applying to separation; but divorce in the meaning of these Acts, as applied to the subject before us, means re-marrying—that is to say, the power of contracting another marriage while one of the parties is alive. That is the whole substance of the modern theory of divorce. That is the view in few words, in broad outline, taken by those who do not adhere in Europe to the Roman Catholic Church. I have said nothing of Russia, because that is on a different footing. That country still regards the sanctity of marriage; but with that country and its laws we have nothing to do at this present moment.
The law of the Catholic Church, which is not a despicable power inasmuch as it numbers 300,000,000 of mankind—but even to discount that figure I think we may well say that it numbers 250,000,000—is absolutely opposed to the views to which I have alluded. It is summed up in the one word, "indissolubility"; and the Divine Founder of that Church declared, "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." There is no power on earth recognised by the Catholic Church as allowing of divorce that is to say, remarrying divorce. If a marriage has been contracted between baptised persons and consummated, no power in the world under the shadow of Rome and the Apostolic creed can allow the re-marriage of those persons. When you come to the marriage of baptised persons with unbaptised persons, then you enter into the question of what is called Diriment Impediments, which renders the contract null and void ab initio. In this country great confusion prevails between two different and distinct things—re-marriage by divorce, and declaration of the nullity of marriage. Courts in Rome can pronounce, and do pronounce very often, on the nullity of marriage—that is to say, that owing to the diriment impediment which existed at the time, no contract was ever made. But that is quite distinct from the doctrine of re-marrying divorce.
I think I have made it clear why it is quite useless for me to enter into any of the details of the Bill before us, because when you differ in toto on the very fundamental question it is a mere waste of time to enter into all sorts of particulars which may be and are founded on the opposite and contradictory idea. But then, of course, it will be objected that this country has long renounced the Roman Catholic religion; that for 350 years it has protested against it; and therefore why should I or any one else of my Faith enter into the laws of the country and give an opinion, or even express a wish that those laws should not be extended in the matter of divorce? That would be so, I think, in a country like France or Portugal or even Italy, where the Government is avowedly anti-Christian and atheistic. But in this country there is no doubt whatever that fragmentary Christianity lingers to this day, and the opinions of the many in this country are almost, or altogether in some cases, identical with the opinions to which I have
202
alluded. Therefore it seems to me that we have something in common with those sections of the community, and they and ourselves may in a matter of this kind unite and stand shoulder to shoulder in order to stem the tide of what to us is one of the greatest inciting causes to immorality—namely, facility of divorce. So far from divorce being a protection against immorality, in our view it is one of the greatest and worst incitements thereto. In order to be free from those whom we dislike, or do not agree with, or cannot put up with, we fly to the civil Courts; and a reason has to be produced, and that reason may precisely lead to the commission of a crime and to the breaking of the injunctions of the Decalogue in order that freedom may be obtained by the party, or by both parties, in question.
I think, therefore, that I am not out of place or presuming too far in appealing to those who adopt our views throughout the country—and, of course, I am alluding to a very large and influential section of the Anglican Establishment,—to assist us to check, even if it only be for some years, the appalling flood of infidelity and European—I may call it French Revolutionary—idea which is fast coming into this country front the Continent. Of all points in the Revolutionary programme the most important, perhaps, is the attack on the sanctity and indissolubility of the marriage tie. Christians, of course, may advance arguments, and do advance arguments, which have no sort of value in the eyes of those who adopt the principles of the Revolution. They say that in the New Testament the law is distinct and clear, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." They may also point to the words of the Divine Founder of Christianity, "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." And if it be thrown in their teeth that in one passage there is a word which seemingly qualifies that injunction, they reply, and reply rightly, that those words in no way contravene the Divine Law but are only to be taken and interpreted as permission of judicial separation.
When contemplating a question of such stupendous importance, not only in this country but in regard to the whole of mankind, it is very difficult indeed to descend, so to speak, into the investigation of particular Statutes or particular

203
provisions of the law which are founded on the totally contradictory idea. To us, with our law of monogamy, the Mahomedan religion is the great opponent of the law of monogamy. But in Europe, if the Revolution gets its own way, as it is getting its own way, and if Christianity is overwhelmed and sent back once more to the Catacombs, the state of things would be far worse than in Mahomedan countries. Mahomedan races number about the same population in the world as Catholics, about 250,000,000; but their polygamy is fenced round with certain safeguards, so to speak, and laws which are rigorously adhered to. But in Europe, if these divorce laws are put into practice—and I say they are beginning to be put into practice in several countries—then things will be much worse, because polygamy will become absolutely general, and not only polygamy but polyandry. Because in these days women have to have the same rights as men, and if you admit the premises you cannot prevent the conclusion that if a man is to have his rights in these matters the woman should have her rights too. Therefore there will be universal polygamy and universal polyandry. The symptoms of that state of things are already arising. Only a few weeks ago we read in the newspapers of a man whose funeral was conducted in New York. The mourners at the funeral were seven women, and those seven women were his seven wives—at different periods, I presume. Then the other day we read in the newspapers of a wedding in Switzerland—and I may say, in passing, that Switzerland is the country of all others where divorce is most frequent—where the bride and bridegroom sat down at the wedding breakfast accompanied by four bridesmaids, and the four bridesmaids were the former wives of the bridegroom. These sorts of anecdotes that you read of in the newspapers are indications of what is going on; and when you once admit that marriage is dissoluble—that is to say, that it is under the control of the civil power—all these results follow logically; and nobody can find fault with the conclusion when such premises are admitted. Briefly, the whole of our law is absolutely opposed to the modern laws of re-marrying divorce; and in our view there is only one Court in the world where re-marrying divorce can be sanctioned and where a ground for re-marriage can be given and in that Court there sits a judge against whom and
204
beyond whom there is no appeal—and the name of that judge is Death.
Therefore, my Lords, I beg you to pardon the intrusion which I have thought fit to make in this controversy, because to us the importance is very great. You may hardly think that I am serious when I say that a Bill of this kind in our view—and I speak, after all, in the name of 250,000,000 of mankind—is more important and more far-reaching as affecting human society and the basis of human civilization than the Bill which has engaged us—the Home Rule Bill—in this country for so long. Therefore on the ground of its importance, and on the ground of the hope that others in this country who think and sympathise with us may act with us in doing their best to prevent, or at least to retard, the influx of these new revolutionary ideas which are essentially opposed to the basis of Christian society—on these grounds I have ventured to address your Lordships and to move the rejection of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Braye.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time for more than a brief space, but I think it is right that the attitude of the Government on this question should be somewhat defined. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has spoken, with the most obvious sincerity and conviction, of opinions which he holds very strongly, but no one who has listened to the speech of the noble Lord can but feel that his argument goes far beyond any question which is before the House on the occasion of this Bill. It is more than half a century ago since this country determined that, at any rate so far as England was concerned, the Divorce Act should contain principles which were to regulate the validity of matrimonial contracts. That is gone and over, and it has been the law of this country for over fifty years. To go back on it now is impossible; and to raise the question in this debate is really to raise the question of the repeal of these Acts. Therefore I cannot anticipate that the great mass of those people who are interested in carrying on the affairs of this country could desire to raise a question which is really no longer an open one.

205
That brings me to the Bill which is before the House. I think that on one thing we shall be all agreed, and that is that we owe a great deal to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill for the care and thoroughness with which he has done the work of preparation. We know that he had special opportunities of studying the subject and mastering it, and he has rendered a valuable service in getting within the four corners of the Bill which he has proposed to the House to-day the fruits of his researches and the results of his study on a very complicated topic. I do not myself propose to examine this question from the point of view of principle; because, after all, what does this Bill represent? It represents the agreement of two sections of a Royal Commission of great authority and of great weight. Divided on other questions of principle almost intensely, yet the two sections agreed to the propositions which are contained in this Bill, and their agreement was not an agreement which trenched on any new principle. Accepting the law as it now stands and the principles which regulate divorce, accepting them for practical purposes, they proceeded to deal with certain anomalies and injustices which affect that principle as it is embodied in the Statute to-day. There is not a proposition in this Bill which seems to me to raise any real question of principle. Perhaps the nearest approach to it is the proposal that a wife should be able to divorce her husband upon the same grounds as a husband can divorce his wife; but that surely cannot affect any of those deeper controversies with which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is concerned. Here we are dealing with a question which must be considered on the grounds of general justice, and quite apart from any fresh application of the principle which is embodied in it.
The attitude of the Government towards this Bill is, shortly, this. We are glad that those who engaged in the arduous task of investigating this subject on the. Royal Commission should have an opportunity given to the public of the views on which they have agreed being accepted. We think that there is much in the divorce law as it stands to-day which calls for improvement and reform, quite apart from these broad questions of principle which have already been alluded to. We think that the propositions on which both
206
sections of the Royal Commission agreed are propositions which are highly deserving of consideration, and we look with favour upon the general principle of this Bill. It is, of course, impossible in this session that it can pass into law; it is too complicated and too controversial.
Moreover, then are one or two points on which, speaking for myself, I should like to reserve opinion for careful consideration. I think it is true, as the noble Lord who moved the Bill said, that in the vast majority of cases a Judge is a much better tribunal than a Judge and jury, but there are some cases in which a jury may be necessary, and it may be well to nave regard to these cases. Again, take publication. It is no doubt true that few things are more objectionable than the publication of details of divorce cases. On the other hand, it is another evil which you must avoid that divorce cases may be smuggled through without knowledge on the part of the public, which only the newspapers can give. That was a question which came before this House in its legal aspect in the great case of Scott v. Scott, which was decided a year ago, and on which this House, in its legal capacity, came to the conclusion that a principle of English jurisprudence was publicity, and that it was only when justice would be defeated that publicity ought to be avoided. The Legislature has already made exceptions to that. It has done so in relation to the Incest Act, and there is no reason why it should not do so again; and I ant in favour of a great deal which the noble Lord has put in the Bill in the way of restraining the kind of publication which is objectionable. At the same time a clause of this kind wants careful consideration, and on that ground alone I should like to take some little time to consider it in detail. But there Can be no doubt, from the point of view upon which I am speaking, of the value of the greater part of this Bill, of the value of such improvements in principle as underly the propositions put before us, and I earnestly hope that your Lordships will think fit to give it a Second Reading for the purpose of expressing your approval of what is really a very moderate and substantially non-controversial measure of reform.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I feel in duty bound to say something about this Bill, for two reasons. The first is that I am the only member of

207
this House who from the beginning to the end of its labours was a member of the Royal Commission to which allusion has been made. We had the advantage of the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, for part of the time, and also of Lord Reading, but I think I am the only one who attended the Commission from beginning to end. The second reason is that I felt obliged to sign a Report differing with the greatest strength and force from the main conclusions of the majority of my colleagues. Therefore I feel bound to say that the Bill which Lord Gorell has introduced is entirely loyal to those points upon which both the majority and the minority of the Commission were agreed. I have looked carefully into the matter, and I cannot see that he has imported anything which would not have commanded the assent of both sections of the Commission.
It is fitting that this Bill should have been introduced by the noble Lord. He was the efficient and able secretary of the Commission, and his introduction of the Bill to-day is an act of filial duty which I feel sure the House will appreciate. I should like to take this opportunity of testifying to this fact, that, profoundly as I felt obliged to differ from the main conclusions to which the late Lord Gorell sought to direct the Commission, I yield to nobody upon that Commission in my admiration for the intellectual power, the industry, and the courtesy with which Lord Gore11 discharged his duties. His experience in this matter was quite unique; that experience is embodied in many provisions of this present Bill, which have no connection whatever with matters upon which there was a sharp division of principle. I think it would be a real misfortune to the country that the results of that quite unique experience and very exceptional power should be lost, merely because on certain other matters there was this profound diversion of principle between the two sections of the Commission.
But though I feel, therefore, in duty bound to support the Second Reading of this Bill, I do so, for obvious reasons, with the greatest possible reluctance. I cannot go further without making my own position in the matter perfectly clear. Like the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill, I regard marriage, certainly Christian marriage, as dissoluble only by death, and any divorce which carries with
208
it the right of re-marriage is inconsistent alike with the teaching of Christ and with the principles of the Church. I should be prepared, I think, if this were the time or the place, to argue that the legislation to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has alluded had done more harm to the social and moral life of this country than good. But, as he has pointed out, the law is there; it has existed for more than fifty years; and as a citizen I consider that I am bound to do what I can to see that the operation of that law is so far as possible not antagonistic to the morals of the country, and that where it has revealed abuses those abuses ought to be remedied.
I think there is an analogy which noble Lords opposite will understand. They have felt themselves able to support a n Amending Bill to a Home Rule Bill, even although they declared explicitly that they objected to that Bill entirely. I object in toto to divorce, but I do not feel myself, therefore, precluded from an attempt to mitigate the mischief which it can do. And there is an immense mass of proposals affecting closely the social life of the people contained in this Bill which have no connection whatever with these matters of principle about which I have spoken. I am very sorry, indeed, upon this matter even to appear to be in difference from the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, but I think he has scarcely recognised that, with tie exception of the first clause, there is nothing in this Bill that even touches the profound questions about which he has spoken. I hope that for myself, at any rate, I should be with him and those for whom he speaks in making every effort, as he says, to resist the extension of a matter which I believe has done and is doing more than anything else at the present time to weaken the strength and stability of the family, on which the welfare of every State must depend. Therefore I feel bound to make it clear that, while I cannot regard divorce as permissible for any Christian man or woman, I feel myself as a citizen entirely justified in doing what I can to make the operation of our existing marriage laws as favourable to, and as little unfavourable to, the moral life of the people as I can.
Let me turn to what is really the only controversial element in this Bill. It is the first clause, which, by the use of the term "any married person," proposes

209
that whatever grounds are admitted to the husband for obtaining a divorce from his wife shall be open to the wife for obtaining a divorce against her husband. The present principle of inequality of standard between the sexes represented in our existing law, which I think is one of its most conspicuous mischiefs, has no warrant in the principles of the Church. In the ancient days of ecclesiastical jurisdiction when a petition was made for divorce a mensâ et thoro, the only divorce permissible by the Church, there was no such distinction made between the husband and the wife as the existing law gives. The existing law came not from the practice or principle of the ecclesiastical Courts, but from the practice and absence of principle introduced by the old private Bill system. There when Bills were brought into Parliament it was recognised by custom that a man could obtain a divorce for adultery only, but the woman only when the adultery of the man was combined with circumstances of grave enormity. It was this laxity of principle which was carried on into the Act of 1857. That inequality of standard was strongly resisted by many members of both Houses whose names still command our respect. I do not know whether the noble Lord—I was not present at the time he made that part of his speech—alluded to the opposition with which in this House this principle was strongly met by one who will not be associated with mere sentiment—I mean Lord Lyndhurst. And in the House of Commons the attitude which I would wish myself to adopt about it was most forcibly expressed by one to whom in this matter I should pay the utmost deference and whose views I would commend to your Lordships' House—I mean Mr. Gladstone. I do not know whether the noble Lord who introduced the Bill called your Lordships' attention to the remarkable words which Mr. Gladstone used.
LORD GORELL: Yes.
TEE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Those words express both Mr. Gladstone's opposition to divorce and his view that a small increase of divorces, bad as that would be, was a less evil for the country than the maintenance upon our Statute law of a principle asserting an unequal moral standard between men and women. It is impossible now, especially after what
210
was said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, to go into any detail upon this matter, but I should like to say that I recognise fully the grave difficulties which it arouses Any one who knows human nature knows that there is in this matter a difference between men and women; but I do not feel, after hearing an immense amount of evidence upon the matter, that those differences can justify so complete a difference as the assertion in our Statute law of a different moral standard. It is said, of course, that in the case of the woman her lapse may involve a confusion of the family; but it appears to be forgotten that the lapse of the man may in many cases introduce confusion into another man's family. Moreover, there is an aspect of the question which was not, so far as I know, even alluded to in the debates of 1857, but which has been brought before us at the present time with an accumulation of forcible evidence which it is impossible to resist, and that is, that these lapses on the part of the husband may be the means of introducing to his wife, to his family, to succeeding generations, diseases whose consequences are so terrible that I would rather even not allude to them in this House. Anything which can act as a deterrent to prevent the chance of husbands bringing to their wives and families dangers so appalling as these is something which ought to command the sympathy of those who care for the moral and physical welfare of the nation.
There is another reason which lies behind all this, and it is the notion that in this matter you practically must give a different moral judgment to men and to women. But I would venture to say that it is just these accidental lapses—to use the language which has been often used—which are the most dangerous for the reason of which I have just spoken; and I feel that it is a matter of real concern that we should assert upon our Statute law a recognition that the adultery of a man can be, and ought to be, condoned by his wife, whereas a similar act on the part of the wife ought to be treated with the utmost possible severity. It is this inequality of standard which, I believe, rankles as a sense of injustice—so the evidence before us showed—amongst hundreds of the most thoughtful of our women; and its existence upon our Statute law cannot but perpetuate in the

211
minds of the people a conception of the moral duty of men which is, I think, very dangerous to public morals.
I know it will be said—and this is a point which I feel, if I may say so, very keenly—that this proposal may involve some increase in the number of divorces. I do not think that the evidence that we had showed that that would necessarily be the effect. In Scotland there is no such inequality, and we had the evidence of Scottish Judges to show that, although there was no assertion of this unequal standard in the Scottish law, yet the number of times when wives brought suits against their husbands based upon a single lapse were very few, and that the law was much more a deterrent to men to prevent them from giving way to their passions than it was an inducement to wives to be less forgiving than I believe they ought to be, and to bring these cases against their husbands. Even if it could be proved that here and there this change in the law led to a few increased divorces, bad as I think that is, I think it is less bad than the maintenance in our Statute law of such a distinction of moral standard as that which is at present recorded there.
Let me turn for a moment to a matter upon which there is, happily, no such divergence of principle as there might be upon this first clause. I refer to the provisions of this Bill with regard to the extension of the grounds of nullity. As the noble Lord who opposed the Bill has so clearly pointed out, there is all the difference in the world, and it has been always so recognised by the Church, between decrees which nullify a marriage and decrees which purport to be able to dissolve it. Those of us who signed the Minority Report were always on our guard against yielding to the plea of the hardships of individual cases. We took the line throughout that you have to consider in these matters, not only the hardships of individual cases, but how far your amiable desire to alleviate these hardships may bring greater evils to the whole life of society. But for that very reason we were anxious to do what we could to make the hardships of men and women less where no principle was involved, and where these hardships made a special appeal to our sympathy. I think it is plain that where a marriage has been entered into with a fundamental mistake
212
which, if it had been known, would have prevented the marriage ever taking place, it is desirable as far as possible, consistently with principle, to declare such a marriage null. We therefore propose to include in the grounds of nullity insanity-which was incipient at the time of marriage but only became definite after the marriage took place; also in the case of the painful possibility of venereal disease, and in the case of the pregnancy of the wife by some other person before marriage, it should be possible for the marriage to be declared null. We believe that the dangers that are involved are sufficiently safeguarded in the provisions of the Bill. I therefore feel that here, and in the matter which affects the presumption of death, there is an opportunity without any sacrifice of principle of doing something to give relief from marriages which must inevitably bring with them a train of misery and disappointment.
I would particularly ask your Lordships not to forget the important clause—Clause 9—which deals with separation orders. I would go so far as to say that even if the noble Lord is obliged to jettison his first clause and many other clauses, it is to the public advantage that this clause should, without undue delay, be carried into law. You may remember that some years ago we used to hear a great deal about the awful thought of the 7,000 separation orders which were issued every year—of the 7,000 persons who were in a condition in which they might, if they had sufficient facilities given to them, obtain divorce; and I think it was the noble Earl who preceded the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack who used to give eloquent expression in this House and elsewhere to the appalling thought, of this great mass of people practically separated for causes for which they might have obtained a divorce but were unable to get relief. If the evidence before the Royal Commission has done nothing else it has done this public service, that it has dissipated, I hope finally dissolved, that nightmare. It has been proved beyond question that it does not exist. The large number of separation orders was mainly due, as I think the noble Lord pointed out, to the magistrates giving separation orders where maintenance orders were all that was required. The picture left out of account altogether the fret that in an enormous number of cases these separation orders which were taken out were never

213
used. I believe that in Leeds alone there are something like 4,000 of these orders which have never been used. Moreover, it was proved beyond doubt that, putting it mildly, in 50 per cent. of the cases separation orders which were granted were rendered ineffective, in a short time by the parties being reconciled and living together again.
What is needed, therefore, is not any sweeping change in increasing the facilities of divorce, but rather seeming a proper administration of this power of granting separation orders which is very necessary to the peace of a large number of our people. Therefore it is of great advantage that this Bill should propose, as it does, that separation orders that are granted by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should be available only for two years, and that if they are to be converted into judicial separations it should only be done by order of the High Court. There are many other provisions made in this clause with regard to the payment of maintenance, etc., which any one who knows anything of the lives of the poor knows to be of the greatest possible value; and I hope that, in spite of the speech made by the noble Lord who opposed this Bill, it will not be forgotten that there is much of great value to the lives of our poor people in the clause which deals with separation and maintenance orders.
Lastly, may I say a word about the provision with regard to the reporting of cases in the Courts? That is a matter which was specially referred to the Commission. It is a matter most urgent and most difficult; it is most urgent because the evidence was overwhelming, especially from our Chief Constables, that the effect upon public morals of the perpetual bringing before the minds of the readers of the newspapers, and especially the younger readers, nauseous sexual details was unquestionable. On the other hand, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out, we must safeguard as far as possible the liberty of the Press, and we must secure that when the dissolution of marriages comes, rightly or wrongly, before the Court it should not be hurried through. There is already a great deal too much secrecy and collusion about these matters, and it is not desirable that it should be increased by preventing any kind of reporting. I think the provisions which
214
have been inserted in the Bill, while not interfering unduly with the liberty of the Press or removing the great doctrine of publicity, secure at least that there shall be some diminution in that poisonous flood of unsavoury matter which is so often poured off by certain of the journals of this country.
And, therefore, my Lords, I feel able to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I disagree, as I have said, entirely with principles which would have been incorporated in it if it had attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Majority Report, but I feel that the Bill removes an assertion of an immoral principle from our Statute law. I believe that it gives relief, without sacrifice of principle, to many cases of real hardship. I believe that it brings in a most necessary reform in the system of separation and maintenance orders; and I believe that it substantially solves the difficult question of the publication of these undesirable cases. But, when I have said that, I recognise to the full, especially in regard to the first clause, that there is legitimate ground for difference, there is great possibility of controversy and misunderstanding. It is obvious from what the noble and learned Viscount has said that the Bill cannot this year be carried into law. It is for the noble Lord to decide how far he wishes, in these circumstances, to proceed with this Bill at the present time; but he will have served a good purpose if he reminds your Lordships that, quite apart, from matters where there was a strong and definite divergence of principle, there are in the recommendations of the Royal Commission many provisions which I think will make for the good of our common life.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I should very much like to support the concluding words of the most rev. Prelate, and, if it were not too late, to beg Lord Gorell not to proceed with this Bill on the present occasion. I think Lord Gorell did his best to persuade your Lordships that the Bill cannot be represented as a small matter. It really touches vital and fundamental principles. It is not too much to say that it is a Bill that may affect every man, woman, and child in this country; and I would ask Lord Gorell what advantage there can be in endeavouring to push this Bill at the present time. I perfectly understand, in his respect and regard for the late

215
Lord Gorell, his wishing to avoid anything like failure with regard to what we may suppose were Lord Gorell's wishes. Lord Gorell was universally respected in this House, and I would on that ground alone ask the noble Lord whether a matter of this great importance ought not to be discussed at a time when we can all give our best attention to it, and not at the end of a session and at a moment when in regard to our domestic affairs and the state of Europe we are in a position of crisis which absorbs all our thoughts. Lord Gorell cannot hope to do much for his Bill this year, and what would be lose by postponing this matter until such time as it could be properly gone into and threshed out? I ask your Lordships to look round the House and count the number of those present. Are those the number that ought to be here to discuss a matter of this importance?
I do not wish to enter into any great detail as to this Bill, but after what has been said there are one or two remarks which I think it is my duty to make. The Bill really does two things. It provides for certain cases of nullity, as the most rev. Prelate has observed. But what is the substance of the Bill? The real substance of the Bill is to put women on an equality with men in regard to reasons for divorce. Now this cannot be denied, that whatever else the Bill does it must very largely increase the number of divorces. Nobody, I believe, denies that for one moment. Even the most rev. Prelate, in speaking of it, admitted that it would increase the number of divorces. Now in proportion as you increase the facilities for divorce, exactly in that degree do you degrade in public estimation the sanctity and the obligations of Christian marriage. And when you degrade the sanctity and obligations of Christian marriage you have taken a very serious step to imperil the security and the safety of the family; and since the family is the foundation of the State, anything that touches the security and the safety of the family ultimately affects the security of the State. On that ground—although there are many other grounds why I oppose this Bill—on that ground I most strenuously oppose any addition to the facilities of divorce.
And I would ask your Lordships whether, looking round at the state of society in our country at the present time or looking at the state of society abroad, this is
216
the time or the moment when we can afford to play any tricks or to run any risks in regard to matters that really touch the foundation of the family and the security of the State. You cannot open the newspapers any morning without having the most detestable cases of divorce brought before you. What did I read only this morning in The Times newspaper? The case of a man who had been a corespondent in a case some time back and who had been condemned to pay damages to the extent of £1,000 for having broken up the happiness of a presumably happy and innocent family. He applied to the Court to have that judgment, reversed on the ground that the Judge had misdirected the jury and that the facts had not been properly stated. What were the facts that came out in regard to that case? It was that, far from that family having been an innocent and happy family, the wife had before been concerned in a divorce case; that before this particular case another man, a to-respondent, had been found guilty of adultery with the wife, and that he also had been condemned to £1,000 damages; and when it was found in that case that he could not pay, the husband accepted £16 as damages and the receipt for the money was signed both by the husband and the wife. That was a case in which, if these facts had not come out on the second occasion, a man would have been fined £1,000 for having destroyed the innocence and security of a presumably innocent family.
Every one knows that the Divorce Court is honeycombed with perjury and collusion. I cannot imagine any one who knows anything about these matters not knowing that the putting of a wife on the same footing as a husband in regard to this matter of adultery will most certainly increase the chances of collusion to say nothing of other most dangerous consequences. Let me tell your Lordships of a case which I have on the authority of the late Lord St. Hellier, who was himself the President of the Divorce Court. The case was this. A decree nisi was granted for divorce, and it was eventually made absolute. After it had been made absolute, this is what turned up. The husband and wife had discussed how they were to obtain a divorce. The husband said that as far as he was concerned to break the Seventh Commandment would not be any great difficulty, but what he

217
could not make up his mind to do was to be cruel to his wife. The wife remarked that there was nothing she would not do to get rid of her husband, but she could not quite make up her mind to break the Seventh Commandment. A divorce was eventually given on evidence being shown that a man had come to the wife's house and spent the night in the house, and the man who came to give that excuse for divorce was the husband himself. These cases are not by any means exceptional.
In America at the present time I see it stated that divorces in New York county have increased 50 per cent. in 1913 over the preceding year. And if any of your Lordships have read that very striking novel by Mrs. Wharton called "The Custom of the Country," in which the whole of that question is thoroughly gone into, you will see that, owing to the American law, in some of the States women marry openly saying that if it does not answer they can get rid of their husbands and make a better arrangement. Nor does that only occur where the law is in that state. Let me give you an instance. In France there is a well known French gentleman—he may be known to some noble Lords in this House—who married not so long ago a great American heiress. The lady was warned of his character and she was told that the marriage would not answer. She said that did not very much matter, because if he behaved ill to her she could divorce him. She did marry him, and what had been predicted happened. She divorced her husband to marry his cousin, leaving him married to her by the ecclesiastical law in France. Only the other day he obtained an ecclesiastical divorce from her on the ground that as she, before her marriage to him, had openly announced her intention of divorcing him, it did not constitute a complete consent, and the marriage was declared null and void. I am not discussing the merits of the law. I only wish to show how such things are absolutely immoral and destructive of all true sense of right, and wrong.
Now I wish, if the most rev. Prelate will allow me, to say something in regard to some of the remarks he made. I do so with the most profound respect, and the Archbishop of York knows very well the devotion which every one in his diocese has for him. The most rev. Prelate has told us,
218
as he was bound to do, that he considers Christian marriages indissoluble, and that he will have nothing to do with divorce. My Lords, it seems to me that if you object to divorce in toto for Christians you should not, give a Second Reading to a Bill which increases divorce. And I am sure the most rev. Prelate will forgive me also for saying that I see no kind of similarity between the present case and the Amending Bill in regard to the Home Rule Bill, for at all events this Bill increases facilities for divorce while as far as I know the Amending Bill is not a Bill to increase the provisions of the Home Rule Bill, but, if anything, to limit them.
I gather that the most rev. Prelate, disliking and repudiating divorce as he was sure to do, founds his support of this Bill on the fact that having a divorce law it is unjust to women not to put them on the same footing as men. Again with the most profound respect I am obliged to differ in toto from the most rev. Prelate. I do not admit the equality of men and women in regard to this matter. If your Lordships will forgive me for one moment, I will say why. Sin in the abstract is no doubt the same for every one, but sin in the concrete will differ and vary with almost every case. In one case it may be as gross and as bad as you like. In another case there may be so many excuses that it is impossible to put it exactly on the came level with the former case. Your Lordships, I am quite sure, will not think that I am advocating a lax morality. I think there is nothing more tragic in the world than to see men and women sacrificing their whole future in disobeying the laws of God and man with regard to these matters. But I ask Your Lordships, Can any one of you think that if a young man, exposed to all the seductions to whish he is exposed, falls into serious trouble, it is so serious a matter as if a girl, your own daughter, falls into very serious trouble of the like nature. I do not think any one will say that he feels that. The whole sense of mankind rejects it. Why does it reject it? I cannot enter into all the reasons why. I think those reasons are obvious. At all events there is one fact which may be mentioned. The sin of a woman may do a grosser injustice to a family and divert the inheritance to those who have no right to it, and that, at all events, cannot be said of the sin of a man. We are told, on the highest of all authorities, that for the hardness of men's hearts and

219
their ignorance in times past God winked at things which are forbidden by the Christian law. But I have never yet heard, nor have I seen, that a woman was allowed to have more than one husband, although we know that great saints of the Old Testament had more than one wife. Those are facts which we have to remember and not to put on one side with the lightness which is too often the case. I say without any hesitation that such an increase of facilities of divorce is unjust in itself, and I think that the higher opinion you have of women, the greater respect and honour you pay them, the more you desire to see them in the full enjoyment of their legitimate rights, the more you will shrink from offering to them facilities to do that which cannot be for their advantage and which it is a great misfortune are afforded to men. The remedy is not to give this power to women, but to take it away from men.
There is one remark I should like to make in conclusion. The most rev. Prelate said something about the way in which sins on the part of men were condoned while the greatest severity and unforgiveness was thought right in regard to women. That is very far from my meaning. I think one of the worst things about the Divorce Court is that it absolutely prevents, that it puts an impossible bar against, complete forgiveness. When we reflect upon what we all are, do we not think that when we come to the Judgment Day we should every one of us be thankful to think, if we had had an erring wife and she had repented, that there was nothing to prevent her being brought back and restored to her home? The whole law of divorce and all extensions of it are to me profoundly un-Christian, and it is, I must say, a matter of most deep regret and sorrow to me that those who I know desire to maintain the law of the Church in these matters should, because there is a divorce law, consent to anything that is an extension of that law, a law which I believe is ruining the country; and such little efforts as I can make shall be put forward to prevent that law being extended.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to join with the most rev. Prelate in expressing to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill our sense of obligation to him for the manner in which he discharged his duty. I do not think any of your Lordships can have remem-
220
bered a Bill of this complexity dealing with a most difficult subject being introduced with such moderation and so lucidly, and I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House that the noble Lord was thoroughly justified, from the position which he held and which he discharged so well on the Commission, in formulating the conclusions which both Reports support, and which he has put into the form of this admirablydrawn—I am afraid I cannot call it admirable in every respect—Bill.
I need not tell your Lordships that we on this side view this matter with great anxiety. The subject-matter of the Bill touches so closely the very centre of our social system and treads upon the convictions deeply held by religious men of different persuasions, that we must feel that that alone dictates a caution and hesitation in approaching the question which belongs to hardly any other subject which calls for legislation at your Lordships' hands. I think the debate this evening must have shown that. "We listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the most rev. Prelate, and we can all understand that, though he felt compelled to support the Bill as embodying the recommendations for which he was responsible on the Royal Commission, he viewed any advance whatever in the direction of divorce with the profoundest dismay; and we have just listened to a most earnest speech from the noble Viscount behind me, who represents a very large body of deeply-held opinion in the Church of England—that part of the Church of England which is the most active and the most energetic, and which, perhaps, holds its convictions as deeply as, or more deeply than, any other. In these circumstances legislation at this period of the session and in this condition of the House does appear to be an anomaly which it would be very difficult to defend.
I have not, of course, dealt, as I might have done, with the subject-matter of the Bill itself. I have not suggested to your Lordships how any extension of divorce, even if we could approve of it, would lead to all sorts of collusive arrangements and act as a means of separating persons who have really no right to be separated. And I have not dwelt upon a thing which has impressed us all—I think it was mentioned by the most rev. Prelate, and it certainly appears in the Minority Report—how profoundly disappointing the results in America have been of the divorce laws there. The

221
looseness with which the marriage tie is held in America is appalling. Those things seem to us of the greatest importance. But I do not want to dwell upon them at this moment, nor to go into anything like detail regarding the Bill. I should like, however, to say, by way of guarding myself, that even if I felt that we could approve the principle of the Bill—and on that I do not wish to express any opinion at this moment—there are large elements in the Bill which seem to me to require the most careful consideration before they could be passed into law, both with respect to the defences against a decree of divorce and also the nullity provisions.
For all these reasons I cannot help hoping that the noble Lord will be satisfied with the discussion which he has raised. I think it would carry no moral force if your Lordships were to pass the Second Reading of this Bill this evening. Every one would feel that it had not been really dealt with as such a subject ought to be dealt with. I cannot help hoping, if that is the view of the House—and I trust it may be—that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will facilitate the withdrawal of the Bill by himself withdrawing his Amendment. I have no right, of course, to pose as the Leader of the Opposition, but I do make that humble suggestion to those noble Lords if they would be good enough to take it. I think then we might feel that we had contributed to the elucidation of the subject by an interesting discussion, and that we had not really prejudiced the future of the question, because, as the noble Lord knows as well as I do, the Bill has no chance of passing into law this year.
*VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I should like to join, having been a very old friend of the late Lord Gorell, in the tribute that has been paid by the most rev. Prelate to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill. I think no one can have studied the Report, or the Bill founded upon it, without feeling what infinite pains and thought the late Lord Gorell and the whole Commission bestowed upon this subject. I should like also to join in what was said in appreciation of the way in which the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill stated his conclusions. He did so with much clearness and much temperance of thought.
I share entirely the anxiety and concern with which the noble Marquess who has just sat down has said that he approaches
222
this subject. That anxiety and concern have long been felt in this country by those who understood the gravity of this question, and I do not think any one can have watched the course of legislation upon the subject in recent years in many parts of the world without feeling that anxiety and concern increase. But I rather draw an opposite conclusion from that which has been drawn by the noble Marquess. He appears to think that because we feel so anxious we ought not to take any step forward at all. It appears to me that the moral of what has been passing in other countries is that, if there are certain changes which are obviously necessary and reasonable and which we know will have to be introduced, the sooner we introduce those changes the better.
I agree with all that has been said about the excesses to which legislation for facilitating divorce has been carried in many parts of the Continent of Europe and most notably in the United States of America. No one can live in America without feeling what a great evil, spreading in so many directions, is the facility of divorce which unfortunately is allowed by the laws of many aiming those States; and noble Lords may be, perhaps, glad to hear that there is a very strong counter movement there at present—a deep appreciation of the evils which the present laxity of the law causes, and a great desire to bring about, not only a greater uniformity, but a much more cautious system of legislation and a much greater exactitude and care in the administration of the law, because the administration of the law has in America been responsible for even more evils than the laxity of the law itself.
In considering this subject we must hear in mind that the Royal Commission was appointed because there was a very general and widespread feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing state of the law in this country. We cannot imagine a Commission taking more pains than that Commission took. It included many able men, representing many different lines of opinion, and they agreed upon certain definite recommendations. This Bill strictly follows those recommendations. No one can suppose that, when the subject comes to be dealt with, anything less than the points on which the Majority and Minority Reports agreed can be passed into law. What we will have to do will be to resist demands to go much further, and I submit that if

223
we desire to see legislation proceed in a cautious way and restricted to those things which are necessary, restricted to those points on which there exists general agreement between all who have considered the subject, then the sooner that moderate legislation is passed the better. The sooner it is passed the less danger will there be that demands will arise for going very much further, and for following Continental countries and the United States in the direction of extreme laxity into which they have drifted. The best remedy that we could have against that result would be to pass now safe and moderate legislation confined to those points on which the best opinion of the country is practically agreed. That general agreement is expressed by the concurrence between the Majority and the Minority Reports of the Royal Commission, and I cannot understand how any one can suppose that even in the Church of England, where we know so much anxiety is felt on this subject, there would be any large body of opinion which would desire to do less than what the most rev. Prelate has declared that he is willing to see passed.
It is in order to secure that legislation should be moderate and that we should not go too far that I should like to see the stamp of the approval of this Rouse given now to the proposals in this Bill, and particularly to two of them. First, to the proposal which desires to limit and guard the publication of reports of proceedings in the Courts. I may observe, in addition to the testimonies that were cited by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, that I remember having had long ago a conversation on the subject with the late Lord Hannen, than whom there was no man more competent to express an opinion by his experience as a Judge of the Divorce Court and by the wise judgment which he possessed in an exceptional degree, and he was strongly in favour of such a limitation as this Bill proposes. The late Lord Chief Justice Coleridge agreed with Lord Hannen on the subject, as I happened to know, at the time. That is one point. The other point is the importance of establishing equality between men and women, as this Bill proposes to do. We are all aware that one of the reasons alleged for introducing a new element into the Parliamentary suffrage is the belief, widely held, that just and equal laws will not be passed for women
224
by a Parliament which is elected entirely by men. I say nothing at all about the validity of that argument, but it is an argument that we see used; and surely it is desirable, since the House of Commons is elected by men only, that Parliament should show that it is sensitive to any inequality between men and women and sincerely anxious to remove any complaint that can be made on that score and disprove any allegation that Parliament acts unjustly as between men and women. It is, of course, for the noble Lord to say whether or not he will press his Bill to a Division, but I should like to express the hope that, if he does not press it to a Division now, it will be brought forward early next session, and that the proposals it contains will then receive the approval of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Salisbury has made a proposal that the mover of the Amendment should withdraw his Amendment and that the mover of the Bill should then withdraw the Bill. May I add my appeal to my noble friend who introduced the Bill to take this course? I was for some time a member of this Commission, and although I did not remain long enough on it to be one of those who signed the Report, I was quite long enough there to learn the real genuine demand that there is for some reform of our present divorce law. The Bill now before the House, which was lucidly explained by the noble Lord, is the non-controversial part of the Minority and Majority Reports. It embodies the views of both, and can be supported as strongly by members who signed the Minority Report, like the most rev. Prelate, as by those who, like I certainly should have done myself, signed the Majority Report. But it seems to me that no good can be done by attempting to carry this Bill any further now. It is late in the session, and it would be impossible for it to go any further. It therefore appears that nix noble friend has served Ins purpose by explaining the Bill to your Lordships' House and to the country at large, and I sincerely hope that he will see iris way now to withdraw the Bill, at the same time promising that either he, or preferably, perhaps, the Government, will bring forward the Bill next year, when I can assure him that so far as I am concerned I personally should give him my hearty support.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess and the noble Earl who has just sat down, and as I feel that this discussion has served a very useful purpose and that there is no possible prospect in the present session of the matter being able to be carried further, and in view of the fact that the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill is prepared to withdraw the Amendment, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion for the Second Reading.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I ant quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the noble Lord withdraws his Bill. But I cannot join in the hope that this Bill or any Bill of the came nature will be introduced in future.
Amendment (by leave) withdrawn: Then the original Motion and Bill (by leave) withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday next.

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, the question with which this Bill deals has been before Parliament for some years, but this is the first session in which the Bill has passed through all its stages in another place, and, I may say, practically without opposition. The Bill was amended in Committee to meet the views of the Secretary for Scotland, on whom pressure had been brought to bear by the County Councils Association. The Bill, shortly, provides that no constable, not being above the rank of inspector, shall be employed on police duty for more than six days a week. There is a proviso that this Bill shall not come into force in any police area until the date has been fixed by the police authorities. There is a further proviso that in the case of a burgh or police burgh of over 10,000 population
226
the Bill shall come into force four years after its passing; and in the event of a future census showing that any burgh or police burgh has attained a population of 10,000 or over, then the Bill shall come into force in that burgh or police burgh two years after that census has been taken. Further, the police authority in any county in fixing the date for the Bill to come into force can exclude from the operation of the Bill any part or parts of the police area of such authority. I have never heard a noble Lord in this House refer to the police without adding some eulogium as to what an excellent body of men they are, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a sympathetic reception. I beg to move.
Moved, That tie Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Sempill.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of Lord Emmott, who represents the Scottish Office in this House, I have been asked by him to say that the Government heartily approve of this Bill and support it. The Bill is to a very large extent compulsory only as regards burghs of over 10,000 population, leaving to other areas an option as to whether they will come in or not.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MOTOR OMNIBUS AND TROLLEY VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name, perhaps I ought to explain that it is only desired to set up the Joint Committee this session. It is not expected that it will be able to take any evidence before next year.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to enquire and report as to the present law relating to the running of motor omnibuses and trolley vehicles under statutory powers and otherwise; whether any amendment is necessary with respect to the control to be exercised by local

227
authorities; and what contribution, if any, should be payable towards the cost of road maintenance by the proprietors of such vehicles.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Joint Committee will not proceed to work immediately. Indeed, it is impossible for them to do so at the present time. Consequently, as I understand, this Motion will have to be made again in another session. The question of the reference to the Committee can then be further considered by your Lordships. But I should like to say at once that I think the reference to this Committee ought to be enlarged. I speak rather as a member of the Highways Committee of the London County Council. I observe that the Motion states that the Joint Committee is to inquire "whether any amendment is necessary with respect to the control to be exercised by local authorities." As regards London, there is a large body of opinion that desires to see a board of control for traffic purposes. Therefore we do not wish that that board of control should be barred out, but we desire that it should be included in any reference with regard to this matter. I do not think I need say here how it is that this board of control has been recommended by Royal Commissions, by the London County Council, and even in a Bill at present in the other House. I merely call attention to it. The other point is that I see that this Joint Committee is to report "as to the present law relating to the running of motor-omnibuses and trolley vehicles." I venture to suggest that it is impossible to report adequately and thoroughly on this problem in respect of London without including the tramways. Consequently I should like to give notice that when this Committee is moved for next session I, or somebody else, will certainly on behalf of the Highways Committee of the London County Council move to extend the reference to this Committee so as to include tramways and in order that the reference should not exclude the consideration of a traffic board.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am glad that the noble Lord has drawn attention to these two points, but I should hesitate to alter the reference now as its wording is the result of a great deal of discussion and agreement among different parries. But if the noble Lord would
228
communicate with me and the persons concerned between now and next session, I am sure we shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

FINANCE BILL.
To be read 2ª on Thursday next (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Crewe)).

SOUTHERN ALBANIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any confirmation of the report that the streets of towns in Southern Albania are covered with the naked bodies of women who have been strangled and of babies hacked to pieces, and that the population are being exterminated excepting for those refugees who are starving in and around Valona; to ask further, whether in view of the fact that Northern Albania is protected from these terrible atrocities by the presence of an International Force, His Majesty's Government will not take steps to procure the despatch of International Forces to Central and Southern Albania.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is true that. Austria has declared war upon Servia, there is additional urgency for the Question that stands in my name. During the recent Balkan War the Great Powers managed to secure peace amongst themselves, but beyond that they did not obtain anything very greatly to their credit. The declarations which were introduced safeguarding certain territories were all set at naught. The one thing they did was to set up this State of Albania, and I believe it was this country which was largely instrumental in doing it, and it was to the credit of Sir Edward Grey and His Majesty's Government that they were able to accomplish that task. Therefore we have a special responsibility in the matter. It would be lamentable, if war is to take place, that anything should be done to allow the war to have its ravages in Albania; but rather everything should be done to keep Albania outside the arena. I only say that by way of preface.
Coming to the subject-matter of my Question, which is based on a letter which has been corroborated by a great deal of other evidence, it would, perhaps, be as well if I read in extensor the contents of the letter. It runs—
"One cannot exaggerate the appalling atrocities that are being enacted by the Greek bands in the South. These bands are composed of Greek soldiers who remained behind when the Greeks nominally evacuated the South. They all wear their uniform with the badges removed, and are under their own officers. Yesterday it was reported that 60,000 Servian refugees were crowding down to Valona from Berat and Koritza (which have now fallen to the Greeks) and the neighbourhood. An officer of the gendarmerie there who arrived here to-day reported that the number was more like 100,000 as the whole country was devastated, and the Albanians were killing their own wives and children to prevent them falling into the hands of the Greeks. They have literally burned out the whole country side to cover up all traces of their atrocities. This officer said it was almost impossible to believe what he had seen with his own eves: streets full of naked bodies of women, each with the mark of strangulation, and little babies literally hacked to pieces with knives, the idea being to utterly exterminate the inhabitants."
We have a double responsibility with respect to this portion of Albania. First, because we played a foremost part in its creation. But there is an additional responsibility to which I alluded earlier in the session—namely, that at the time when we ceded the Ionian Islands to Greece it was strongly stipulated in the Treaty at that time that Corfu should be neutral territory, and that at no time should armed forces, naval or military, be allowed to be assembled there. During all last winter, at the time when the question of the southern frontier as between Greece and Albania was debated, there were men being brought over from Corfu on to the mainland into this debatable territory. Arms to the number of 30,000 were despatched from Corfu, and it was generally recognised that the situation which we deplore to-day was certain to be brought about by the fact that these men and arms were being, under the connivance of the Greek Government, allowed to be imported into this particular area of Epirus. His Majesty's Government did nothing whatever to prevent this taking place although they had this stringent condition, to which they would only, surely, have had to call attention, in the Treaty laying down that Corfu was to be neutral territory and on no account was any military force to be settled there. I do blame His Majesty's Government for that, because they must have been per-
230
fectly aware of what was taking place, and any one could have told them what would be the consequences of allowing that action to go on. Therefore I say we have a double responsibility at the present time.
I am sure we must all sympathise with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his desire not to have to send any troops into Albania and to keep out of any complications, if possible, in that region; but I do not think he takes sufficient credit to himself for what he has been able to do in Northern Albania. He was instrumental in sending to Scutari an International Force, I do not think amounting to more than 300 or 400 men; certainly we have only half a battalion amongst them. That International Force has been able to secure peace and a certain amount of order in Northern Albania. Therefore all I ask for is an extension of that which, to the credit of the Government, they have been able to do in Northern Albania. Only yesterday the noble Viscount opposite was very eloquent in saving what was our attitude towards misgovernment throughout the world. He said that it had always been one of the glories of this country to do the policing of the world.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: That was not my own expression. It was one that I accepted from the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
LORD LAAHNOTON: At any rate, the noble Viscount introduced the words into his own speech. He went on to say that when there was oppressive wrongdoing it was our duty, if we were able, to press those concerned to redress the wrongs. All that I ask is that we should act up to those fine sentiments. I admit that if it is true that war has been declared the position has changed considerably since I put this Question on the Paper, but even now I believe it would be possible to prevent these outrages going on and also to prevent warfare being extended into Albania. We sympathised with Putumayo; we had an interesting debate yesterday about the miseries of contract labour on the Islands of San Thomé and Principé; from time to time we have Motions on questions of this kind; and there is a Bill now before Parliament dealing with old horses. Yet this country

231
seems to be indifferent to the frightful barbarities that are taking place in Southern Albania. How is it that we are deaf to the shrieks of these massacred women and children? It cannot be due to the distance, for this place is only some 60 hours journey from this country. If something is not done soon, as the letter which I have read shows, there will be no cries and no shrieks, because the whole population will have been exterminated. Therefore it is that I ask His Majesty's Government to do something to prevent the continuance of these atrocities.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I do not draw back at all from any of what the noble Lord has ironically called fine sentiments.
LORD LAMINGTON: Not ironically.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The term "fine sentiments" has an ironical smack about it.
LORD LAMINGTON: That was not in my mind.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I take the same view to-day that I took yesterday, that it is one of the glories of this country to protect those who are suffering from inhumanity and oppression; but surely my noble friend knows that we cannot enter into chivalrous enterprises of every kind that may present themselves. We are bound to regard all the conditions that attend every set of circumstances. It may well be, in attempting to redress or to remove a certain number of vile atrocities or outrages, that if you close your eyes to the circumstances and the conditions involved you may produce more human misery than if you had left the original evil alone. Now, as to the particular case raised by my noble friend, he is quite wrong in supposing that the Foreign Office and His Majesty's Government are looking on with indifference at the allegation of these enormities, these abominations, which are reported. The noble Lord read out words from a letter published in The Times to-day from Mr. Aubrey Herbert.
LORD LAMINGTON: I supplied him with the facts.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The noble Lord first asks whether the Government have any confirmation of the reports. No details have been received at the Foreign Office as to the horrors and hideous atrocities referred to in the noble Lord's Question. As to the numbers of those who have been rendered homeless, our only reports are from unofficial sources and cannot well be considered as much more than general rumour. It appears from reliable private sources that there are at Valona some 12,000 refugees front South Albania, and in the surrounding country it can hardly be doubted that thousands more—it may be many thousands—are in urgent need of the necessaries of life. But proposals have been made for their immediate relief which it is hoped will be effective. The Italian Government were prepared to send large quantities of maize, but singularly, in the circumstances, that maize is said to have been declined by the refugees. The International Commission of Control seated at Durazzo are reported to have placed 100,000 francs at the disposal of a special committee for the purpose of immediate relief. The six Powers are considering the dispatch from Durazzo of an international mission who will endeavour to elucidate these past transactions and to further the restoration of something like order and confidence.
On the second part of the Question the noble Lord referred to past affairs which seemed to place a special responsibility on the English Government and as to which he seemed to impute blame of almost wilful ignorance on the part of His Majesty's Government of what was to happen in the future. That is not so. The British Government did all that could be done and I think had perfect knowledge of what might happen; but it does not follow from that that they were able to prevent what did happen. The presence of an international force in Scutari is due to special circumstances connected with the evacuation of Scutari by Montenegro. For the present, after constant consideration of all the reports, His Majesty's Government adhere to their decision that the situation, involving any number of international points, does not warrant the dispatch of British troops to any other part of Albania. As the noble Lord knows, we have a force in Northern Albania; it would, however, be indefensible to repeat that operation by ourselves alone in Southern Albania. But

233
there would be no objection on our part to that task being undertaken by any other Power which might think it its duty or thought it was desirable.
LORD LAMINGTON: I should like to ask whether representations have been made to other Powers that we would join with them in the extension of the system which has operated so successfully in Northern Albania. That is the only way that I know of by which you can save Albania.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The Albanian question is about as complex as any question that has ever faced a Government or various Governments together, and it cannot be dealt with in this trenchant off-hand manner.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot help expressing my hope that the noble Viscount and his colleagues will consider very carefully the statement of my noble friend. The noble Viscount really made hardly any attempt to minimise the gravity of the condition of things which my noble friend described. I think I caught a reference by the noble Viscount to the enormities—hideous enormities, I think he said—which were taking place in Albania.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: That are reported to be taking place.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is the noble Viscount able to tell us that these reports are exaggerated?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: No. All I am able to say is that details from anything like reliable sources have not yet reached us.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It seems impossible to resist the conclusion that what the noble Viscount properly describes as enormities have taken place, and are taking place, in Albania. He admitted there were 12,000 refugees who had been driven to Valona, and he said there were many thousands more in the adjoining country. That really does point to a very appalling state of things in this part of the world, and while we quite admit that the noble Viscount is right in saying that we cannot pose as crusaders and seek out grievances to redress wherever they may be found, here is a part of the world for the
234
condition of which we have, as my noble friend stated, a certain amount of responsibility. The noble Viscount was only able to tell us that if any other Power liked to come to the rescue we should not object. I think my noble friend is entitled to ask not only that we should not object, but that we should be glad to co-operate with any Power who will make it their business to see that something is done to arrest the carnage that is going on in this unfortunate region.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I was born in sight of the territory which is now the subject of this scourge, and I recollect the time when the Liberal Party looked on in the spirit of Mr. Gladstone with sympathy—and practical sympathy as far as it could go—for these populations, and I retain the feeling that sometimes makes one appear somewhat in conflict with the modern ideas that seem to pervade some of our friends. I quite recognise the difficulty. Nobody would desire to press the Government unduly, but I do not think what my noble friend says is adequate. He says we should not be averse from any other Power coming forward in a fair spirit. Can he not extend that by saying that we should be willing to assist if other Powers would share the task?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I am willing to suggest that to Sir Edward Grey, but I am not sure that I should back it.
EARL LOREBURN: Then I greatly regret it, and I must say that it is a grossly inadequate answer for a Liberal Minister to make, because that is not the spirit in which we as a nation ought to approach these questions, especially in regard to populations where we have most properly undertaken some responsibility. I greatly regret what I would call a decadent answer.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House after what has passed, but I should like to say one word with reference to what has just fallen from my noble and learned friend. I can quite understand the feeling of horror and indignation which he has expressed and which must be entertained by all humane persons who hear the reports of what is going on in this part of Albania. But when

235
he alludes to the former spirit which animated the Party to which we both belong and in particular to the general impulses which filled the mind of Mr. Gladstone I think it is fair to point out that although we all remember the crusading spirit which animated our great leader in those days, yet it will not be found, I think, on reference to history, that Mr. Gladstone was prone to rush into plans of international occupation or of sending troops, even in concert with other Powers, even in cases where he knew that atrocities had been perpetrated and a terrible state of thinks existed. It is not a light matter—and I am sure nobody is more aware of that than the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne)—to engage in the occupation of any country by international troops. We have the case of Crete in our minds, and I do not know that we can look back with great satisfaction to the record of the international occupation of Crete. His Majesty's Government certainly would not say for a moment that the idea or possibility of such an occupation ought not to be carefully considered. But it is not the kind of enterprise in which the Foreign Office should lightly advise the country to engage, and although
236
I am certain that everything which has been said will receive the close attention of Sir Edward Grey I think it is reasonable for us to point out that the notion of sending troops, even in concert with some other Power or Powers, is not a matter which can be treated as one of no great import or as one which might not involve, in conceivable circumstances, very serious consequences both to this country and generally in Europe. I trust that noble Lords opposite will admit that we are animated by ideas not less humane than their own. Nobody, I am certain, will suppose that my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary is disposed to put aside such duties of humanity as may be expected to devolve upon this country, but I venture to add these words of caution in order that it may not be supposed, as the noble Lord opposite seemed to think, that the matter is a quite simple one which can easily be settled by an agreement to send a battalion or even two battalions representing the Great Powers of Europe.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.